Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday April 13 2020, @11:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the even-very-little-things-add-up dept.

China Develops High Capacity QLC 3D NAND: YMTC at 1.33 Tb

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. (YMTC) has announced that it's developed its new 128-layer 1.33 Tb QLC 3D NAND memory chip, the X2-6070. The new chip is based on its Xtacking architecture which enables it to run with super high I/O while maximising the density of its memory arrays. YMTC has also unveiled its plan for a 128-layer 512 Gb TLC chip, the X2-9060, designed to meet more diverse application requirements.

[...] The QLC based X2-6070 has 128-layers and more than 366 billion effective charge-trap memory cells. Each memory cell has 4-bit of data, which equates to 1.33 Tb of storage capacity. Everything is proportionate to cost, and it seems like YMTC, which is newer than most to 3D NAND stacking, could again improve its Xtacking architecture in the future.

Xtacking is not a typo.

Related:
Western Digital Samples 96-Layer 3D QLC NAND with 1.33 Tb Per Die
'Unstoppable' Chinese NAND fabber YMTC to unleash 64-layer flash flood before skipping ahead to 128 – analyst
SK Hynix Finishes 128-Layer 3D NAND, Plans 176-Layer 3D NAND
Report: China-Based Yangtze Memory Starts 64-Layer NAND Production
YMTC Starts Volume Production of 64-Layer 3D NAND


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:47AM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:47AM (#982320)

    Your comment is offtopic, but it's also rubbish.

    The Mark of the Beast condemns a person to eternity in the lake of fire. In the Gospels, Jesus says there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven, which is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven because it is the ultimate and final rejection of God's mercy and forgiveness. The reason the sin cannot be forgiven is because a person who commits the sin refuses to let God forgive their sins. If receiving the Mark of the Beast condemns a person to eternity in the lake of fire, and the mark can never be undone, that action can only equate with the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. A person cannot sin because of ignorance, only because of choice. A person cannot commit a mortal sin accidentally.

    Baptism places an indelible mark on a person's soul. It is a permanent mark that the person belongs to God. The Mark of the Beast is a parody of baptism, a mark that a person belongs to Satan. It is not a physical mark, but a spiritual one. No vaccine, ID card, or any other physical tagging is the Mark of the Beast.

    For those who reject religion, you'll undoubtedly say all of this is ridiculous. The point is that even a traditional interpretation of the Bible doesn't support the idea that a vaccine or ID card could be the Mark of the Beast. This matters because some people use religion as an excuse to refuse vaccines. It's important to provide a traditional and more widely accepted interpretation of the Bible so that people who might be swayed by the arguments know their religion doesn't actually teach such things.

    To be clear, there are plenty of reasons why it's a lousy idea to do antibody testing and use the results to determine who is allowed to return to work. We don't know to what extent prior infection with this coronavirus provides future immunity. It may encourage people to eschew social distancing and intentionally become infected with the virus so they can return to work. For that matter, employers could refuse to hire anyone who doesn't have immunity from this virus. There are many valid reasons why this is an awful idea. Those reasons do not include the idea that a coronavirus vaccine or a test for antibodies could be the Mark of the Beast.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:05AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:05AM (#982324)

    AC -- "...a person who commits the sin refuses to let God forgive their sins."

    Patti Smith -- "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine."

    {I like Patti's version better.}

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @02:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @02:45AM (#982377)

      Patti Smith -- "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine."
      If there was no sinners, Jesus died for nothing.

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 14 2020, @04:54AM (14 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday April 14 2020, @04:54AM (#982421) Journal

    It's very telling that the unforgivable sin isn't murder, or rape, or child molestation, or even fucking *genocide* (because just in Numbers 31, whoooo boy, would your God be in a lot of trouble!). And it's especially telling that the unforgivable sin is essentially calling your God out for the monster he proudly is. A very demonic thing to do, actually: making the unforgivable sin "calling me exactly what I am."

    Furthermore, by definition a finite being is only capable of committing finite sins and remaining in a given state of mind--which includes "refusing to let God forgive their sins"--for a finite amount of time. There is literally nothing *any* finite being can do that merits infinite retribution.

    You may also be interested (hah, who the hell am I kidding?) in reading some of the pre-Nicene church fathers, specifically Origen of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is very telling that Annihilationism and Universalism held such sway early on, and that the further from the origins of the religion (and the less Koine and more Latin was spoken...) the more merciless and tormenting the idea of the afterlife became.

    Lastly...ask yourself if you aren't a monster too, if you support the idea of any finite being suffering infinitely for its finite sins. You may be a demon yourself, or the closest human equivalent thereto.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @06:30AM (13 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @06:30AM (#982435)

      Erm, where did that come from? The point was not to endorse a religious view, but rather to point out that the idea of vaccines or ID cards being the Mark of the Beast is incompatible with traditional Christian teachings.

      You're correct that there were quite a lot of variations in the beliefs of ancient Christians, most of which are considered heretical by modern Christians. You reference Origen, who isn't canonized by the Catholic Church because some of his views are considered heretical, despite being considered a church father. For example, his views on the Trinity aren't consistent with modern Christianity, but he's not the only church father to have such views. St. Justin Martyr wrote similar things even earlier than Origen.

      The general problem with universalism is that it's incompatible with free will. The idea of universalism is that all souls are eventually reconciled with God and attain salvation, meaning that their fate is predetermined. Free will allows for the possibility of rejecting God, even for all eternity. The idea of Hell is the source of all goodness is God, that Hell is the absence of God, and by extension there is an absence of God's goodness. In that sense, it's not a punishment, per se, but the outcome from a choice to separate oneself from God.

      Regarding the consequences of sin, Catholicism does teach of a temporary suffering for sins, in the form of Purgatory. It's generally described that souls choose to go to Purgatory to be purified from their sins before they feel worthy to enter into Heaven. While it's generally described as a time of suffering, the souls in Purgatory are certain to eventually enter Heaven.

      Regarding Theodore the Interpreter, he's not pre-Nicene. The Council of Nicea convened in 325 CE while Theodore was born in 328 CE. His writings may reflect some pre-Nicene ideas but, by he is most certainly not pre-Nicene. Generally speaking, however, there were quite a range of beliefs held by early Christians, many of which are considered heretical in modern times. These not only include universalism but also things like Gnosticism. Accepting modern Christianity has the implied assumption that the Holy Spirit influenced early Christianity so that the incorrect beliefs were lost to history while the correct belief survived. That also applies to things like the New Testament, from which quite a few other Gospels and letters were rejected for various reasons. Some of these early texts still exist while others are lost but are referenced by texts that have survived. Early Christianity was, indeed, rather messy. Accepting the outcome is an act of faith.

      Finally, regarding whether I or anyone else is a monster, consider the idea that the universe is a simulation of some kind. The simulation is running because someone brought it into existence. Whoever brought the simulation into existence would have defined the rules by which the simulation operates. If the simulation gives rise to intelligent beings capable of pondering the nature of their simulated universe, they may debate or question the motives of the creator of the simulation. Ultimately, however, the nature of the simulation and what constitutes good or bad are defined by the creator of the simulation. That creator could choose not to define a morality at all, instead opting just to define the physics of the simulation and leaving everything else to arise as emergent properties of the simulation. That would essentially be a deist creator. Alternatively, the creator could define a morality for beings that arise from the simulation. Regardless of whether the beings that arise agree with the rules defined by the simulation's creator, they are ultimately bound by those rules. If God isn't a deistic God, is there actually any value in questioning God's morality when we would be bound by that morality whether we like it or not?

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:04AM (12 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:04AM (#982438) Journal

        You forgot to log in, Bot. Your argument is still worthless, mainly because, as I've gone over with you at least once, a truly perfect being would not create anything else. Reasons being: a) a state of affairs in which anything other than this being alone existed would be less perfect than the singular state of affairs in which only this being existed, b) as a truly perfect being is truly perfect, it has in the most pervasive and literal sense no reason to create, and c) a truly perfect being would not create imperfection when it could create perfection instead; that is to say, you could perhaps allow that such a being would create 1, 2, 3...n copies/aspects of itself but nothing else.

        And the free will theodicy is horseshit, easily disprovable with a simple truth table. We have two variables, free will and sin. We have the setting, heaven. We have the two questions, 1) does free will obtain in heaven? and 2) does sin obtain in heaven? The four possibilities are:

        1) There is free will in heaven but no sin
        2) There is no free will in heaven and also no sin
        3) There is free will in heaven and also sin
        4) There is no free will in heaven and also sin

        Now, no Christian would choose option 4, since it's incompatible with the idea of heaven to begin with. I've never heard one who would choose option 2 (because it rubbishes the free will defense) or option 3 (because it's again incompatible with the idea of heaven as given).

        But wait...if there's free will and no sin in heaven, but free will and sin on earth...then free will isn't why sin happens. Whatever the reason is, it's by definition outside the scope of human free will, i.e., under God's control, not any human's. Which means if God has a problem, it's his own fucking fault. Just creating everything in heaven to begin with would have solved the issue, yet for some reason, he either chose not to or wasn't intelligent/foresighted enough to do so. And is therefore not actually God by any definition of "God."

        You're full of shit, and willfully blind, as your posts show. You are intelligent enough to figure these things out on your own, but for whatever reason, you refuse to.

        And for some reason, you don't think the implications of your simulation argument through, namely that you are not secure in your heaven even if you get there. What stops your God from changing the sim's rules at any time for any reason or no reason at all? Why do you think he'll never do it and chuck you out on your ass?

        In fact, law of large numbers states that as time (or causality, whatever you want to call something meta to "time") continues on, anything which is not logically impossible will happen at least once. Nothing is logically impossible for an omnipotent, absolutely-sovereign God. Ergo, the probability of your God changing the rules of his sim such that you, yourself, are thrust into eternal Hell for any reason or no reason at all, is 100% as "time" (causality, whatever) approaches infinity.

        And, after all, it would be useless to complain about it :) Suck it up and burn forever! This is a natural consequence of your argument.

        And thanks for making it blatantly obvious to everyone reading that your entire religious worldview boils down to "might makes right." You'd best hope no one who dislikes you ever finds you at a disadvantage...

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:20PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:20PM (#982606)

          You come across as a bad faith troll. That's the most logical way to characterize your behavior. I'm not Bot. I know you have some petulant rivalries with other users, but don't drag me into them. Grow up. Also, I posted my original comment for the purpose of stating that Christianity doesn't teach that something like a vaccine could be the Mark of the Beast. I posted that because I don't want people to be dissuaded from getting vaccinated. Frankly, your continued trolling is distracting away from that message and, in effect, supporting the anti-vaxxer. You've continued even after I made this clear to me. Your comments are full of logical fallacies and it implies that you're not interested in discussing in good faith. I was a practicing Catholic for a long time but I actually left the Catholic Church. That's right, I'm not a practicing Catholic, but I am familiar with the teachings of Catholicism.

          Your first argument about the behavior of a perfect being begs the question of imperfect beings would be able to know and predict what should be the behavior of a perfect being. It also assumes that the only there is only one possible form for a perfect being, precluding the ability for a perfect being to create any sort of perfection aside from clones of itself. That doesn't logically follow at all.

          Regarding your truth table, your arguments rely on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, saying that no Christian would choose certain outcomes. Moreover, at least in Catholicism, it's generally explained that free will exists in Heaven, but those in Heaven are there because they've previously chosen of their free will to not sin. And I notice that you've moved the goalposts and are no longer focused on church fathers. Perhaps the error about Theodore was an honest mistake, because he's not actually pre-Nicene. Moreover, many parts of doctrine were debated early in Christianity. You'll find writings that God the Father created Jesus, for example. This is now rejected as heresy, but was debated then. Universalism was another such idea that was discussed and ultimately rejected. And the Bible actually mentions some of the earliest debates about matters of doctrine, such as the role of circumcision in Christianity. Accepting any modern interpretation of Christianity, Catholic or otherwise, has to rely on the implicit trust that the doctrinal debates were guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at the correct answer. Even if true, there are those who choose to twist the doctrine and Christian teaching for their own purposes, as you can see in the OP of this thread, or with any of the other corrupt people twisting Christianity for their own personal benefit. And yes, the Catholic Church is full of corrupt individuals who will happily do such things, too.

          As for your comments about a simulated universe, of course you're always subject to the whims of the being who would create such a simulation. Thank you Captain Obvious. As for your argument that everything happens at least once given an infinite amount of time, that argument is also flawed. Spacetime arises from the constructs of the simulation and time as we know it may only exist within the confines of the simulation. We really have no basis to speculate on the nature of anything beyond the confines of our universe, simulated or otherwise. It could exist within the confines of a larger and more complex universe than ours, capable of simulating a universe like our own and retaining many similar features as our own. But time could behave very differently in another universe, where there could be weirdness like multiple time dimensions or perhaps no time dimension at all. If I simulate a universe or some subset thereof, anything that is present within the simulation has no concept of anything beyond the confines of the simulation.

          And yes, I can change the rules of the simulation while it's progressing. I can rewind the simulation or completely terminate it. But if the simulations were complex enough to give rise to intelligent beings capable of questioning the nature of their reality, they wouldn't be aware of anything beyond the confines of their simulation. For that matter, they couldn't really distinguish me changing the rules during their simulation from a yet undiscovered principle that has always governed their simulation. Let's say I modify the code during the simulation to implement something. To the beings within the universe, it would appear no different than if the rules of the simulation always behaved that way, perhaps if I put if (time > some_value) { ... }. It would appear exactly the same to them.

          For that matter, your "suck it up and burn forever" doesn't make sense. Let's assume that everything happens at least once given an infinite amount of time, which is your argument. That means at least once, everyone who is in Hell gets released and enters Heaven. And even if everyone was cast into Hell, including those previously in Heaven, there remains an infinite amount of time after that occurs. And over the course of that infinity, everyone in Hell would have to be released and allowed to enter Heaven at least once according to your logic. And, by definition, that does not equate to "suck it up and burn forever" because they're not burning forever if they're released into Heaven eventually. And, after all, that must happen over the course of an infinite amount of time, per your logic. So what you're describing doesn't really make sense.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 15 2020, @01:20AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 15 2020, @01:20AM (#982869) Journal

            You have massively underestimated me, and badly overplayed your hand. Your second paragraph, "Your first argument about the behavior of a perfect being begs the question of imperfect beings would be able to know and predict what should be the behavior of a perfect being. It also assumes that the only there is only one possible form for a perfect being, precluding the ability for a perfect being to create any sort of perfection aside from clones of itself. That doesn't logically follow at all," blows a hole in your argument. If an imperfect being isn't able to know or predict the behavior of a perfect one, *you cannot know God when you see him and you can speak of nothing about him.*

            So you hit the nuclear global-skepticism button to try and win that argument. Okay. Only it took you out in the blast too, leaving you exactly as debilitated as your opponent. Not to mention, a being need not be perfect to fool you; any sufficiently clever and powerful *evil* being could fool you, 100%, into thinking it was good. "Faith" will not protect you here; a sufficiently powerful evil "simulator overlord" like you're proposing Yahweh is would look *exactly* the same to the beings (read: you) in the simulation, and you would never, ever, ever be able to even explore the possibility that you might be being fooled. Even your much-vaunted free will might be a delusion, either an artifact of the simulation or something the simulator programmed into you for the proverbial shits'n'giggles. Since, of course, might makes right and it makes no sense to argue with the simulator-overlord, riiiiiiiiiight?

            *And you have no epistemological tools, none, by definition, which could give you even the slightest insight into this problem!* Well done. Epistemological M.A.D. is a strange game; the only winning move is not to play.

            Of all that giant wall of text you posted, only the last paragraph has any actual information in it, and I was waiting for you to pounce on that one! Glad to see you were paying attention instead of just throwing a temper tantrum. And my reply is "yes, exactly correct." So what? All I'm doing is pointing out a few of the implications of your arguments, taken to their logical and inevitable extremes. I'm glad you're engaged enough to fill that gap in. You're completely right: your worldview *does* lead to exactly that. *This is a sign of an exploded contradiction.*

            The rest, though, unfortunately *does* sink to basically the level of a temper tantrum. As, incidentally, does your entire worldview: when you get right down to it, everything you're saying is a fancy, gussied-up way of saying "might makes right." Or perhaps "because fuck you, that's why."

            So let's run this one through its paces too: what if...wait for it...this God-simulator-overlord of yours...is *also* a simulation? You have precisely zero way to prove or disprove *this* one, either. Nor is this a new idea: Buddhism speculates that Brahma, more or less the Hindu supreme being and creator of everything, believes himself to be the Godhead out of *precisely* this kind of ignorance, unaware of his own nature and knowing only that no other being than him existed prior to his acts of creative will.

            Do you see the parallels? *Will* you see them, or will you cover your eyes and plug your ears and run screaming back into the comfort of your delusions?

            I have to touch on Universalism though, as you appear to be attacking a strawman: Universalism does *not* contradict free will. You seem to be thinking of some sort of one-size-fits-all scenario where people, regardless of the state of their souls, are told "you're going to Heaven *right now* whether you like it or not!"

            Rather, consider this: any being that is not-God is finite, imperfect, changeable, and mutable. There is at least one state S such that God considers a being fit for Heaven, imperfections or not. Using our old friend the law of large numbers again, as time (causality, whatever you want to call it) T approaches infinity, the probability of a given soul finding itself in this state is 100%, *unless something external to it is interfering with this process.* Notice I don't place limits on how long this is or what obstacles said soul might face. Choose an arbitrarily large number, it's still less than infinity. That is what infinity means. But in keeping with the idea of "according to his works," said soul will revolve through any amount of torment until it finds itself in state S, whether through experience and growth or even pure random chance. You might wear out your zero key typing the number of years, but it will happen. Just not before the soul is actually ready to be in God's presence.

            Unless, of course, your God is deliberately refusing to allow this to happen. I've actually heard some apologists argue this, that God specifically removes human free will or other faculties in Hell such that growth of this sort is no longer possible. Which is an odd thing to do for a guy that values free will so highly, and is also frankly incredibly petty, childish, and vengeful. And masturbatory, as your God appears to be rules-lawyering himself for whatever reason. Then again, read without a slavish devotional eye, pretty much everything Yahweh does is masturbatory; the guy reminds me of an omnipotent Kim Jong-Un. What an ego!

            Annihilationists (this is the position I took when I was still a death cultist like you...) point out that Annihilationism comports with free will at least as well as, if not better than, the idea of eternal torment. It also fits the plainest meanings of Revelation; you must allow words like death to *mean* death, destruction to *mean* destruction, and so on. Furthermore, "aion[io(n/s)]" and its derivatives also do NOT carry the force of "eternal" on their own. Sure, sure, you'll point to the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Mt. 25 and say "if aionios kolasis means temporary punishment, then aionion zoe means temporary life!!!1111" but again...the word takes the force of its duration from what it's paired with. This sounds nitpicky, but it's important, and key to note is that *all of this nuance is lost in the most popular English translations of the source material!* *Do* avail yourself of the nuances and meanings of the word "kolasi[s/n]" (and its opposition with "timoria!") before commenting further on this. Meditate on the parable of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. Think hard, very hard, about what all these words like "eternal" and "omnipotent" you keep throwing around about your God actually mean.

            Mostly I'm just fascinated, in a horrified way, about what would lead an intelligent person to this kind of complete cognitive and moral surrender. You must think you're getting something out of it. And you're willing to throw the entire human race that doesn't "believe right" under the eternally-torturous bus so long as you get yours. Do you have any idea how completely pathological this is to any sane, functioning sentient? Do you even give a damn? The kind of selfishness, literally infinite selfishness, it takes to believe like you do is incomprehensible to me.

            The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that you don't really understand the things you're saying, which is why I've been probing this like someone with a loose tooth. Huge, all-encompassing ignorance is the most charitable explanation, yes, because the others include a complete lack of mirror neurons and social function, or some sort of "sold your soul" scenario.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:07PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:07PM (#982720)

          I'm not Bot either, and I'm not the original poster. I'm just commenting.
          Your lack understanding. Your option 3 is correct. There IS free will in Heaven and there IS sin. He's called Satan, Lucifer, ... And there is a 1/3 of the angels IN HEAVEN that are being judged with this dude. So in essences there is quite a bit of sin in Heaven. And there are battles in Heaven. There isn't a whole lot of detail, but the preceding is spelled out. From our understanding God the Father doesn't let sin in his presence, but yet Satan is still allowed to talk to God (see Job). Anyway, I just wanted to point out your strawman. Continue your rant as you like ....

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:39AM (8 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:39AM (#982856) Journal

            Actually, I was going to get to that :) You see, you're completely correct: Christians all choose #1, but #3 is actually recorded in the Bible.

            ...and that choice completely destroys the neo-Platonic house of cards virtually all of Christian apologetics is built on. Yahweh did not start out as some Platonic omni-max deity, and his followers never imagined him that way. He is very much a product of his time and place, in this case the Ancient Near East.

            Notably, there is a case in the Bible, 2 Kings if I remember right, where a pagan king powers up army via human sacrifice to his God, Chemosh...*and defeats the Israelite army.* And, by extension, Yahweh. There is also the cases of Judges 1:19, so famous that an atheist/counter-apologetics wiki even named itself "Iron Chariots."

            All of this undermines the entirety of Christian apologia, not that it needed to be done in the face of people pointing out what I did above about a truly perfect being simply never creating anything else. The problem isn't what the Bible doesn't say or is misunderstood to say, oh no: the problem is what the Bible very proudly and unmistakably *does* say. It's very much like a small child coming to show you a full potty and thinking he's, pardon me, king of shit mountain.

            tl;dr: not only does Yahweh not meet any definition of what it means to *be* God, he's apparently weaker than, for example, an M1 Abrams tank.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2020, @09:16PM (7 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2020, @09:16PM (#983225)

              I don't quite follow where your going with this. Do you think I'm a Hellenistic Jew or something? Just for the record, I left Catholicism many decades ago. I've read many of your writings and it seems like your quite logical and learned, except it also seems like you're constantly trying to "prove a negative" which isn't very logical. It seems you had a bad experience with "religion", but you still cling (in a negative sense) to the exposure. I apologize if I poured any salt in the wound!

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 16 2020, @12:32AM (6 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday April 16 2020, @12:32AM (#983336) Journal

                That is a lot of words to say "Holy fuck, I was *not* expecting that woman to hand me my ass on a silver platter like that!" And an ugly, insulting, backhanded not-pology on top of it.

                You're running away because you know I'm right. I've just ripped your entire psychopathic worldview apart--which isn't hard, since it boils down to "might makes right." The image of God you have is blasphemous and demonic; you are a devil worshiper, a death cultist. And you're hauling ass out of here because you know if you don't, if you keep engaging, at some point I'm going to knock out one of the load-bearing members of your faith and deconvert you.

                And then what? What about all the time and energy (and possibly money) you put into believing? Why, that would have made you *wrong,* and that's unacceptable! You'd have to, horror of horrors, *change!* It may even make you rethink how you relate to other human beings on a fundamental level! Maybe even force you to start doing some actual moral heavy lifting when considering how to treat them! Because after all, if you *don't* believe most of humanity is destined to spend eternity in torment and deservedly so, *you can't just devalue and dismiss them,* and that's harrrrrd worrrrrrk!

                Hang on, let me get out the scanning-tunneling electron microscope, mount the world's smallest violin on it, and play an arranged for fiddle remix of Brave Sir Robin.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2020, @08:42AM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2020, @08:42AM (#983501)

                  I'm the original AC you replied to, not the person who posted the grandparent. Both that AC and I have told you we're not practicing Catholics. Nonetheless, you've continued to proselytize. Why is that? You've accused me of being a user, Bot, who I most certainly am not. Why is that?

                  Your arguments are generally focused around the idea that the God in Abrahamic religious is evil. In the process, you actually miss the point. The question isn't whether any deity fits our definition of good and evil. The real question is whether the deity is real or not. If the deity is real, then we're subject to its authority whether we agree with its morality or not. If the deity isn't real, religion is complete and utter nonsense. My moral assessment of a deity or your moral evaluation of such a deity has no bearing on whether its real, which is what really matters.

                  As for your statement that religion is a justification for devaluing and dismissing people, that's inaccurate. At least in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, baptism and confirmation aren't sufficient for salvation. Instead, those religions link one's eternal fate with sins, particularly mortal sins. Devaluing and dismissing people instead of treating them with respect would be a sinful act. Even reconciliation requires a desire to repent and not continue sinning in that manner, as well as a penance that is intended as reparation for the sinful act. For that matter, what actually constitutes belief in the Christian God is a rather nuanced matter that's been discussed and debated. It cannot so readily be simplified down to the idea that some or all Christians automatically receive salvation while everyone else burns for eternity in the lake of fire. If you're as familiar with Christian writings as you say, then you should be aware of the complexity of the issue. But none of this actually matters unless the deity is real.

                  We live in a universe that appears finely tuned to allow for the development of life capable of pondering the nature of the universe. One explanation for the apparent fine tuning is a multiverse, a quantum foam of sorts in which universes are constantly arising like bubbles in a beer. There are a number of free parameters for each universe that are set at random for each one that pops into existence. If enough universes appear, one will support life capable of pondering why any of this exists. But why should the quantum foam exist? Why is there something instead of nothing? At some point, if you dig deep enough, there isn't a compelling answer to this question. If there's one thing I attribute to "god" with certainty, it's that something exists instead of nothing at all.

                  That doesn't presume that this "god" is intelligent, just that it exists. But for the sake of discussion, let's say it is. I think it's abundantly clear that there's evil in the world. If "god" is intelligent, it is either aware of the evil or it's not. If "god" is unaware of the evil, then it's not omniscient. But if "god" is aware of the evil, then why does the "god" allow it to exist? If "god" lacks the ability to intervene, then "god" is not omnipotent. In such case, why call it "god" at all? The other possibility is that "god" can intervene but chooses not to do so.

                  The basic concept of deism is that God created the world but has since chosen to be a passive observer instead of an active participant. This is a rather dubious assumption because to beings within the universe, divine intervention is effectively indistinguishable from a sufficiently complex predefined order to the universe. However, if such a God lacks the capability to intervene, then why call it God? Alternatively, God chooses not to intervene, instead being a passive observer to evil. If God chooses not to intervene, if God knowingly tolerates evil, then doesn't that make God evil?

                  The other possibility, which is inconsistent with deism, is that all possible outcomes for the universe have some degree of evil present. Short of discarding the universe altogether, some evil will exist. However, God could intervene in such a way as to minimize the amount of evil in the universe. Of course, this requires that God intervene in the universe, which is inconsistent with deism.

                  For clarification, does a deist God lack the ability to intervene, or does a deist God choose not to do so? If God lacks the ability to intervene after bringing the universe into existence, then why refer to the passive observer as God? If God chooses to remain a passive observer, then isn't God evil? And isn't belief in a God who chooses to remain a passive observer every bit as nihilistic as you say Abrahamic religions are?

                  As for my beliefs, I believe we have a responsibility to treat all humans and all other beings capable of experiencing suffering with respect, to minimize the evil in the world. I also believe that we have a responsibility to minimize the damage we inflict on our surroundings, meaning that we shouldn't destroy the environment on the only planet we can currently reach that is capable of supporting human life. I hope that there is justice in this universe, that all good deeds are eventually rewarded and all evil deeds are eventually punished. I hope that we don't just blink out of existence upon dying, but that our lives continue on in some form. And I certainly hope that even my worst enemy doesn't suffer eternally, just that eventually there is justice for all.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 17 2020, @12:50AM (4 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday April 17 2020, @12:50AM (#983884) Journal

                    Good grief, this is like dropping pies down a black hole hoping it'll stop being hungry. Or talking to a wall. What angle do I need to turn these arguments at to get them through your skull?

                    The existence of *anything* that is not-God is an insoluble defeater for any religion that has a personal God-concept. The state of affairs such that nothing but God exists ("GodWorld") is by definition the most and indeed *only* possible state of perfection. Since a perfect being has no desires, there is in the most powerful, universal, and literal sense no reason for a God to create anything except perhaps copies/aspects of itself...which, itself, is problematic but at least dodges the *other* problem with the existence of non-God objects, that being "a perfect being does not and indeed cannot create imperfection."

                    This is the only argument anyone needs to shut down Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most forms of Hinduism, or indeed, *any* religion with a personal God-concept. It does nothing to pantheism (which IMO is just sexed-up atheism...) nor panentheism (my take on existence). Game, set, match.

                    I'll humor you on the rest, though: you speak of sins and evil, but you have to first define a moral framework in which we can make these judgments. This requires both a moral epistemology (How can we know what is good or evil?) and a moral ontology (what is the "grounding" of morality itself?). Given you are some kind of Christian still, you're going to run either a natural law argument or resort to Divine Command Theory. Which is it? We'll continue once I know your position.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:16AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:16AM (#983965)

                      Christianity has issues with the logical problem of evil. Moreover, the concept of belief in God as the criterion for salvation raises questions about God's justice and what exactly constitutes belief. But I don't see that your beliefs are logical, either. The problem is that you've been proselytizing two or three ACs (there's at least one besides me) who don't claim to be practicing Christians, even when you're reminded of that fact. Your approach is reminiscent of door-to-door evangelists, reading from a script and expecting they will convert people. In fact, they're quite insufferable and almost certainly turn people away.

                      It is an issue that the creation of a perfectly good being could become evil. Even with free will, there is the question of why any being would actually become evil if created purely good. Of course, applying these arguments to Christianity has to take into account Isaiah 45:7.

                      But your argument about the behavior of a perfect being is just illogical. I see no reason why a perfect being would necessarily refrain from creating additional perfection. Moreover, a perfect being in an imperfect environment would likely desire to bring perfection to its surroundings. This is at odds with your statement that a perfect being would have no desires. Even a being that isn't perfect but believes it's perfect would quite possibly desire to bring its concept of perfection to anyone or anything in its presence. Exhibit A is the Borg, a force of evil that believes it is closer to perfection than anything else around it. The Borg rob everyone they deem worthy of assimilation of their individuality, stating that they only wish to raise quality of life. In the presence of imperfection, wouldn't a perfect being find it abhorrent and have an overwhelming desire to fix the imperfection? This, of course, is at odds with the idea that a perfect being would have no desires at all.

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 18 2020, @12:28AM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday April 18 2020, @12:28AM (#984389) Journal

                        A perfect being *by definition* has no desires. A desire is a lack of something. God, so defined, is perfect and self-sufficient, i.e., there is nothing one could add to God, subtract from God, or change about God that would make God in any way more perfect. I never said a perfect being couldn't create more perfection, just that it has no real reason to. It could, and this would be at worst "neutral" or slightly suspect rather than fatal to its own existence, but still.

                        Furthermore, God's nature also includes a property called divine aseity; what this means is everything not-God is contingent on God, and God is not contingent on anything, does not arise or emerge from anything, and does not depend on anything else for its existence. Being ontologically prior to everything else, therefore, means that there is a state of affairs I previously mentioned as "GodWorld" wherein only God exists.

                        Since this state is both 1) by definition the most perfect state possible and 2) by definition the most original/primitive/"earliest" state (insofar as we can speak of causality in a state of affairs in which not even time exists!), in conjunction with the above, this necessarily entails that a truly perfect being would never create any state of affairs *other* than GodWorld, i.e., would never change or disturb this eternally-existent state of perfection. More copies or aspects of itself? I guess? That is, again, suspect but not contradictory.

                        You have to take ALL of God's properties into account at once :)

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @06:13PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @06:13PM (#984227)

                      I'm the other AC, not Bot, former Catholic many decades ago. Last try since you haven't addressed any of my questions. WHAT ARE YOU GETTING AT?????? Seriously, I don't understand where your ship is pointed?
                      I had to go examine panentheism (new one on me). Since you don't seem to like Hinduism, does that mean your closer to a Mormon? They seem to be the next biggest group of panentheists after Hinduism. Are you trying to project a Mormon/Hindu mix to the world?
                      I don't follow where you logic can go from Perfect God -> replicating -> Perfect God as the only valid construct. A perfect God (if s/he existed) would be so high above us that I would think it could do whatever it wanted. Maybe it likes producing wretchedness as some kids like to incinerate ants (or something)???? Can you explain the logic that reproducing ONLY perfection Ad infinitum is the only acceptable approach for a god?
                      I get your angry at something (that doesn't exist I thought originally, but now with panentheism, it seems like it does exist) and Bot. Are you just venting and I should just leave you to it????

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 18 2020, @12:29AM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday April 18 2020, @12:29AM (#984390) Journal

                        Do you just not understand the properties a being must have in order to *be* God? I realize this is some extreme inside baseball here, but my arguments flow solely from these properties.

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...