|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2022 12:45:18 GMT
If God is more powerful, than anything else, then there is no x such that x is more powerful, than God.
But, what if x1, x2, ..., xn as a conglomerate or just a group coincidence factors E is more powerful, than God, can it be? Well, I guess it isn't impossible. If that group E: x1, x2, ..., xn works or cooperates, while among them there are no such xi such that xi is more powerful, than God, it doesn't seem to be a contradiction.
However, there have to be another condition or rule that must be accomplishing - there must be nobody who is able to control that group of factors to control God. So, none of mortals or angels cannot be more powerful, than God if they use those factors.
If God isn't omnipotent, then it's not impossible to assume there is evil. Let's say that group of factors E is indeed something, that makes people feel pain or being suffered? God isn't such a powerful enough to destroy that group of factors E, and that group of factors cannot do anything to control God. It's just a spare factor that is a necessary element for a world.
To be enough powerful or to be more powerful, than anyone else - this is a strong argument. If there are no x such as x is more powerful, than God, than God is God, because God is still more powerful, than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 11, 2022 18:06:47 GMT
Humans typically define evil within a very narrow time context. If God wanted to eliminate evil acts, he could simply remove free will, but without free will, a human would be reduced to a deterministic, biological robot. He could have allowed us free will, but made his presence known, and threaten to punish sinners. But then we would have a world where basically everyone acted according to his moral standards, and we wouldn't be able to know who did it out of fear and who did it because they saw it as morally right. -And even those with the potential for seeing it as morally right, might never even reach that level of insight. For values one has been force fed may only be superficially understood, while values one has acquired oneself, become an intrinsic part of who one is.
I don't believe anything is principally arbitrary. Something is too complicated to be predicted by humans, and some events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, do not follow any recognizable pattern. But like there is unenumerability, sets of numbers that no algorithms can produce, there are events within the real world no algorithm may predict. But that events are beyond the predicting power of computers and humans do not mean they happen by chance.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2022 22:11:59 GMT
Humans typically define evil within a very narrow time context. If God wanted to eliminate evil acts, he could simply remove free will, but without free will, a human would be reduced to a deterministic, biological robot. He could have allowed us free will, but made his presence known, and threaten to punish sinners. But then we would have a world where basically everyone acted according to his moral standards, and we wouldn't be able to know who did it out of fear and who did it because they saw it as morally right. -And even those with the potential for seeing it as morally right, might never even reach that level of insight. For values one has been force fed may only be superficially understood, while values one has acquired oneself, become an intrinsic part of who one is. I don't believe anything is principally arbitrary. Something is too complicated to be predicted by humans, and some events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, do not follow any recognizable pattern. But like there is unenumerability, sets of numbers that no algorithms can produce, there are events within the real world no algorithm may predict. But that events are beyond the predicting power of computers and humans do not mean they happen by chance. Evil doesn't become more pretty even in a narrow time context. If one feels pain, one feels pain. That's it. If a murder has occurred, it has occurred. Yes, this theory is known for me, one of the author of it was Leibniz, he proposed to take into account free_will/evil context. This theory has got many chances to be adopted and incorporated into our numerous discussions (among different people) as a title one. With a great potential, this theory still doesn't answer on why evil is necessary for free will, and why our choice must be between good or bad only to be a choice? - (In this way: our will is free, because we're choosing between good or bad, or we're choosing between good or bad, because we've got free will?) Firstly, I would agree with the #2 part, secondly thought of mine said: not with all of that. I understand we cannot calculate everything. Too complicated or too paradoxical. This way seems to be doomed. What about not a complete, a total way, but an almost total? Even not predicting 100%, there's a chance to predict 90 or higher percentages, isn't it? There are spheres our prediction is 100% (such as math), and not so good (the weather for tomorrow). Number Pi hasn't been calculated yet, and this doesn't make any sense for many seizes or measurements. Nobody wants such a sharp precise result to get. Even God - as what I was trying to say - might not be completely perfect, while this isn't necessary for God to stop being God. God cannot just stop the universe and remake it. Don't we need to think God isn't God anymore? The same about his omniscience - it isn't impossible to not know something as the solution to paradoxes or to some other things. Why so? - If I know that to make a dinner I have to find potatoes, it doesn't mean I must find precise those ones potatoes to make it. It's enought to have potatoes, not the potatoes. Let's look at those measurement from another angle, from a lover one: if a person loves another one, does one have to know absolutely everything about one's vis-a-vis (a loved one)? I don't think so. Too much knowledge kills any interest and may damage the feelings. There is such a thing as continuum, creativity, love, etc, that cannot be measured with science tools. Science - is just a part of the life. Why all the life has to be reduced to science or being a scientist? Debates in science around methods can reveal non-science level of scientific life from the inside.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 12, 2022 10:20:26 GMT
Humans typically define evil within a very narrow time context. If God wanted to eliminate evil acts, he could simply remove free will, but without free will, a human would be reduced to a deterministic, biological robot. He could have allowed us free will, but made his presence known, and threaten to punish sinners. But then we would have a world where basically everyone acted according to his moral standards, and we wouldn't be able to know who did it out of fear and who did it because they saw it as morally right. -And even those with the potential for seeing it as morally right, might never even reach that level of insight. For values one has been force fed may only be superficially understood, while values one has acquired oneself, become an intrinsic part of who one is. I don't believe anything is principally arbitrary. Something is too complicated to be predicted by humans, and some events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, do not follow any recognizable pattern. But like there is unenumerability, sets of numbers that no algorithms can produce, there are events within the real world no algorithm may predict. But that events are beyond the predicting power of computers and humans do not mean they happen by chance. You can have freewill or you can have a sky daddy with rules but you can't have both and them be coherent, If we have FREE will then that would mean that when we have the "desire" and or "inner motivation for an action" and or "the inner desire and ability to do so" aka will power that is possibly freewill that implies that what we do doesn't come with any form of punishment or blessing that is pre attached to said action because that action is just the action alone and nothing more Where as a NOT free action is one where if a person is to do a specific action that action has a predetermined punishment and or blessings attached to it . But if we just look at the individual and only the individual we still have the same situation because if a person can make choices freely then this means that there is no "should" or "should not" attached to the person The person is not paying for the bad things that their ancestors have done (Adam and Eve) and they are not born into sin making it to where they need liberation despite having not done anything bad yet do to being so young . So then if we look at the format of the sky daddy religions we can see the contradictory nature of the entire belief and see how you can't have both coherently.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 12, 2022 19:26:41 GMT
Humans typically define evil within a very narrow time context. If God wanted to eliminate evil acts, he could simply remove free will, but without free will, a human would be reduced to a deterministic, biological robot. He could have allowed us free will, but made his presence known, and threaten to punish sinners. But then we would have a world where basically everyone acted according to his moral standards, and we wouldn't be able to know who did it out of fear and who did it because they saw it as morally right. -And even those with the potential for seeing it as morally right, might never even reach that level of insight. For values one has been force fed may only be superficially understood, while values one has acquired oneself, become an intrinsic part of who one is. I don't believe anything is principally arbitrary. Something is too complicated to be predicted by humans, and some events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, do not follow any recognizable pattern. But like there is unenumerability, sets of numbers that no algorithms can produce, there are events within the real world no algorithm may predict. But that events are beyond the predicting power of computers and humans do not mean they happen by chance. Evil doesn't become more pretty even in a narrow time context. If one feels pain, one feels pain. That's it. If a murder has occurred, it has occurred. Yes, this theory is known for me, one of the author of it was Leibniz, he proposed to take into account free_will/evil context. This theory has got many chances to be adopted and incorporated into our numerous discussions (among different people) as a title one. With a great potential, this theory still doesn't answer on why evil is necessary for free will, and why our choice must be between good or bad only to be a choice? - (In this way: our will is free, because we're choosing between good or bad, or we're choosing between good or bad, because we've got free will?) Firstly, I would agree with the #2 part, secondly thought of mine said: not with all of that. I understand we cannot calculate everything. Too complicated or too paradoxical. This way seems to be doomed. What about not a complete, a total way, but an almost total? Even not predicting 100%, there's a chance to predict 90 or higher percentages, isn't it? There are spheres our prediction is 100% (such as math), and not so good (the weather for tomorrow). Number Pi hasn't been calculated yet, and this doesn't make any sense for many seizes or measurements. Nobody wants such a sharp precise result to get. Even God - as what I was trying to say - might not be completely perfect, while this isn't necessary for God to stop being God. God cannot just stop the universe and remake it. Don't we need to think God isn't God anymore? The same about his omniscience - it isn't impossible to not know something as the solution to paradoxes or to some other things. Why so? - If I know that to make a dinner I have to find potatoes, it doesn't mean I must find precise those ones potatoes to make it. It's enought to have potatoes, not the potatoes. Let's look at those measurement from another angle, from a lover one: if a person loves another one, does one have to know absolutely everything about one's vis-a-vis (a loved one)? I don't think so. Too much knowledge kills any interest and may damage the feelings. There is such a thing as continuum, creativity, love, etc, that cannot be measured with science tools. Science - is just a part of the life. Why all the life has to be reduced to science or being a scientist? Debates in science around methods can reveal non-science level of scientific life from the inside.
If no choice was better than any other choice, then free will would be pointless. If some choices are better than other choices, then one have the option to make bad choices. If one exists all alone in this world, then that consequence of that choice will only affect oneself. If one is unwilling to learn from that mistake, for example if one ignores the negative long term consequences for some short term gain, then it becomes a form of self-harm. (Like someone using heavy drugs.) If one is not alone in this world, then one's choices might affect other people, sometimes with the potential of harming them. Doing something that harms other, either for one's own perceived gains, or because one refuses to learn from one's mistakes, brings up the question of when harming others becomes a form of evil. In other words, I find it difficult to imagine a world with free will but with no potential for evil.
Predicting events based on fairly accurate knowledge could work for narrow time frames, but due to the butterfly effect, tiny variations in the starting conditions can make two very similar systems evolve very differently overtime.
I personally don't think God is omnipotent in an absolute sense. For example, I don't think God could change the past. Could God end the universe and remake it? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 13, 2022 8:45:35 GMT
Evil doesn't become more pretty even in a narrow time context. If one feels pain, one feels pain. That's it. If a murder has occurred, it has occurred. Yes, this theory is known for me, one of the author of it was Leibniz, he proposed to take into account free_will/evil context. This theory has got many chances to be adopted and incorporated into our numerous discussions (among different people) as a title one. With a great potential, this theory still doesn't answer on why evil is necessary for free will, and why our choice must be between good or bad only to be a choice? - (In this way: our will is free, because we're choosing between good or bad, or we're choosing between good or bad, because we've got free will?) Firstly, I would agree with the #2 part, secondly thought of mine said: not with all of that. I understand we cannot calculate everything. Too complicated or too paradoxical. This way seems to be doomed. What about not a complete, a total way, but an almost total? Even not predicting 100%, there's a chance to predict 90 or higher percentages, isn't it? There are spheres our prediction is 100% (such as math), and not so good (the weather for tomorrow). Number Pi hasn't been calculated yet, and this doesn't make any sense for many seizes or measurements. Nobody wants such a sharp precise result to get. Even God - as what I was trying to say - might not be completely perfect, while this isn't necessary for God to stop being God. God cannot just stop the universe and remake it. Don't we need to think God isn't God anymore? The same about his omniscience - it isn't impossible to not know something as the solution to paradoxes or to some other things. Why so? - If I know that to make a dinner I have to find potatoes, it doesn't mean I must find precise those ones potatoes to make it. It's enought to have potatoes, not the potatoes. Let's look at those measurement from another angle, from a lover one: if a person loves another one, does one have to know absolutely everything about one's vis-a-vis (a loved one)? I don't think so. Too much knowledge kills any interest and may damage the feelings. There is such a thing as continuum, creativity, love, etc, that cannot be measured with science tools. Science - is just a part of the life. Why all the life has to be reduced to science or being a scientist? Debates in science around methods can reveal non-science level of scientific life from the inside.
If no choice was better than any other choice, then free will would be pointless. If some choices are better than other choices, then one have the option to make bad choices. If one exists all alone in this world, then that consequence of that choice will only affect oneself. If one is unwilling to learn from that mistake, for example if one ignores the negative long term consequences for some short term gain, then it becomes a form of self-harm. (Like someone using heavy drugs.) If one is not alone in this world, then one's choices might affect other people, sometimes with the potential of harming them. Doing something that harms other, either for one's own perceived gains, or because one refuses to learn from one's mistakes, brings up the question of when harming others becomes a form of evil. In other words, I find it difficult to imagine a world with free will but with no potential for evil.
Predicting events based on fairly accurate knowledge could work for narrow time frames, but due to the butterfly effect, tiny variations in the starting conditions can make two very similar systems evolve very differently overtime.
I personally don't think God is omnipotent in an absolute sense. For example, I don't think God could change the past. Could God end the universe and remake it? I don't know.
Thank you for you answer. I'll use two part to answer. Part I: If think to categorize choices would be good at first, because I agree with you that it's no go to accept imaginary or dull choices. But, among choices we can find such ones (this isn't complete view, but at least with some categories): A. Choices that changes the future (including or excluding the own fate - of the one who chooses); B. Choices with not change. Some would say that 'B' are not choices, but 1) there are such choices when we want to paint a picture, or to wear a certain colour tie, or whatever. The same is about our preferences, let's say what to drink: a glass of Cola or a glass of Pepsi? 2) there are such choices we don't know what to expect, because we don't know what will be. I mean, we are willing to have better future, but not every step is a bad one; I mean the next: if I am doing exercises in logic, and constantly do mistakes I may think that this is bad, while this is good, because I can learn my mistakes transforming them into knowledge. 3) I presume there are other ones which are not so bad even without any changes in future. The main problem, I guess, we cannot exist without choices from the category 'A'. If all our choices don't have any influence or don't change anything about our future, then we don't have free will. However, I don't think that 'free will' is just and only 'A'. Our primary mistake about free will is some kind of a narrow usage of it. A human being isn't just one image. In Reneissance there were several projects of a human. In the beginning of the XX century this question arose with new force. There were philosophers as Max Sheler who said unlike animals a human cannot say that 'I am this not that'. A human is something that can change during his life. That's why even a choice - is something that cannot be taken only via some previously chosen positions. Part II: Let's take this talk and other talks. I think in our talks there is no need to use evil or be evil. I guess all the memebers of our forums can be also polite with each other, and so on. For other talks - I guess this may be the same. I see no necessity for human to use force or evil. For why? But if one person has a free will and he decised to use it to evil - I don't think that his choice is necessary. I don't think that he cannot live without it. There is one exception - it depends on nature or no-human conditions, when the life conditions makes a human to do evil. But even this case isn't absolutely necessary. If we would correct nature (theoretically), we would have less unpredictable things. Ok, one might object to this saying that without total prediction in nature we would never have good nature, and that nature would always be hiding some dangers within. As soon as dangers cannot be removed, the evil can be used. I'd say here is a problem for me, because here I don't know what to answer. All I try to think is about a more narrow conditions. I mean if we cannot predict the whole nature, but what about predicting conditions to near 1000 years? Maybe the humanity is able to predict this long term? 1000 years comparaly to 1000 1000 years is much more predictable, isn't it? So, for some short term we can do this. Besides, evil cases may be declared and agreed by everyone as some kind of a law. Part III (it is a brief sum of the part II): I think that for many many cases we can avoid evil. Any evil things that occur - is some kind of a problem that hasn't be fixed in time. So, these problems are not totally unavoidable. Besides, I am sure we can have free_will/real_choice within good behaviour. If X and Y are choices and Y<X, then it doesn't mean that Y is necessary evil if Y is not Z. So, if Y>Z, then even if Y<X, then Y is still ok. Besides, let's say A chooses X, and B chooses Y, so B is more disappointed, than A, but if in total B has the same as A good: Y+n=X, then in total this isn't evil. Ok, even if B<A, then if B>C, then it is okay. Summary, if for A X is good, and for B Y is good, while for A a part of Y is bad, and for B a part of X is bad - this is evil, because here we may expect some disagreement about trivial things.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 15, 2022 19:46:28 GMT
If no choice was better than any other choice, then free will would be pointless. If some choices are better than other choices, then one have the option to make bad choices. If one exists all alone in this world, then that consequence of that choice will only affect oneself. If one is unwilling to learn from that mistake, for example if one ignores the negative long term consequences for some short term gain, then it becomes a form of self-harm. (Like someone using heavy drugs.) If one is not alone in this world, then one's choices might affect other people, sometimes with the potential of harming them. Doing something that harms other, either for one's own perceived gains, or because one refuses to learn from one's mistakes, brings up the question of when harming others becomes a form of evil. In other words, I find it difficult to imagine a world with free will but with no potential for evil.
Predicting events based on fairly accurate knowledge could work for narrow time frames, but due to the butterfly effect, tiny variations in the starting conditions can make two very similar systems evolve very differently overtime.
I personally don't think God is omnipotent in an absolute sense. For example, I don't think God could change the past. Could God end the universe and remake it? I don't know.
Thank you for you answer. I'll use two part to answer. Part I: If think to categorize choices would be good at first, because I agree with you that it's no go to accept imaginary or dull choices. But, among choices we can find such ones (this isn't complete view, but at least with some categories): A. Choices that changes the future (including or excluding the own fate - of the one who chooses); B. Choices with not change. Some would say that 'B' are not choices, but 1) there are such choices when we want to paint a picture, or to wear a certain colour tie, or whatever. The same is about our preferences, let's say what to drink: a glass of Cola or a glass of Pepsi? 2) there are such choices we don't know what to expect, because we don't know what will be. I mean, we are willing to have better future, but not every step is a bad one; I mean the next: if I am doing exercises in logic, and constantly do mistakes I may think that this is bad, while this is good, because I can learn my mistakes transforming them into knowledge. 3) I presume there are other ones which are not so bad even without any changes in future. The main problem, I guess, we cannot exist without choices from the category 'A'. If all our choices don't have any influence or don't change anything about our future, then we don't have free will. However, I don't think that 'free will' is just and only 'A'. Our primary mistake about free will is some kind of a narrow usage of it. A human being isn't just one image. In Reneissance there were several projects of a human. In the beginning of the XX century this question arose with new force. There were philosophers as Max Sheler who said unlike animals a human cannot say that 'I am this not that'. A human is something that can change during his life. That's why even a choice - is something that cannot be taken only via some previously chosen positions. Part II: Let's take this talk and other talks. I think in our talks there is no need to use evil or be evil. I guess all the memebers of our forums can be also polite with each other, and so on. For other talks - I guess this may be the same. I see no necessity for human to use force or evil. For why? But if one person has a free will and he decised to use it to evil - I don't think that his choice is necessary. I don't think that he cannot live without it. There is one exception - it depends on nature or no-human conditions, when the life conditions makes a human to do evil. But even this case isn't absolutely necessary. If we would correct nature (theoretically), we would have less unpredictable things. Ok, one might object to this saying that without total prediction in nature we would never have good nature, and that nature would always be hiding some dangers within. As soon as dangers cannot be removed, the evil can be used. I'd say here is a problem for me, because here I don't know what to answer. All I try to think is about a more narrow conditions. I mean if we cannot predict the whole nature, but what about predicting conditions to near 1000 years? Maybe the humanity is able to predict this long term? 1000 years comparaly to 1000 1000 years is much more predictable, isn't it? So, for some short term we can do this. Besides, evil cases may be declared and agreed by everyone as some kind of a law. Part III (it is a brief sum of the part II): I think that for many many cases we can avoid evil. Any evil things that occur - is some kind of a problem that hasn't be fixed in time. So, these problems are not totally unavoidable. Besides, I am sure we can have free_will/real_choice within good behaviour. If X and Y are choices and Y<X, then it doesn't mean that Y is necessary evil if Y is not Z. So, if Y>Z, then even if Y<X, then Y is still ok. Besides, let's say A chooses X, and B chooses Y, so B is more disappointed, than A, but if in total B has the same as A good: Y+n=X, then in total this isn't evil. Ok, even if B<A, then if B>C, then it is okay. Summary, if for A X is good, and for B Y is good, while for A a part of Y is bad, and for B a part of X is bad - this is evil, because here we may expect some disagreement about trivial things.
I find it to be very difficult to figure out exactly what's good and what's evil. I recall a TV program in Norway where someone visited an old psychiatric institution that had been turned into a museum. The institution had been used to lobotomize children, and voices of children crying were played in the background. One person referred to it as: "Norway's most evil place".
The psychiatrists who lobotomized children probably thought and felt they were doing something good. But they were repeating this treatment over many years, without there ever having been a solid scientific basis for it, and without consent from the patients. One psychiatrists who worked in psychiatry at the time, referred to its scientific basis as "garbage". So why didn't they realize this? The root cause, I think, was that they felt happy with what they believed to be their level of knowledge, and saw no need to seriously question their belief system. They were comfortable within the echo chamber of other psychiatrists who held the same beliefs as themselves. And this mental and intellectual stagnation had disastrous consequences for the patients.
When one's lack of will to mentally evolve has severe negative consequences for others, it becomes, in my view, a form of evil. And this subconscious form of evil is far more common than some demonic person who wakes up in the morning thinking: "How can I be evil today?".
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2022 22:04:35 GMT
Thank you for you answer. I'll use two part to answer. Part I: If think to categorize choices would be good at first, because I agree with you that it's no go to accept imaginary or dull choices. But, among choices we can find such ones (this isn't complete view, but at least with some categories): A. Choices that changes the future (including or excluding the own fate - of the one who chooses); B. Choices with not change. Some would say that 'B' are not choices, but 1) there are such choices when we want to paint a picture, or to wear a certain colour tie, or whatever. The same is about our preferences, let's say what to drink: a glass of Cola or a glass of Pepsi? 2) there are such choices we don't know what to expect, because we don't know what will be. I mean, we are willing to have better future, but not every step is a bad one; I mean the next: if I am doing exercises in logic, and constantly do mistakes I may think that this is bad, while this is good, because I can learn my mistakes transforming them into knowledge. 3) I presume there are other ones which are not so bad even without any changes in future. The main problem, I guess, we cannot exist without choices from the category 'A'. If all our choices don't have any influence or don't change anything about our future, then we don't have free will. However, I don't think that 'free will' is just and only 'A'. Our primary mistake about free will is some kind of a narrow usage of it. A human being isn't just one image. In Reneissance there were several projects of a human. In the beginning of the XX century this question arose with new force. There were philosophers as Max Sheler who said unlike animals a human cannot say that 'I am this not that'. A human is something that can change during his life. That's why even a choice - is something that cannot be taken only via some previously chosen positions. Part II: Let's take this talk and other talks. I think in our talks there is no need to use evil or be evil. I guess all the memebers of our forums can be also polite with each other, and so on. For other talks - I guess this may be the same. I see no necessity for human to use force or evil. For why? But if one person has a free will and he decised to use it to evil - I don't think that his choice is necessary. I don't think that he cannot live without it. There is one exception - it depends on nature or no-human conditions, when the life conditions makes a human to do evil. But even this case isn't absolutely necessary. If we would correct nature (theoretically), we would have less unpredictable things. Ok, one might object to this saying that without total prediction in nature we would never have good nature, and that nature would always be hiding some dangers within. As soon as dangers cannot be removed, the evil can be used. I'd say here is a problem for me, because here I don't know what to answer. All I try to think is about a more narrow conditions. I mean if we cannot predict the whole nature, but what about predicting conditions to near 1000 years? Maybe the humanity is able to predict this long term? 1000 years comparaly to 1000 1000 years is much more predictable, isn't it? So, for some short term we can do this. Besides, evil cases may be declared and agreed by everyone as some kind of a law. Part III (it is a brief sum of the part II): I think that for many many cases we can avoid evil. Any evil things that occur - is some kind of a problem that hasn't be fixed in time. So, these problems are not totally unavoidable. Besides, I am sure we can have free_will/real_choice within good behaviour. If X and Y are choices and Y<X, then it doesn't mean that Y is necessary evil if Y is not Z. So, if Y>Z, then even if Y<X, then Y is still ok. Besides, let's say A chooses X, and B chooses Y, so B is more disappointed, than A, but if in total B has the same as A good: Y+n=X, then in total this isn't evil. Ok, even if B<A, then if B>C, then it is okay. Summary, if for A X is good, and for B Y is good, while for A a part of Y is bad, and for B a part of X is bad - this is evil, because here we may expect some disagreement about trivial things.
I find it to be very difficult to figure out exactly what's good and what's evil. I recall a TV program in Norway where someone visited an old psychiatric institution that had been turned into a museum. The institution had been used to lobotomize children, and voices of children crying were played in the background. One person referred to it as: "Norway's most evil place".
The psychiatrists who lobotomized children probably thought and felt they were doing something good. But they were repeating this treatment over many years, without there ever having been a solid scientific basis for it, and without consent from the patients. One psychiatrists who worked in psychiatry at the time, referred to its scientific basis as "garbage". So why didn't they realize this? The root cause, I think, was that they felt happy with what they believed to be their level of knowledge, and saw no need to seriously question their belief system. They were comfortable within the echo chamber of other psychiatrists who held the same beliefs as themselves. And this mental and intellectual stagnation had disastrous consequences for the patients.
When one's lack of will to mentally evolve has severe negative consequences for others, it becomes, in my view, a form of evil. And this subconscious form of evil is far more common than some demonic person who wakes up in the morning thinking: "How can I be evil today?".
Oh, it's really sad to hear about the museum. However, I wouldn't blame rigoriously anyone for this. Maybe there were some purposes to do this? Let's say, this idea might be a quite original, or there were many requests about it? I guess the truth is - there are uncertain or neutral cases for to decide which category is it: good or bad. But it's hardly for me to agree there are no certain or necessary cases. The scientists /psychiatrists/ you've been mentioned seem to be iconic scientists... (of course I'm speaking of it ironically). I mean that there are two parties: naturalists and progressivists. The firsts want to save nature over all (like Gretha Tunberg), the seconds - want to make science be the most powerful to create nature by themselves (as Dr. Strangelove?)... Their debates are at the philosophical level. Yeah, the conclusion of yours makes thinking us: in both sense. This reminded me the Socrates advice for obtaining the good /because with no brains no good is available/, and Thomas Aquinas's one about the rational potential of the soul that is required to be evolved, and advanced. It also can be summed into: lazy minds are dangerous kinds. What would I add to this conclusion? I think that such a think as feelings isn't unnecessary. Those cultures as the woke or cancel_culture are always talking lots of feelings, however - do they really care about them? Or they do care about their own feelings? I think that the feelings must become studied in more details. I want what I wish, or I wish what I want? If someone has offended by visiting the museum, then firstly - as I think - the feeling of offense has to be viewed. Not rushing making logical inferences. Making quick conclusions is a danger to make two types of mistakes: a) non sequitur or wrong conclusion, or b) farthest generalizations - when one or two facts cover the rest of facts.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 16, 2022 19:59:33 GMT
Humans typically define evil within a very narrow time context. If God wanted to eliminate evil acts, he could simply remove free will, but without free will, a human would be reduced to a deterministic, biological robot. He could have allowed us free will, but made his presence known, and threaten to punish sinners. But then we would have a world where basically everyone acted according to his moral standards, and we wouldn't be able to know who did it out of fear and who did it because they saw it as morally right. -And even those with the potential for seeing it as morally right, might never even reach that level of insight. For values one has been force fed may only be superficially understood, while values one has acquired oneself, become an intrinsic part of who one is. I don't believe anything is principally arbitrary. Something is too complicated to be predicted by humans, and some events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, do not follow any recognizable pattern. But like there is unenumerability, sets of numbers that no algorithms can produce, there are events within the real world no algorithm may predict. But that events are beyond the predicting power of computers and humans do not mean they happen by chance. You can have freewill or you can have a sky daddy with rules but you can't have both and them be coherent, If we have FREE will then that would mean that when we have the "desire" and or "inner motivation for an action" and or "the inner desire and ability to do so" aka will power that is possibly freewill that implies that what we do doesn't come with any form of punishment or blessing that is pre attached to said action because that action is just the action alone and nothing more Where as a NOT free action is one where if a person is to do a specific action that action has a predetermined punishment and or blessings attached to it . But if we just look at the individual and only the individual we still have the same situation because if a person can make choices freely then this means that there is no "should" or "should not" attached to the person The person is not paying for the bad things that their ancestors have done (Adam and Eve) and they are not born into sin making it to where they need liberation despite having not done anything bad yet do to being so young . So then if we look at the format of the sky daddy religions we can see the contradictory nature of the entire belief and see how you can't have both coherently. You are assuming coherency is a premise for reality. If reality was coherent then there would be no argument about its coherency. Dually If God is free will and we exist as extensions of God then our actions are an extension of God's actions thus we are manifesting free will.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 17, 2022 4:51:04 GMT
You can have freewill or you can have a sky daddy with rules but you can't have both and them be coherent, If we have FREE will then that would mean that when we have the "desire" and or "inner motivation for an action" and or "the inner desire and ability to do so" aka will power that is possibly freewill that implies that what we do doesn't come with any form of punishment or blessing that is pre attached to said action because that action is just the action alone and nothing more Where as a NOT free action is one where if a person is to do a specific action that action has a predetermined punishment and or blessings attached to it . But if we just look at the individual and only the individual we still have the same situation because if a person can make choices freely then this means that there is no "should" or "should not" attached to the person The person is not paying for the bad things that their ancestors have done (Adam and Eve) and they are not born into sin making it to where they need liberation despite having not done anything bad yet do to being so young . So then if we look at the format of the sky daddy religions we can see the contradictory nature of the entire belief and see how you can't have both coherently. You are assuming coherency is a premise for reality. If reality was coherent then there would be no argument about its coherency. Dually If God is free will and we exist as extensions of God then our actions are an extension of God's actions thus we are manifesting free will. Change the word coherent out for the word "doesn't" or the word "can't" instead then
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2022 22:01:40 GMT
You are assuming coherency is a premise for reality. If reality was coherent then there would be no argument about its coherency. Dually If God is free will and we exist as extensions of God then our actions are an extension of God's actions thus we are manifesting free will. Change the word coherent out for the word "doesn't" or the word "can't" instead then You are ignoring: "If God is free will and we exist as extensions of God then our actions are an extension of God's actions thus we are manifesting free will."
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 24, 2022 21:29:57 GMT
Change the word coherent out for the word "doesn't" or the word "can't" instead then You are ignoring: "If God is free will and we exist as extensions of God then our actions are an extension of God's actions thus we are manifesting free will." Only if your decisions don't bear consequences
|
|
|
Post by mainrain on Jun 30, 2022 12:10:31 GMT
In response to OP: If God is omnipotent, then it follows that God is also capable of creating some thing/entity that can overpower God. Omnipotence also implies that God is capable of everything, including bad things. Common examples include natural disasters and calamities. Then there is the example of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Issac. But we often fail to extend this logic: omnipotence also involves the ability to sabotage one's omnipotence. Theoretically, it should also be possible for an omnipotent entity to correct its course to avoid or mitigate self-sabotage. This is not faulty transductive logic. Omnipotence does not necessarily have to mean "eternally impervious to being challenged." I think an omnipotent entity can be challenged--even if only by itself.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 30, 2022 20:53:24 GMT
For me, God [ or X] is omnipotent if he/it can change other things, if they exist, and HIMSELF. If he can change himself, he can make himself less powerful: God can make himself a non-god. But if God does not have parts [is not divisible] which can be damaged or removed, he cannot change himself. So, omnipotence presupposes ontological divisibility, which means that change is impossible for a SIMPLE being, regardless of what a person may want to do. The alleged nature of a divine being [simplicity] precludes self-change. Therefore God cannot be said to be omnipotent. Divisible [physical] beings can have only a finite power. // Of course, any person's activity implies a change in oneself. So, if by necessity [the Greek Moira], God's nature is simple, he cannot become a creator, ruler of the physical world, etc. Thus, for an understanding of the universe, we do not need the notion of God at all. [As the Renaissance philosopher, Telesio, put it, the philosophers speak of things according to their own principles, juxta propria principia -- rather than by means of external forces/powers. Slightly later on, the philosophers of nature were called scientists.]
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 30, 2022 21:07:57 GMT
In response to OP: If God is omnipotent, then it follows that God is also capable of creating some thing/entity that can overpower God. Omnipotence also implies that God is capable of everything, including bad things. Common examples include natural disasters and calamities. Then there is the example of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Issac. But we often fail to extend this logic: omnipotence also involves the ability to sabotage one's omnipotence. Theoretically, it should also be possible for an omnipotent entity to correct its course to avoid or mitigate self-sabotage. This is not faulty transductive logic. Omnipotence does not necessarily have to mean "eternally impervious to being challenged." I think an omnipotent entity can be challenged--even if only by itself. Thank you for your reply. (The link in your comment is quite broken.) I guess that such terms as life, science, omnipotence, and many others are fuzzy or dizzy, because it seems we will haven't had any chance to get them or to overcome them defining them completely. Instead, such terms require our sense to be joined, so a person who tries us to convince that God is omnipotent (or in similart sutiations for the philosophers, and the scientists - which are being asked about very core and axioms of their science) pleases us to understand him that omnipotency (or whaterver else) is not exactly this, but it's quite close to this. I don't want to be gotten incorrectly: I accept the omnipotency of God, but for my view it's rather our logic or our view isn't so well to talk about such things. However, any such absolutizations or generalizations might lead us to such paradoxes as we can find at the very beginning of the predicate logic by violating these rules: a) ∀ x.P x∧Q x :: for all x, x is P and x is Q :: all things are paper and queer b) ∃ x.P x→Q x :: there is x such that, if x is P is false, then x is Q is true :: there's a thing such that if it's paper, then it's queer :: there's a thing such that if it is false that it is paper, then it's queer As we can see that inacurate using of generalization might lead us in trouble even in rigorous mathematical cores. But what I has brought is just one of examples of such actions, I mean - absolutizations, and so on. So, for to warn this I think there must be no hurry in such claims as about omnipotence, and forth. By the way, Fathers the Cappadocean and also some other authors from the early Medieval times knew that, so of course they didn't try to use poor versions of logic for their definitions.
|
|