Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[Atla]

The fact that you cannot just provide the so-claimed 'extremely simple and common knowledge' here proves what you have been continually showing here.

Also, you will never ever provide the so-called 'extremely simple and common knowledge' as to what a 'multiverses topic's' definitions are because if you did, then you will end up contradicting "yourself" as well as showing and highlighting the Truly absurd inconsistencies within that Truly stupid topic of 'multiverses'.



So, if the 'explanations' have already been presented, as you are trying to claim here, then the contradictions and inconsistencies within them can also already been clearly seen.


But I do not have those beliefs.

And, once more, the deflection and deceiving here by this one can be very, very clearly seen again.

you have yet to define the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words. Do you want to keep trying to deflect away from this Fact?

More blatherings and false accusations from the completely clueless retard.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

This one is so absolutely useless at even just attempting to back up and support its claims that I question and challenge it about that the only thing that it can end up doing is resorting to expressing what it believes is absolutely true.

Which, laughingly, contradicts what it also says and claims here.

Just look at what it says and claims here, just that one simple task it cannot get right.

Clueless, idiotic blatherings and false accusations.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[godelian]

In relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, once again, what you are assuming I am talking about is completely and utterly Wrong.

If you have trouble with Cantor's work then I wonder how you would manage during a calculus class? Did you manage learn calculus?

Let 'us' not forget that you are here trying to prove that 'God exists', and that you actually believe you will be able to do this through mathematics.

If you cannot even define the word and term 'God', then what hope do you have of ever actually being able to prove a 'Thing' that you cannot even define exists?

It does not matter how when you know maths, maths is never ever going to help you here.

In this post, I am explaining what the arithmetical multiverse looks like, and what it would mean if the physical multiverse turned out to be structurally similar.

This is a hard task because you struggle with even the most basic notions in math.

Have you already tried to read Victoria Gitman's lecture on the arithmetical multiverse?

If you cannot handle that, it will be impossible to discuss the possible mapping with the physical world.

[Gary Childress]

Strange, I wouldn't wish nuclear destruction on anyone. Whatever god accepts you into its "heaven" I want no part of.

Who the hell even cares?

I do. I care about whether or not humanity faces mass destruction, whether at the hands of environmental degradation or else through our insane tendencies for war.

[godelian]

Strange, I wouldn't wish nuclear destruction on anyone. Whatever god accepts you into its "heaven" I want no part of.

Who the hell even cares?

I do. I care about whether or not humanity faces mass destruction, whether at the hands of environmental degradation or else through our insane tendencies for war.

I don't because the matter is outside of my control.

[Gary Childress]

Who the hell even cares?

I do. I care about whether or not humanity faces mass destruction, whether at the hands of environmental degradation or else through our insane tendencies for war.

I don't because the matter is outside of my control.

Do you care enough about living to look before crossing a street busy with traffic? I mean, you're going to die someday. Does that mean you stop using common sense in the hopes of postponing the inevitable?

[promethean75]

"Do you care enough about living to look before crossing a street busy with traffic?"

The only traffic in vietnam is sex traffic. On the roads are mopeds. Mopeds everyfuckinwhere. Might get scuffed up a bit if he's hit but not a life 'n death situation.

[Age]

If you have trouble with Cantor's work then I wonder how you would manage during a calculus class? Did you manage learn calculus?

Let 'us' not forget that you are here trying to prove that 'God exists', and that you actually believe you will be able to do this through mathematics.

If you cannot even define the word and term 'God', then what hope do you have of ever actually being able to prove a 'Thing' that you cannot even define exists?

It does not matter how when you know maths, maths is never ever going to help you here.

In this post, I am explaining what the arithmetical multiverse looks like, and what it would mean if the physical multiverse turned out to be structurally similar.

But there is no possible chance of there even being a physical multiverse. What do you not understand in regards to there is already One Universe, only?

So, explain away all you like about some human being made up so-called 'arithmetical multiverse' and what that may well look like, but what is already actually existing and which is irrefutable is already HERE, NOW, understood?

To prove that 'your multiverse model' does not align with what is already actually existing is very simple and extremely easy.

This is a hard task because you struggle with even the most basic notions in math.

LOL

you can make up as many 'models' as you like, using maths or not, however if they do not align with what is already actually existing, then they do not. What you are presenting here does not align with what is already actually existing.

Have you already tried to read Victoria Gitman's lecture on the arithmetical multiverse?

What for, the Universe is already actually existing, and any human being created multiverse model can never ever fit in with the Universe that is already actually existing.

If you cannot handle that, it will be impossible to discuss the possible mapping with the physical world.

Because you do not yet know what the already actually existing Universe is, exactly, then you are not yet aware how 'your models' will never fit 'the map' of what you might refer to as 'the physical world'.

[Age]

Who the hell even cares?

I do. I care about whether or not humanity faces mass destruction, whether at the hands of environmental degradation or else through our insane tendencies for war.

I don't because the matter is outside of my control.

So, here 'we' have another prime example of another adult human being who takes absolutely no responsibility at all for any of the environmental degradation nor for any of the bickering nor conflict that obviously exists.

As long as this one is doing all it can to try to prove the existence of God, then that is all it really cares about.

[godelian]

The only traffic in vietnam is sex traffic.

Stop insulting the Vietnamese.

If you keep doing that, the Vietnamese won't hesitate to blow your legs off. They still perfectly remember how they routinely did that before. It is the only thing that people like you understand anyway.

So, either you show respect, or else they will speak to you in the only language that you understand, and then you will still show respect. The choice is yours.

[godelian]

you can make up as many 'models' as you like, using maths or not

The term "model" in model theory does not mean what you think it means. A model is a preexisting universe in which a particular theory holds true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

In mathematical logic, model theory is the study of the relationship between formal theories (a collection of sentences in a formal language expressing statements about a mathematical structure), and their models (those structures in which the statements of the theory hold).[1]

So, you don't make up a model. You make up a theory and then you try to discover a model that correctly interprets the theory.

You can keep elaborating and showcasing your ignorance on the matter instead of trying to learn, but that only guarantees that you will never make progress. You are stuck because you refuse or are incapable of learning.

[Age]

you can make up as many 'models' as you like, using maths or not

The term "model" in model theory does not mean what you think it means. A model is a preexisting universe in which a particular theory holds true.

But there never have been any so-called 'preexisting universe'. Once again, there is One, and only One, Universe, which is always existing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

In mathematical logic, model theory is the study of the relationship between formal theories (a collection of sentences in a formal language expressing statements about a mathematical structure), and their models (those structures in which the statements of the theory hold).[1]

So, you don't make up a model. You make up a theory and then you try to discover a model that correctly interprets the theory.

So, essentially, you are just making things up.

Whereas, I much prefer to just 'look at' what actually exists instead, and only. That way I do not get bamboozled by all of the 'made up stuff'.

You can keep elaborating and showcasing your ignorance on the matter instead of trying to learn, but that only guarantees that you will never make progress. You are stuck because you refuse or are incapable of learning.

LOL

Explain to 'us' one thing about 'multiverse', which could actually be physically possible.

Could it be the case that you are being ignorant of what is actually irrefutably True here, while you keep 'making up theories and guesses'?

[Age]

The only traffic in vietnam is sex traffic.

Stop insulting the Vietnamese.

If you keep doing that, the Vietnamese won't hesitate to blow your legs off. They still perfectly remember how they routinely did that before. It is the only thing that people like you understand anyway.

So, either you show respect, or else they will speak to you in the only language that you understand, and then you will still show respect. The choice is yours.

So, to you anyway, it is all right to keep insulting the "westerners" but never okay for anyone to insult the "vietnamese", right?

[godelian]

But there never have been any so-called 'preexisting universe'.

The universe or model of the natural numbers is preexisting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic

In mathematical logic, true arithmetic is the set of all true first-order statements about the arithmetic of natural numbers.[1] This is the theory associated with the standard model of the Peano axioms in the language of the first-order Peano axioms.

True arithmetic is the truth about the natural numbers. If you do not believe that it exists, then I don't know what to say. I can still more or less understand that you do not believe that God exists. The Catholic Church has successfully done its damage. The idea that true arithmetic would not exist, however, is baffling to me. Your disbelief is very strong. Congratulations!

Could it be the case that you are being ignorant of what is actually irrefutably True here, while you keep 'making up theories and guesses'?

True arithmetic is irrefutably true, and by definition so. Your ignorance about mathematics is also irrefutably true. You understand absolutely fuckall but you still know everything better. How does one explain that level of arrogance?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is your understanding why other people don't believe it?

Widespread atheism originally grew out of opposition to the Catholic Church culminating into the French Revolution. The Catholic Church was the guarantor for the privileges of the French nobility. Getting rid of a class-based society required destroying the power of the Catholic Church. Destroying buildings and staff, i.e. clergy, was not particularly effective in destroying the power of the Catholic Church. It had to be achieved by discrediting their teachings.

Even though I agree with the French revolutionaries that the Catholic Church was an impediment to removing the legal privileges of the nobility, I also like to point out that no other mainstream religion besides Christianity has a centralized Church. Furthermore, no other religion ended up as a main tool to maintain the legal privileges of a nobility. This is a Christianity problem and not a general religion problem.

Religion as "opium for the masses" does not exist outside Christianity.

Your above view is too narrow and bias.

Non-theism was there long long ago

[Psalm 14:1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Note this was during 500BCE, i.e. >2500 years ago

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:
"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines". Dp 188
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

I believe there were already non-theists [atheist] long before 500BCE i.e. >2500 years ago.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History

The term 'atheist' was a derogatory term coined sometime during the 1600s psychologically as defense mechanism against the threat from those who do not believe in God.

Religion [theistic or non-theistic] as "opium for the masses" is realistic and still effective at the present as a relief to the terrible mental pains and angsts due to the inherent [DNA-ed] cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.

Your understanding of why other people do not believe in God is wrong.
A belief in God [theism] is a psychological issue as described above, and non-theism [atheism] is an indifference to theism due to various reasons, i.e. based on a rational, intuitive belief there is no God or just couldn't care less about theism.

While theism provide instant relief to the cognitive dissonance of the individual, it has the disadvantage by the holy texts and believers of Islam in exterminating the human species where nuclear deterrent has no impact; it is a lose-win situation for the Muslims because they are assured of a place in heaven regardless of what happened to all humans on Earth.

The fact that I do not care about things like nuclear war, is not something that can be generalized to all Muslims. I am quite confident that some Muslims do care.

OK, I agree most Muslims [as normal humans] do care but in this case, they are not 99% true believer because they are ignorant of their obligation as a true believer.
My point is, their religion itself [as per the holy texts] do not care and encourage all believers not to care.
All true believers must comply with all the doctrines in their constitutional holy text.
Note even if only 10% of believers are 99% true-believer, that is >150 million of them.
For this >150 million, given the option, since they are not deterred by MAD, they will definitely press the red button.

The problem is it will take time for majority of theists to graduate to non-theism but there are already progress since 100 years ago as indicated by the increasing % of non-theists at present.

Atheism is widespread in the West but not outside. Non-Christians do not see their religion as a tool of oppression by a centralized Church, if only, because their religion does not have such centralized Church.

You got it wrong. At one time non-theistic Buddhism was widespread throughout Asia and it is still is around the world at present.
Note my explanation on the origin of atheism above.
also see: History of Atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History

Furthermore, if you eliminate the moral theory of religion, there will still be a moral theory. In that case, it will be the ruling mafia that will invent one. You can clearly see that in the West. The ruling mafia in the West complains about the fact that Muslims put Islam above the laws that the ruling mafia invents. However, this is exactly what religion is supposed to do. Religion has an important role in protecting against oppression by the ruling mafia.

I pride myself on using the laws of Islam against the ruling mafia, because that is exactly what the laws of Islam are here for. That is also why I find the complaints of the ruling mafia to be utmost laughable. The ruling mafia really believe that all that they have to do, is to invent new rules and that we will simply jump higher.

We are two billion believers. If you look at the small number of rather unmotivated soldiers in their mafia armies, you can see that the ruling mafia's survival depends on us believing that they have the right to invent and enforce new laws. We do not believe that. We will never grant them that right. Instead, we are making use of each conflict and each other opportunity to develop the detailed knowledge on how to neutralize their armies. The ruling mafia cannot invent new laws because Allah has invented all the laws already. If Allah does not even exist, then so much the better.

All humans 'DNA wise' has an inherent moral functions represented by a physical neural algorithm in their brain and body which is in varying state of maturity.
I define morality as the management of evil to facilitate its related good.

Because humanity is in its very early stages of moral evolution, morality was hijacked by religion which is net positive and optimal based on existing psychological constraints.

In terms of rating of religion in terms of its moral competence, I would rate as the mainstream as follow;

1. Buddhism
2. Christianity
3. Others
4. Islam [evil laden] based on its doctrine is the worst.

Your God laid down the most evil commands for believer to commit.
Your religion sanction killing of non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadin]. This is so evident, e.g. killing of non-believers even the drawings of cartoon as commanded by God in the main holy texts.

As I had stated, all the above boils down the [necessary & currently] messed-up psychology of the individual[s].

Your counters to the above.

[godelian]

Non-theism was there long long ago

Yes, but atheism did not exist as a mass movement before the French Revolution. It is the Catholic Church that created this challenge. The Catholic Church were so obnoxious that a frontal attack on their teachings was indeed necessary. The privileges of the noble class had to be abolished in France and in Europe. There was no way around that.

I believe there were already non-theists [atheist] long before 500BCE i.e. >2500 years ago.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History

Of course, there were. However, they did not have to overcome the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of the Catholic Church.

Your understanding of why other people do not believe in God is wrong.
A belief in God [theism] is a psychological issue as described above, and non-theism [atheism] is an indifference to theism due to various reasons, i.e. based on a rational, intuitive belief there is no God or just couldn't care less about theism.

If you look around in the world and in its history, every practice that is universal, is simply part of our biological firmware, i.e. what Kant would call our innate intuition. Religion is universal. Marriage is universal. Clothing is universal. Cooking is universal. And so on. Therefore, believing that there is no God is contrary to our human nature. Our biological firmware is flexible enough to allow it, but it also allows for things like mismatching gender and sex. Our biological firmware is overly flexible. That is both a strength and a weakness.

Because humanity is in its very early stages of moral evolution, morality was hijacked by religion which is net positive and optimal based on existing psychological constraints.

If religion does not hijack morality then the ruling mafia will. There is no Catholic Church anymore to oppress the lower classes or to favor the interests of nobility. Therefore, being against religion is no longer a tool against oppression. On the contrary, the ruling mafia does not like Islam. That is why Islam is a fantastic tool to neutralize oppression by the ruling mafia.

Your God laid down the most evil commands for believer to commit.

All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

Your religion sanction killing of non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadin]. This is so evident, e.g. killing of non-believers even the drawings of cartoon as commanded by God in the main holy texts.

All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

You see, the ruling mafia wants to intervene between husband and wife and also between parents and children. I want to neutralize that, because I do not want that. The ruling mafia have to stay out of my private life. So, the solution is to galvanize and weaponize two billion believers against the ruling mafia. Islam is as much a tool as a goal. The ruling mafia must learn to show respect. Repurposing Islam to inflict respect-instilling reprisals against the ruling mafia, is the perfect tool to that effect. The ruling mafia will learn, or else, they will be made to learn. The choice is theirs.