martillo

You leave me thinking in not about hubris but in if I would have a so strange mind reaching so strange conclusions which would make sense to me only and not to other ones. Why I would not consider that other ones taking into account similar things would reach similar or even same conclusions than me? Why should I think to be a so strange person?

But it is supposed God not age, or am I wrong? But you could be right in something afterall. May be things could be getting worse and worse with time for God... Let me think about.

You are right. Much things are assumed in my reasoning but you know, there is no other way to approach the subject of God. The only way to get on it is with reason, with quite pure rationalism I would say, because as you mentioned, there is no empirical evidence about even in the proper existence of that creator God. There´s just one principle that can and must be followed in all reasoning and is that everything must make sense in it. If something doesn't, it would be because we have understood the things wrongly or there is something wrong. Actually, I would not consider them assumptions but conclusions because all of them must at least have a good justification and argumentation. And that's all what I can give here, argumentations (not actually proofs) on every step done in the reasoning I have done. There's an unavoidable uncertainty in everything thought that way and is the reason to post the subject for discussion in the forum, to check things up trying to reach the right conclusions. May be there are mistakes and they need corrections we could find.

I would agree with that reasoning if not was for something else very important to be taken into account and is the consideration about how much time the bad kind of life has been present for all the living beings. It is considered that humans beings exist in the planet since about 200 thousands of years but the thing is not about humans only. Life on Earth is estimated to exist since quite 4 billons years ago. This is too much time for a God to find and solve the things for a good kind of life to exist. That's why I wrote in the OP that if he wasn't in troubles God would have solved it all may be long time ago.

Assuming a God exists as a creator of an Universe and Life in it he would have developed ideal conditions for Life. I can't think in a God intentionally provoking all that kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies. Is not about me in mind, is about all kind of life form. God would have developed ideal conditions for all living beings he also previewed to exist. Why would a God develop a bad kind of life to live for his created beings? It has no sense...

I consider that if the entire Universe would be perfect we would live an ideal life in a Paradise in an ideal world with no natural diseases and catastrophes at all. As I wrote in the manuscript: "All kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies... We don't live in any Paradise. But not being human beings fault, what fails is the Physics of the Universe. Nowadays organic molecules "break" causing mutations, cancer, cells' deterioration, aging and death. A more ideal kind of life should exist. Some physics-parameters could have a wrong real running value, some physical things could not be exactly the way they should be and the Universe could be in a not ideal state. Nature could be different." In this sense I consider the Universe to have not born perfect remaining that way until nowadays.

You said that:

Well, right, seems the basic idea seems not as new as I believed but all the situation is totally different for me...

I didn't pretend you "insane" as you say. I just didn't understand your rationalism on what you have said, I mean, the logic you applied in your argumentation against my thoughts. I have read the article. It is based in an assumption which I don't agree. It assumes God dictates everything happening in the Universe like for instance a girl "confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life" by a God that would "alternate between benevolence and rage towards humanity". I think in a more "deistic" God who created the Universe with all the conditions for life and made it "run" but don't interfere in its functioning that way. What I think is that something went wrong in the beginnings, something that could have affected himself and that would be why he couldn't solve the things until now. Where I can coincide is in something mental happening to God but some kind of amnesia taking him to think he could actually not be the creator God but just a "manager" of the Universe and that there would be a yet superior intelligence responsible for the things.

I don't think so. By the way I don't understand your irrational thinking. May be you are a religious fanatic. I believe in a creator "Superior Intelligence" that can be named "God" but I'm not religious, I don't have religion. This thread is not about any religion in particular. As I mention at the end of my manuscript: "A main subject in Religions is which, and in which ways, “souls” (“minds”) could be saved for a “New World” their God(s) would setup at some time. This subject is not covered here in this manuscript. It is leaved to Religions to treat that subject on their own way. The aim in this manuscript is to treat what would be missing for the setup of a “New World” and for it to happen once for all." The God I believe doesn't want all the bad things that happens in the world and our lives...

Yes, I know but don't understand well, why current Science completely denies the existence of, let me say, a "Superior Intelligence" creating the Universe. Even unable to explain the existence of the proper Physics' Laws of the Universe, Science do not admit the possibility of an intelligence developing them. How the Physics' Laws could exist then? How would have they developed? Why to not admit the possibility? I admit there's a problem even with the definition of what would be considered by "God" and the different meanings it has for the different religions that exist, that's right, but why to just discard the possibility? I don't get this very well...

I understand... The aim of this thread in this Religion's Forum is, as the title suggests, to present and discuss the completely new idea of an existing God but in troubles (I haven't heard about it in my entire life, its of my own). The main subject to be discussed, more probable with ones who can agree with the idea of the existence of a God, can be described as: "Our Universe seems to have not born perfect. Something could have gone wrong in its creation. Hope would exist if some "God", capable to fix the flaw, would exist. But that God could have also been affected and have troubles... May be we, all humans at Earth, could help someway just following our intuition. Every thing we could solve here could help God solve something there. Everything could be important. That's what makes sense to me. That's my faith." The small pdf of my own explains my findings on the idea in the shortest way I could do it and is the only reference I have.

Solved it all. All the problems of life. All the diseases, calamities, catastrophes, tragedies, of this kind of life. I can't see anything planned hapenning. I see a kind of life having the same kind of problems for thousands and thousands of years (may be millons...). Which is the plan here? I'm talking about a creator God independent of any religion in particular. A God that created the Universe allowing life being possible in it the way it is. Which is the problem of God for you?

God must have a problem. If not, he would have already solved it all, may be long time ago... May be it could be up to us, humans, to find and solve it. Here are my thoughts, untill now, in a twelve pages pdf. Hope it could help to solve the things... I'm a little crazy, I know, but may be I could be right. My hope is in that is up to otherones to analyze and may be go further looking for what could be wrong or missing if necessary. May be it could be just a matter of time... ANLIM2022April.pdf

You like to leave people thinking... What that would be?

I mean, the average price of the coin would not strongly affect its demand as its volatility, for instance, would.

Yes, iNow and StringJUnky have just clarified me that point but thanks anyway for your this and some previous contribution in the thread. Everybody helped to clarify confusions and misconceptions about cryptocoins. Actually I don't know if the price of the coin and the energy consumption are totally independent but the energy cost does not affect directly the price and the demand as I initially thought. I got it now. May be for instance the energy consumption sets, in average with time, a minimum in the price of the coin because in average all the miners, banks, platforms, etc must win isn't it? And the price would not strongly affect the demand of the coin. Am I wrong in something now?

Of course. I opened the thread asking for answers and admiting "I don't know well how cryptocoins work." My misinformation and confusion was already clarified now, I think. That was the aim of the thread. Useful for me and for otherones I think. Thanks for your contribution.

All that human effort and consumtion of energy to mantain, let me say, an "informal" economy of "informal" business... It could be interpreted as a sink of the "formal" circulating money to "informal" activities and someones could be inclined to forbid that. Bitcoin is forbidden in certain countries. But who knows what would be "formal" and what "informal" in the future? It is known that considered "informal" activities in the past became "formal" time after. And some "informal" activities were always tolerated in all human societies ever. Seems to me now that Bitcoin came to stay but as an "informal" coin. For "formal" business we already have the proper dollar stablished as the main international money the same as English is stablished as the main international language. In this sense Bitcoin does not compete with dollar anyway, just complement it...

So, as iNow said, the opposite of what I was thinking: just the demand setting the price and the energy consumption as consequence... If this is the case I have a final question: Would the energy consumption (due to mining) continue so high if the cryptocoin maintains its existence, even still rise or it could drop with time?

I will think more about this but which do you think is the cause of the high price of Bitcoin then?

Yes, as StringJunky said Bitcoin is popular for "gamblers and crooks to wash their money" only. Is not the case of general population acquiring it to buy things on the web. I consider this a small demand for a worldwide virtual coin compared with the general population. Bitcoin could be a great business but with those people only. I think this is because Bitcoin is too expensive for the general population. Considering the graphic you provided and not taken into account the last peak can be seen Bitcoin averaging about 10k dollars (1 Bitcoin - 10K dollars). Too expensive for the general population I think. I associate the high price of Bitcoin mainly (not being the unique factor involved) to the high cost of its energy consumption. A price that only "gamblers and crooks" can pay (a small demand at the end). Other factor would be just the psycologica one. General people perceive that bad scenario someway and don't like to deal with it. That's my reasoning about.

I'm not confused anymore. It was you that have already clarified my confusion: Thanks for the answer. The last postings in this thread were just about the mess you made because I said that the electric energy cost of Bitcoin (already clarified early in the thread as due to mining) would affect negativelly in the demand of the cryptocoin. We have already talk too much about. Actually the discussion is centered in if the energy cost paid by miners, banks, platforms, etc is or is not passed to the final users of the coin affecting negativelly its demand. You said that is not valid. Seems we will not agree. I'm don't know much on Economy so I cannot discuss in your terms I think. I don't know if I could continue the discussion. Please try to make things simple.

My concern in this thread is about costs not ecology issues. By the way, I don't consider myself as an environmentalist although I take some care on the environment. I don't like to live in the garbage.

I mean that the energy costs just contribute negativelly in the demand, it is just one of the factors affecting the demand.