http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=human

Definition one. Whether you're an evolutionist or creationist, homo sapiens has been around for a few thousand years, during which time we have acted consistently.

Less difficult then to establish a OWG though.

Homo Sapiens; as in the genus have been in existence for 500 000 years, anatomically modern humans have been around for 200 000 years. If you look at the evolution of morality, civilization, and technology you would see that we haven't been that consistent at all - on the contrary, we are in a period of great change.


I would like to change the tact of this discussion for a bit. I am more looking for a suitable answer for the question, is diversity better then unification, and if so, why? Or vice versa.

For the several thousand years that we have any history of, man has acted pretty consistently. We eat, sleep, wage wars, help others, value family over strangers (I'm talking generally here) pollute the world, constantly strive for more knowlege, and dominate the world more and more. This has always been consistent, and will most probably continue for a long long time.

Two beings of omniscient nature can have differing opinions on matters they both know everything about. This is true unless both of these omniscient beings are both perfect and infinite. As many have pointed out throughout various discussions in the SEN SD, including me, two all-powerful and perfect beings cannot exist -only one can. In order for two all-powerful and perfect beings to exist and be discernible from one to another, they would have to be differing on some way. In order for them to be differing in some way, at least one would need to be lacking something. If one were lacking something, it is no longer all-powerful and perfect.

As for unification itself, I would like to call upon this old post of mine:
The same thing goes for a society of people. If all the people in a society are more similar to one another on any plane or facet, the society as a whole has less varied strengths and weaknesses, and thus the society itself as a whole takes on more extreme strengths and weaknesses. One nice thing about diversity is that it evens out the levels of weaknesses and strengths of everything to be rather equal.

Here is a simple scenario to provide more of a visual: Say a Terran player decides to mass only vultures (no mines) during a 1v1. He will be excessively effective against zealots, and excessively ineffective against dragoons, and even less effective against any air units. The society as a whole, the Terran player, takes on the weaknesses and strengths of the vultures since the society is made of pure vultures. While the Terran player's tactics makes him extremely effective against low armor bio units, like zealots, he is extremely ineffective to what the vultures themselves are ineffective against. If the Terran player kept a variety of different units, he can go along without having to worry about the enemy countering his army, because no matter what the enemy army can only counter a small section of the army at a time rather than the entire society all at once.

Edit: One more thing:

If a unified society were held together by a "key-stone" or a single leader, then if that leader were to fall or be killed the entire society would crumble. I don't like the idea of having a one world government because I don't think a single executive body is sufficient to manage the lives of people. I think a single executive body is too vulnerable, thus dividing the executive power of the world into many different weak sections seems an effective protection against both mass gain or loss of power by a few individuals. Although, dividing the world power into many factions can be considered a band-aid solution, as it seems to be a temporary one; the world powers will probably tend to eliminate each other one by one orientating towards a few superpowers fighting for world supremacy, either economically or militarily.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 1 2010, 5:07 pm by CecilSunkure.

Generally yes we have done those things since we evolved into homo sapiens. I think one of the big factors that I hope will result in some pleasing changes is the invention of motorized transport, electronic communication (specifically the internet), these devices have allowed humans to be more connected then ever before in the history of our race. Sadly, there are some countries that are still secluded though.

Could you give an example of a matter that two omniscient beings could have a different opinion about, I am having difficulty conceptualizing any.

Why would two all-powerful beings need to be discernible from one another? Also what if they just had different names? One was Bill and one was Bob? That way they could be discernible but neither would be lacking in any regard.

Well you seem to be thinking of cloning now. I am just talking about removing all the separate governments and having just one world government. There would still be different societies which would still be geographically based.

Yep, this is a huge problem. Great steps would need to be taken in order to prevent corruption. A democracy and/or technocracy I believe would be most effective. A one-world government could still have sub-set governments which may or may not be geographically based as well, mind you. The big problem I'm thinking in my head is the majority rules situation. Areas with higher population could simply outvote other areas with lower population (eg. America votes Canada now deals in American waste disposal... majority rules!). Can anyone think of any solutions to the majority rules scenario?

Sure. Imagine two omniscient beings who are not all powerful and perfect, meaning they are imperfect and thus differing in certain ways. These differences can allow for the two beings to have different opinions on certain matters even though they both know everything there is to no, because neither is the exact same as the other. One can like the color red and the other like the color blue, even though they both know about all there is to know about both colors.

You could also call the same god two different names, but that wouldn't mean that the names represent two different gods. Names are independent from the actual object. However, if one referred to itself as Bob and the other Frank, then in order to tell one from other and be able to call each one by their respective name based on discerning one from the other, the two would have to be different in some way. In order for them to be different they would need to be lacking in something, and since an all-powerful and infinite god is no longer all-powerful or infinite if it lacks in anything, then that means it is impossible for more than one all powerful and perfect god to exist.

Why would one have chosen the colour blue and one have chosen the colour red though? What would have been the basis for their decision.

I can refute this very easily. Take identical twins, they are - well when they are first born - identical in every way. They are labeled differently, and then as they grow older yes they do start changing based on their external experiences. But when they are born they are identical yet clearly they are two separate beings.

Another example would be asexual reproduction or cloning. These things are exactly the same. What about factory line cars or my two pens in my drawer. To say something has to be unique in order to be a separate entity is plainly absurd. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are trying to say??

If they are two separate beings then they have to be in two different locations at all times, they must also abide all the universe's laws, and are limited within the 3rd dimension. Neither of these two twins are infinite or all-powerful, thus discernible.

What are you having trouble understanding? Two identical objects like twins or factory cars aren't all-powerful or infinite, and are discernible.

About the omniscient people: Just because one knows everything doesn't mean it's opinion can differ from another omniscient being's, unless both these beings are all-powerful and infinite. This is because these two beings would both be flawed or lacking in different ways (because they aren't all powerful and infinite), and thus can have differing opinions. I can't articulate the thought process they would follow because I'm not omniscient, but there is no reason why they couldn't have different opinions on specific matters.

On topic.
I don't think we are not yet ready to unify our world, let alone bordering countries. Assuming we aren't going to go against what we've been standing for, for peace, for freedom, and for justice, then the only possibility of unifying ourselves is through correct diplomacy. I don't think China would want to with Japan nor the U.S. I don't think Russia would with EU. I don't think Arabs would want with Israel. And talking purely politics, I view politics as another form of animal gathering. A country would do exactly what's good for them, after systematically calculating benefits from several viewpoints.
If a country is analogous to a person, unification means giving part of one's self to a person. For a country, it's rights and power would obviously be limited. Those for a single individual are most highly prized, and would probably go against anything that would involve giving up a part of one's self, unless one risk involved getting rid of one's self. It is analogous to price to efficacy also. There is no reason for any country to unite as of the moment. And there probably won't be a good reason to for a long while.

And off topic. I don't even know why you're allowing off topic arguments Cecil. But simply put, Cecil is trying to argue this.
There are two very potent, but independent entities.
i) If the two have the very same powers, and have the power to influence themselves to the point the two are one, then they are not omnipotent. An omnipotent entity is all powerful, and perfect in anyway. It cannot be influenced.
ii) If the two have the very same powers, but do not have the power to influence themselves, then they are not omnipotent, for obvious reasons.

Thus, if an entity is omnipotent, then there cannot be another entity that is omnipotent.

I'm not a moderator anymore, and I thought it was relevant to the topic; in the original post the creator implied that if everyone knew everything they would agree on all matters, thus being unified together and without conflict.
The part about the inability for two omnipotent beings to exist was to clarify a difference between omniscient and omnipotent, since two omniscient, not omnipotent, beings can disagree with each other all the while knowing all there is to know about specific matters.

On the basis that omniscient means knowing all data and hard facts/truths (as opposed to being infinitely wise), they could fight over things subject to opinion, e.g. whether or not a particular brand of ice cream tastes better than another.

I'll get on-topic later. ;o

Cecil, I think most (or all) of us can agree that humans can never be omniscient (or in your scenario, TWO humans can never be omniscient).

That being said, I'd like to go back wealth distribution. In order to achieve this OWG, in theory, resources would be distributed evenly. However, individuals do not like to give up what they've earned (or what they believe they deserved, think about the kulaks in the Russian Revolution). If you own (have enough money to afford) a refrigerator, you live in the top 10% of the world. If you (have enough money that you can) store your money in a bank account, you live in the top 5% of the world. Now I assume all of the people who have posted here own a refrigerator, probably own a computer, and most likely store their money in a bank account. How would you like to give up your computer, refrigerator, and hard-earned money to hopefully improve some random stranger's life by a little bit? If you answer "Yes," than why are you still posting on the internet? He who says "Yes" should give away his material things in order to distribute the wealth a bit more evenly.

Yes, the paragraph above sounds a bit socialist (or Soviet Communistic), but since the goal of the OWG is to promote peace and prosperity to all members of the world, "spreading the wealth" seems like a "good" solution. And since the Third World has a greater population than the Western powers, they could (in theory) out-vote them.

Which is exactly why we would never agree to a OWG, let alone socialist regimes.
Perspective changes everything. Peace and prosperity for some maybe agony for others. Always keep in mind that solutions are double edged swords, which is why I despise and hate solutions. Honestly because they never work.

But all in all, realistically speaking, OWG is improbable at our current state. Even if it were to form, no country would ever give up their power and wealth just because 'OWG' asked them to. Countries will break ties, and wage war. It would only cause a World War.
So if OWG were to form, it would be in form of a federation. It wouldn't be a true nation, but a union of nations. And honestly, countries don't form overnight. That kind of talk is beyond unrealistic. It is stupid.

@People who didn't understand Cecil.
It was hypothetical scenario. It's like how basics of classical mechanics were formed in a imaginative experiment. You suppose there are two omniscient entities, and omnipotent entity. (He called it entity, I believe. Or if it were people... it's still hypothetical.)
He said it so there could be two or more omniscient entities. They can be all seeing, and all knowing, and still be independent at the same time.
But he said there can only be on omnipotent entity.

Please realize the difference. I think the difference was explained previously.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jun 18 2010, 4:30 pm by BeDazed.

I do not think humanity will ever be ready for a grand unification until the majority of people adopt secular beliefs as a whole everyone has agreed on through development via discussion and research.

I have just spent several days researching and watching firsthand accounts of religious fundamentalism and ignorance persisting in the world. It is shocking to see a Muslim man so arrogantly say he is right because his holy book says he's right, and renouncing all other logic and reason in favor of it. In fact, the more I look at it the more I am reminded of the world of 1984. I presume that every religious fundamentalist practices doublethink. It is also disturbing to hear a Christian woman tell Richard Dawkins that there is no evidence of intermediates for evolution over and over, while he consistently tells her there are and that all she has to do is go to a museum and look at them. To sum it up, this leaves two major problems that persist before humanity can truly take a step forward for a unification of society:

1. Dogmatic thinking and fundamentalism.
2. Ignorance.

The second combined with the first leads to arrogance of the highest degree. Should people open their eyes and think with their brains logically and rationally all will be made clear. It is also why I believe religion must go for us to take a step forward (not spirituality in the sense of emotion). We must base or beliefs on evidence and reason, not an infallible being (for which there is no evidence for existence). This is because religion by its very definition is dogmatic. It forces you to hold on to a concept and refuse to give it up in the light of new evidence. A benefit science has over religion.

Though really the work will be done for me over time. Charles Darwin outlined the principles why. It is a simple case of survival of the fittest. The world and people are going to keep changing, and science will change along with it. However, a static religion will not change, and thus slowly die out. The fittest is the one who can best adapt to new changes in the environment. If I explain it in Starcraft terms, science is the player who will change his army depending on what evidence is presented before him. If he sees that the enemy has a large number of gateways he can conclude the enemy will be making a powerful ground force consisting of any combination of zealots, dragoons, HTs, and DTs. This means he should counter by building a vult/siege tank army as his main force (maybe other units for supplement). Now then, religion (as it is today) is the player who starts out making medics and marines, and keeps doing it because he refuses to believe that any other strategy is more effective because his strategy guide told him it was the best combination. As the game progresses the M&M will become less and less effective as the Protoss army bolsters their forces with HTs, destroying Mr. Religion's army in a heartbeat. He'll lose because he refused to use the evidence presented before him, while the player who used the new evidence to its fullest extent will have a much greater chance at winning.

It may seem I'm harping on religion. I'm not. Religion has done some good things, but it is dogmatic; and that is a fatal flaw humans must rid themselves of.

One time I saw a mermaid in a museum too. Do mermaids exist? Is that small white pebble in the museum really an evolutionary ladder between two evolutionary stages?? Or is that just some bone someone found in the ground? Truthfully, most of the bones in the ground tell you one thing: whatever it was died. I'm highly skeptical of all evolutionary evidence because I've found all that I've ever been presented with to be a large load of bullshit. Although, I definitely would love to consider as objectively as possible whether or not evidence is legitimate.

The scientific theory is not the only means of knowing, as stated multiple times by a few people throughout many many topics. To limit all beliefs and knowledge to be consistent with purely the scientific theory is as dogmatic as using religion to define and verify factual or non-factual knowledge, is it not? So you believe that we all must base our beliefs on evidence and reason? All beliefs, everyone? Sounds very dogmatic to me. What if I believe that evidence and reason aren't sufficient to do anything useful? How would you go about proving the validity of the scientific theory, if the only means of validation you subscribe to is the scientific theory? It would be very meaningless to verify the scientific theory with the scientific theory, just as you feel it is meaningless to verify the Koran via the Koran.

If a religion is truth in all its entirety, need it change?

And here is the heart of your post. Here is a very important clarification that needs be made: dogmatism is dogmatic. To think that religion itself is dogmatic is indeed in and of itself a dogmatic point of view.

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit; to assert that all beliefs are equal in validity is ridiculous. Basically, what you're saying is that logic is in the eye of the beholder. If we can't look at empirical evidence and call it fact, then objectivity can be tossed out the window, along with any semblance of a serious discussion.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 21 2010, 4:07 pm by Gantrithor.

There is no such thing as objectivity. No one see's the same thing, nor knows the same thing, we can only hope to obtain objectivity. Everything is subjective. The scientific method only helps us gain belief that something will happen when we do it again.

All beliefs are valid because they are beliefs and only require that one has faith in them.

For more reading on objectivity, subjectivity, belief, and knowledge, please read: The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, and Man is the Measure.

Actually the subjectivity argument is very easily dispelled. We don't all think the same, no. However, we do have the capacity to think and feel similar.

This is perfectly proven all around us with statistics. But a more definitive proof can also be constructed. If you were to take a brain scan of your own brain, and someone else's, you will find them to be incredibly similar, so similar that any differences will be negligible if at all. Thus, it is very reasonable to presume that you and this other person are similar (since the brain is the cognitive function of ourselves, which is proven by science).

So while minor differences are very plausible, a very radical difference in perception is unlikely. It then shown that objectivity exists, to an extent. So it is very safe to assume we all are capable of the same logical cognitive processes.

Wow Cecil you are massively ignorant. Even if you ignore the huge amount of transitional fossils you still have to explain the molecular similarity between species. Here, I'm going to show you some videos, if you watch them and still come out as a dogmatic Creationist, then it would seem clear to me that your going to be stuck in your ignorance for the rest of your life, and I pity you if that is the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUozZo8nOpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg&feature=channel

Your attempt to put faith and the scientific theory on the same playing field is just petty semantic trickery that is used time and time again by theists and already refuted just by using common sense and logic. The scientific theory is just a more rigorous version of the same theory we use in our everyday lives.
We don't have "faith" that when we touch a burning coal we'll get burnt. We know from all the other times we have touched a burning coal we HAVE gotten burnt. Here's a more detailed version of what I am saying if your mind is unable to grasp that previous sentence with clarity:

Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves NO empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision.

Well put.

Cecil if you want to disregard the scientific theory then by all means, go walk off the top of a ten storey building, and test for yourself how accurate the theory is. Vehicular transport, the computer your using to type your asinine posts, the building in which you currently live, the space craft which put the first man on the moon, electricity, medicine, construction, all work by the scientific theory.

But then when that same theory starts disproving your God, you turn around and spit on it. FOR SHAME!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 21 2010, 2:46 pm by Pinky.

Statistics is a sort of... mathematical thinking around the world. However, what majority thinks may not necessarily be the right answer. There may be abnormalities radically different from others, or relatively radically different. For example, while structurally or functionally with no difference, the slightest change in almost anything in people can result in massively different outcomes. The notion of statistics itself suggests subjectivity over objectivity, because objectivity requires itself to be absolute. In itself, there is no objectivity- only subjectivity. Which is the philosophical notion of objectivity, and why there is no objectivity in this Universe.
Of course, while Man is the measure, the Universe itself is objective. But because we cannot escape perception, we are trapped- in a subjective universe.

@Pinky
Cecil is not a creationist. He never said he was. Look at it without emotion, and you'll be able to read English.