I think I have the answer to explain God(s), Armageddon, Jesus, the Bible

[Jay Sea]

Hi sanctioned suicide community,

I have been a lurker on this site for many years, but I rarely every post.
To give a quick bio about me, I struggled against depression for most of my life, with suicidal ideations, but I had never made any attempts, not yet anyways.

I've had a good life, with decent income and supportive family, I have gone through a lot of schooling, I have a M.Sc. degree in chemistry, but somehow was too depressed at the time to carry on in that field, I sought out green pastures else where, went to school and got a JD, but I didn't work long in that field either.

There must be something wrong with me, I just can't seem to be able to hold down a normal job like most people, I don't know why but I just get a feeling of dread when I used to work at my old jobs, just a sense of dread, hopelessness and utter exhaustion.

In Feb 2022, the moment Russia invaded Ukraine, I for the first time that i could remember, suddenly felt more alive than i had ever been, my mind raced and thoughts came to me like never before, I began documenting the war on my blog, writing my thoughts down everyday and trying to understand the whole situation. Soon after I started, I began to question everything: how people treat one another, why there are so many problems with society, and deeper questions about our own existence and what is the point of all this.

It felt incredibly therapeutic to me and gave me a sense of purpose to continue, my questioning led me to write a book, which was completed and submitted only a few days ago, and I hope to share with you all today.

The title is: ON THE ORIGIN OF GOD(s) BY MEANS OF SUPERNATURAL SELECTION: AN ABSTRACT, written by Jay Sea (my pen name) you can find it on amazon, the link is here:

Amazon.com

(The cover page is getting updated in a few days to feature a dark/black background with a single leaf on the front cover)

the basic gist of this book is that there are natural laws in the universe governing human interactions much like how there are natural laws of gravity, electromagnetism or nuclear forces, this law, in my view is the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", the reason why it is a real rule, and a rule that humans must obey, is that it is probably the only way to prevent a nuclear war. Darwin postulated the theory of natural selection, which drives competition between individuals, but this becomes problematic for any intelligent species that is able of advancing technologically and eventually obtaining weapons capable of triggering mass extinction. Therefore, there is another kind of selection taking place, one that I termed supernatural selection, and the crux of that supernatural selection is based on the golden rule.

you can preview a few sections of the book on Amazon website directly, with the button "read sample" below the cover photo

I'll be happy to provide a free copy if you like to review, just PM me here

 

[MortalityScares]

Thank you for your perspective of things, I'll be reading more of the sample shortly

 

[GreyCTB]

Can't PM you for a review copy proposal but looks interesting. I hope more SS members will choose to create something beautiful with their creative or intellectual abilities before they CTB

 

[DarkRange55]

Your book sounds quite interesting, I'll order a copy once the cover is updated. Thanks for sharing.

The golden rule is an evolutionary ingrainment in most people. Reciprocal behaviors and empathy exist in various animal species, the formulation of the Golden Rule as a moral guideline is a product of human civilization and cultural development.
That said, some scholars and researchers have pointed to examples of reciprocal behaviors in certain animal species, such as primates and certain social mammals, which exhibit forms of cooperation, empathy, and fairness in their interactions with others. However, these behaviors are generally considered to be instinctual or driven by evolutionary mechanisms rather than consciously formulated ethical principles akin to the Golden Rule as articulated by humans.

Nuclear war, even if every weapon on earth were detonated simultaneously, it would not end all human life, even after the decade long nuclear winter. Civilization, perhaps, but not the entire human race.

Yes - evolutionary mismatch.
Just because human beings have reached a higher level of consciousness than the beasts who kill each other for territory, for mating rights or for food, doesn't mean we have outgrown these evils. If anything the advent of our technology, the fruits of our mental prowess have made us the most evil and ruthless creatures yet. It is as Shakespeare said, "the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves." In the directives implanted in our brain by the survival mechanisms instilled in us through billions of years of evolution.
"We are now gods but for the wisdom."
- Eric Weinstein

Sauce:

Evolutionary mismatch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nuclear holocaust - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[sserafim]

Your book sounds quite interesting, I'll order a copy once the cover is updated. Thanks for sharing.

The golden rule is an evolutionary ingrainment in most people. Reciprocal behaviors and empathy exist in various animal species, the formulation of the Golden Rule as a moral guideline is a product of human civilization and cultural development.
That said, some scholars and researchers have pointed to examples of reciprocal behaviors in certain animal species, such as primates and certain social mammals, which exhibit forms of cooperation, empathy, and fairness in their interactions with others. However, these behaviors are generally considered to be instinctual or driven by evolutionary mechanisms rather than consciously formulated ethical principles akin to the Golden Rule as articulated by humans.

Nuclear war, even if every weapon on earth were detonated simultaneously, it would not end all human life, even after the decade long nuclear winter. Civilization, perhaps, but not the entire human race.

Yes - evolutionary mismatch.
Just because human beings have reached a higher level of consciousness than the beasts who kill each other for territory, for mating rights or for food, doesn't mean we have outgrown these evils. If anything the advent of our technology, the fruits of our mental prowess have made us the most evil and ruthless creatures yet. It is as Shakespeare said, "the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves." In the directives implanted in our brain by the survival mechanisms instilled in us through billions of years of evolution.
"We are now gods but for the wisdom."
- Eric Weinstein

Sauce:

Evolutionary mismatch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nuclear holocaust - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Do you want total nuclear war?

 

[DarkRange55]

Do you want total nuclear war?

Do *I* want that?

 

[sserafim]

Do *I* want that?

It's @Ferdinand Bardamu 's title

 

[DarkRange55]

It's @Ferdinand Bardamu 's title

My friend Paul always say, "bring on the nukes!"

 

[Pluto]

Modern ICBMs are a direct evolution of sticks and stones that early humans would have used to kill each other. The root problem is that
technological progress has accelerated out of control without a corresponding evolution in civility. Take a look at the timeline:

A few highlights:
* 200,000 years ago: Modern humans exist
* 6,000 years ago: The metal ages permitted man-made metal weapons
* 9th century AD: The Chinese invention of gunpowder debuted cannons and other projectiles

Then, in the 20th century alone:
* 1926: The first liquid-fuelled rocket
* 1944: The first long-range ballistic missile in 1944
* 1945: The nuclear bomb is created and used
* 1952: The first thermonuclear test, 'Ivy Mike', reportedly 450 times as potent as the Hiroshima bomb
* 1958: The Soviets deploy the first ICBM
* 1961: The Tsar Bomba becomes the largest nuclear bomb of all time at 1,570 times the Hiroshima bomb
* 1968: US tests first MIRV; one missile capable of carrying 3 warheads to attack multiple locations, accurate to within 240 metres, travelling up to 14,000 kms.

Since that time, the weapons have become more widespread, including permanently patrolling in submarines, and are possessed by countries such as France, the UK, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The most advanced versions are obviously going to be more compact, speedy, potent and accurate than was possible in the '60s.

Yet the species itself is still shamelessly primitive and philosophically has only made minimal progress in 200,000 years. The problem is so deep and intrinsic that it could be described as a spiritual-level issue.

Even Jesus' words, like, "Do unto others," have evolved into dubious religions which historically wage wars, commit genocides of native peoples, burn 'witches' and so forth. Even religion, as practised by the majority of humans, became just another expression of human dysfunction. The rare few who genuinely had the answer were ignored or misunderstood if not outright attacked (including Jesus himself!).

 

[Jay Sea]

Can't PM you for a review copy proposal but looks interesting. I hope more SS members will choose to create something beautiful with their creative or intellectual abilities before they CTB

Hi GreyCTB, I'm not sure why my DM is not working, is there a setting that I need to tweak?

If you provide an email I'll be happy to mail you a copy for review

Your book sounds quite interesting, I'll order a copy once the cover is updated. Thanks for sharing.

The golden rule is an evolutionary ingrainment in most people. Reciprocal behaviors and empathy exist in various animal species, the formulation of the Golden Rule as a moral guideline is a product of human civilization and cultural development.
That said, some scholars and researchers have pointed to examples of reciprocal behaviors in certain animal species, such as primates and certain social mammals, which exhibit forms of cooperation, empathy, and fairness in their interactions with others. However, these behaviors are generally considered to be instinctual or driven by evolutionary mechanisms rather than consciously formulated ethical principles akin to the Golden Rule as articulated by humans.

Nuclear war, even if every weapon on earth were detonated simultaneously, it would not end all human life, even after the decade long nuclear winter. Civilization, perhaps, but not the entire human race.

Yes - evolutionary mismatch.
Just because human beings have reached a higher level of consciousness than the beasts who kill each other for territory, for mating rights or for food, doesn't mean we have outgrown these evils. If anything the advent of our technology, the fruits of our mental prowess have made us the most evil and ruthless creatures yet. It is as Shakespeare said, "the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves." In the directives implanted in our brain by the survival mechanisms instilled in us through billions of years of evolution.
"We are now gods but for the wisdom."
- Eric Weinstein

Sauce:

Evolutionary mismatch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nuclear holocaust - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hi DarkRanger,

I'm glad you've found the book interesting, I'll be happy to email you a free copy for review as well if that is available

I'm really glad you brought up the examples of reciprocity and empathy within various animal species, and yes, based on my own research you are quite right in that animals also exhibit forms of cooperation, empathy and fairness, it is a shame that I couldn't include that in my brief abstract as I was hoping to keep it relatively short.

It is also in my mind a very interesting distinction you had drawn between the instinctual empathic behaviour of animals against consciously formulated ethical principles that humans are able to do through the use of languages. It is something I touched on in Chapter 5 on the discussion of the Golden Rule itself as it appears through several different formulations and wordings depending on the sources. Language in general is a fascinating area of study, and I'm sure you must have heard about several attempts to teach great apes in conversing with languages akin to humans, but the results seemed to be lackluster.

"Nuclear war, even if every weapon on earth were detonated simultaneously, it would not end all human life, even after the decade long nuclear winter. Civilization, perhaps, but not the entire human race."
I do find myself slightly more aligned along this line of thinking as well personally, but I also mentioned the other school of thought as a theoretical possibility, what do you think about the argument that I made in the abstract that even if nuclear weapons of today are incapable of causing extinction, then some type of futuristic weapons systems will one day emerge that will indeed be capable of such outcomes? There are ofcourse those who argue that we have reached a "limit" with regard to our technological advancements, but for someone who was personally involved in scientific research professionally for several years, I find it a difficult position to justify.

"the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
That is a beautiful quote, I also quoted shakespeare in chapter 2, but not this particular line.

 

[Jay Sea]

My friend Paul always say, "bring on the nukes!"

Yes it can be an uncomfortable topic to think on the possibility of nuclear war, especially in the current political climate (although there those who argue that the nuclear threats being made by Putin are bluff tactics). I researched quite extensively on this topic, wanting to provide arguments that could assist someone in coming to a conclusion on 1. whether that would be possible at all, or 2. even if theoretically possible, is it realistic

There are a few sources that I personally found to be quite interesting,
- an impressive orator who argues against nuclear weapons is Ward Wilson:
- there is a group at Princeton that is doing some research on the worst case outcomes of nuclear war:

- there are of course a variety of war games and simulations that are readily available online through a quick research, most of them tend to show that the escalation, if the nuclear threshold had been crossed, becomes very difficult to control

As someone who has a deep appreciation for mathematics and statistics as the fundamental truths to be found within our physical universe, I advanced a probabilistic argument that is featured near the end of Chapter 1. The gist of the argument is that if an event has a non-zero probability of occurring that is either constant or increasing, but with an infinite number of attempts to be made at that event, the laws of statics and probability tell us that such an event will almost surely transpire, but not necessarily guaranteed.

Here is an excerpt from chapter 1:

Some of us might be starting to notice a few inconveniences at this point in our discussions: that when it comes to the risks associated with nuclear weapons, we seem unable, or perhaps unwilling to definitively conclude on some very important issues. Instead of confidence, we are left with ambiguities, and that may feel very unsatisfactory to those seeking more concrete answers. These are important questions, and they point to the need for a new way of dealing with uncertainty: we need to take a step back from all the details and intricate arguments raised by the various theorists, and think about these questions through a branch of mathematics called probability theory; it is a theory of fundamental importance for studying both the natural and social worlds, and quite possibly one of the most useful tools for modelling our problem.

Probability theory will facilitate the quantification of the overall risk by taking into account each and every piece of evidence and argument on this issue, and determining their net effects; this approach would allow us to make some conclusions about the problem as a whole instead of addressing its individual parts. To use a metaphorical analogy: when counting trees, one might lose sight of the forest, and it is only by looking past the individual parts that the whole picture can finally be seen.

We are first going to explore some fundamental ideas in probability theory through an imaginary game: let us imagine a bag that holds 1 red ball and 5 green balls; we are to take one ball out of the bag at random, note its colour, and return it back to the bag; the bag is then shaken and all the balls are mixed randomly. We will repeat the above steps in order and never stop until we pick out the red ball, and the question is: just how many tries would it take for us to do that?

We may get lucky and pick out the red ball on the first try, alternatively, we may be unlucky and could not pick out the red ball even after multiple attempts. However, we can intuitively sense that if we keep trying long enough, we will "eventually" pick out the red ball. In fact, by the 26th attempt, there is an over 99% probability that we would have already picked out the red ball. We put the word "eventually" in parenthesis because picking the red ball is not a guaranteed outcome; we are picking balls randomly out of a bag, and there is always the possibility that we were so unlucky as to not pick out the red ball after 1,000; 10,000; or even 100,000 attempts. However, these outcomes are so extremely unlikely in this case involving 1 red ball and 5 green balls that for practical purposes, we just don't see it happen within a sensible number of attempts.

The principles we had just described would work in exactly the same way for a bag with 1 red and any arbitrarily large number of green balls. The greater the number of green balls, the more attempts we will need to "eventually" pick out the red ball, because the probability of picking out the red ball is lower on each attempt. In the case of 1,000,000 green balls, we need approximately 4,600,000 attempts for a 99% probability to have already picked out the red ball. The important point is this: in cases where the chances of an event happening is non-zero, and is either constant or increasing, then the likelihood of that event having already happened goes towards certainty as the total number of attempts increase. In other words, after an arbitrarily large number of attempts, that event, however unlikely it may be, probably had already happened.



attached to the bottom of this page is an updated cover, should appear on amazon within a day or two

Modern ICBMs are a direct evolution of sticks and stones that early humans would have used to kill each other. The root problem is that
technological progress has accelerated out of control without a corresponding evolution in civility. Take a look at the timeline:

A few highlights:
* 200,000 years ago: Modern humans exist
* 6,000 years ago: The metal ages permitted man-made metal weapons
* 9th century AD: The Chinese invention of gunpowder debuted cannons and other projectiles

Then, in the 20th century alone:
* 1926: The first liquid-fuelled rocket
* 1944: The first long-range ballistic missile in 1944
* 1945: The nuclear bomb is created and used
* 1952: The first thermonuclear test, 'Ivy Mike', reportedly 450 times as potent as the Hiroshima bomb
* 1958: The Soviets deploy the first ICBM
* 1961: The Tsar Bomba becomes the largest nuclear bomb of all time at 1,570 times the Hiroshima bomb
* 1968: US tests first MIRV; one missile capable of carrying 3 warheads to attack multiple locations, accurate to within 240 metres, travelling up to 14,000 kms.

Since that time, the weapons have become more widespread, including permanently patrolling in submarines, and are possessed by countries such as France, the UK, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The most advanced versions are obviously going to be more compact, speedy, potent and accurate than was possible in the '60s.

Yet the species itself is still shamelessly primitive and philosophically has only made minimal progress in 200,000 years. The problem is so deep and intrinsic that it could be described as a spiritual-level issue.

Even Jesus' words, like, "Do unto others," have evolved into dubious religions which historically wage wars, commit genocides of native peoples, burn 'witches' and so forth. Even religion, as practised by the majority of humans, became just another expression of human dysfunction. The rare few who genuinely had the answer were ignored or misunderstood if not outright attacked (including Jesus himself!).

Hi Pluto:
It's a great timeline you gave here, although I'm curious about the Tsar bomb comparison with Little Boy, sources I gathered have put Tsar Bomba at approximately 50 megatons of explosive power, while little boy is around 15 kilotons.

Since that time, the weapons have become more widespread, including permanently patrolling in submarines, and are possessed by countries such as France, the UK, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The most advanced versions are obviously going to be more compact, speedy, potent and accurate than was possible in the '60s.

- it can be quite scary to think that submarines from countries carry a variety of warheads ready to be launched a moments notice, there is a story that I almost included in my abstract, concerning that of a soviet submarine and one of its officers Vasily Arkhipov: Forgive me if my recollection of the details might be slightly inaccurate at this point, but the story goes that the soviet submarine had lost contact with Moscow during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the crew of the submarine thought they were under attack or that war had already broke out between the two countries, out of the three officers who were authorized to launch nuclear armed torpedos, only Arkipov rejected the call, and for that he is sometimes hailed as the man who had "saved the world".

I am very glad you brought up Jesus, of course, as it will be discussed within Chapter 5, the Golden Rule is not found only within Christianity or the Bible. But examples are available from other religious beliefs also.

I don't consider myself a religious person, for most of my life I was agnostic, I am mostly a skeptic, and as I grow older I refuse to believe things without the necessary weight of evidence behind it. Writing this book had made me come to terms without some deeply philosophical questions about the nature of reality itself, that perhaps the world is more than what it seemed, and that the "supernatural" and the "natural" may be harder to distinguish than what might appear at first glance.

Ofcourse, there remains the question of Jesus, who he is, who did he claim to be, what did he tell people to do, and did his actions match up with his words, and if so, why were those actions he took necessary in the first place?

I had given some thoughts to these questions, and had come to some answers, I did not include those thoughts within this abstract, but I believe the answers one seek has quite an intimate link with the Golden Rule itself, the rule, as I had discovered, is in reality much more complex than what one might perceive at first glance, which I outlined fairly thoroughly in Chapter 5