Eh. I'll give you "more", but not "way more". It's purely speculative. I don't put any stock in the idea that the universe needs "an observer" to function.

I love that something called "super massive" is considered a realtively trivial contributor to the overall gravity of most galaxies.

There are also people who believe their magic sky daddy will take them to heaven. There's zero evidence of consciousness existing separate from the brain.

Better answer is that they could live inside it, and use a combination of fission and fusion for energy

How'd you get back in through the 3rd story window?

Or you could just spin the stamp (relative to the workpiece)...

Or any kind of rotating work surface would allow you to do that easily without moving the stamp itself.

Just to nit-pick, there's no need for any "copy-paste". All¹ of our cells contain our entire genome.

¹Well, almost all. Red Blood Cells eject their nucleus, and thus don't retain the DNA when mature.

Science is a philosophy in this sense, and the discussion is about supplanting it as the single source of valid knowledge.

The thing is, it works. It makes sense. And it doesn't require speculation. Unlike the rest of this hogwash.

Shit. Has Holden even been born yet?

No, I believe the feigned certainty that tends to attract followers is a lie. It's clear that no one really knows. We've looked at it every which way. If there's any kind of "after", it doesn't interact with the "here and now".

And?

That proves the philosophical "toolset" you propose is flawed. It allows you to derive both. A premise that leads to Hitler being justified is problematic, to say the least.

A philosophy that relies on luck, rather than shared principles, also has little value. It requires accepting an unjust world - not just that we live in one, but also that we needn't do anything about it.

I don't see how any philosophy which allows such cavalier treatment of human lives, which consciences the unjust suffering of your peers for the sake of your own gain, can ever be morally useful.

But it's not really "bad luck" at all, is it? Accepting a philosophy that "makes it ok [...]" is a choice, both individually and collectively. Practically speaking, there are some major pitfalls to such, amongst them: people will compete to be immune to such "sacrifice", people will fight for control of the power to decide, and any group which is consistent immune by such means will tend to start viewing itself as superior to the rest.

It's just that any philosophy which allows for justifying genocide... tends to go that way.

>make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.

Hitler has entered the chat...

"Are you being willfully obtuse?" was a serious question, and phrased quite innocuously. On the list of potentially "derogatory" words, "obtuse" ranks right up there with "meany head". I can gather why someone might be offended by the underlying suggestion, but "derogatory language"? Give me a break.

Though I believe I can surmise the answer: Yes, you are being willfully obtuse. That is, you knew exactly what I meant, and you asked only because you were seeking a foundation for some straw-man or feckless equivocation, to aid in defense of religion or the existence of the supernatural.

I could be wrong, but judging from your initial comment deriding redditors for anti-theism, in concert with this? Seems unlikely...

>overall seems to believe you've figured life already

No, what I've "figured out" is simply what I said. Religious folks, particularly religious leaders - who "seem to believe they've figured [out] life already" - are either intentional liars or deluded fools. Nobody has those answers, and they are lying whenever they say they do.

I hope that's not true. Lies, especially lies that hurt people, should be allowed to die.

That's disturbing in so many ways.

No. Other people can find solutions too. Sometimes it's not possible to make the required changes alone. Your contribution is nil, because you're not offering anything of positive value. Just telling people their emotions are getting in the way is irrational and unhelpful.

Why would you have any justification for judging my actions, much less my feelings if you aren't contributing to the solution yourself?

Why should we see you as anything other than toxic for presuming to so judge?

I didn't ask you to intellectually determine the solution. I know the solution. I asked if you were going to come over here and help do the work of implementing it.

>a comprehensive philosophical teaching about life and death is called

...?

Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you not grasp the point that "faith" in an afterlife is driven by lies told for the sake of controlling and profiting by others?

That's because there's no validity to such obnoxious claims, because they are used as vehicles for social control, and because they tend to be used as cause to attack non-adherents.

In reality, nobody knows what happens when we die, and all evidence suggests "nothing, nothing at all". Anyone claiming to the contrary - that is claiming to have a truly comprehensive philosophy as to life and death - is a liar, a charlatan. Nothing is that simple, and nobody actually knows anything about the areas they claim knowledge of. It's so obvious that this is true, and yet people continue to fall for the con.

Any wonder that many of us are frustrated by this tired and well-abused concept? The 8-letter word you're referring to has little useful place in philosophy. There are a few good ideas (which also exist elsewhere in more reasonable forms), but by and large it should be used as a cautionary tale: a warning of the dangers and limitations of "faith", and a reminder of the value of skepticism.

I agree to an extent. But a 50 million year just society, even if it fell eventually, would be a worthwhile legacy to leave. Maybe that's beyond us, but something more brief, yet still fantastic, doesn't lose it's meaning because it ends.

Unless you're condoning murder, that's not always as simple as you think.

Are you going to come help me solve it? Or is it all just preaching and no consideration of problems more serious than you can "solve" alone?

See, that's the problem though. Simply translocating a sequence, with no alteration, can diminish or amplify expression dramatically. So that could still be considered a difference.