|
| Thread: after life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted October 20, 2009 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Which I explained before why my enumeration is not. My premise of "good" is different than yours, on the other hand, I don't think "justice" and "love" are THAT subjective.
I agree, the premise of "good" is very subjective, however if we can find a common purpose, we can also find a definition of good (and thereby also of evil/bad). It's this definition of "good", that God must follow, or what God does, is not for the good of every individual, but for something else (may be nothing), yet definetly not "good".
Quote:
So your argument is void because it leads to a paradox, since I have the same argument. (all-powerfulness) 
I didn't entirely follow your argument, but I believe that doesn't matter, because what you're trying to convince me of, that God cannot be all powerful in the sense I've used so far, because that leads to paradoxes, then please note that I not only already made the paradox part clear long ago, I did also write that it doesn't matter, because God as being all powerful can do everything.
Also, if you like, both create a stone God cannot lift, but also lift it.
Logic cannot be used in the argument of the premise of "all-powerfulness", if it could, God would a long time ago, have been abbandoned by the majority I believe.
Quote:
Dude, are you talking about the Heaven in the religion, or your own personal Heaven? How can you say the above?
I'm through the definition of what I believe to be "good", claiming that what you label as sins in the real world, I do not, however I do also point out in the next part that it may not be wise to make our society work, due to a lack of ressources.
Quote:
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. In my example that person would be "neutral" but selfish. He is not harming others, but he does sin. He is not "bad", but not "good" either.
I'd label anyone, who's not in the current moment limiting the freedom of others as "good", but on the same time, I write it's important to notice that in our society, limited ressources and lack of proper technology may mean, due to dependence of eachother, that, what you call sins, can be a true problem. However, as stated, these problems are a matter of lack of technology, not something that in the future should label someone as "evil"/"bad".
Quote:
Premises:
1) Thoughts define yourself. - Common definition we agree upon. (At least in your own eyes).
2) God is omniscient - Agree
3) Therefore, God judges yourself, not what you "fake out" externally (like Ted Bundy faked to his friends as a 'nice guy'). I disagree, and I don't think this part is a premise either, God can decide wether or not God wants to find out, so to speak, but then again, I suppose it's partly making God into more like a person, in the end, it doesn't convince me that your thought have any saying in relation to others
My text is in green.
Quote:
It can't be limiting freedom since it's sort of like going on a flight, where they scan you. That's normal procedure, so to speak, because you are going to a destination where that destination may not want what you bring with you, be it a bomb or dark thoughts.
It's a matter of private property actually, or to say, like you've the right of free speech, you've the right to make a speech no one may ever hear.
Your analogy is false of a different reason however, as Heaven as mentioned earlier have infinite ressources, therefore scanning for a bomb would never be necessary, as if there was a bomb, and it exploded, it wouldn't be able to due any harm in the first place, some wouldn't even notice it, because they chose to, etc.
However in real life, we've a limited amount of ressources, which means we've to take some precautions, however scanning for the bomb really never solves the problem, solving the problem would meaning make the bomb ineffective of its object in the first place, which I believe, is what we strive to, or to say in the big picture:
A gradient towards unlimitted ressources and the necessary technology, for making possible of a common purpose where everyone is free to do what they want to the limit of not reducing the limit of others, and through that limit have security of said freedom.
Quote:
So what? I'm not God, why would it matter what I perceive?
It matters, because you, and your common, are probably going to be those who live in this Heaven.
Quote:
Again, doing bad to others is not the only sin.
Only as long as ressources are limited and the necessary technology are unavailable, otherwise you've to come with some examples that convinces me, if you want to convince me (as I believe since you're writing here).
Also, if you could make it general, it'd of course be much better, as it would not be an infinite quest of countering example after example then (for both of us).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 20, 2009 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree, the premise of "good" is very subjective, however if we can find a common purpose, we can also find a definition of good (and thereby also of evil/bad). It's this definition of "good", that God must follow, or what God does, is not for the good of every individual, but for something else (may be nothing), yet definetly not "good".
I disagree about that definition of good, and I already pointed out numeroues examples where it's not just the "harming others" part. Why do you insist on that?
Quote:
I did also write that it doesn't matter, because God as being all powerful can do everything.
Also, if you like, both create a stone God cannot lift, but also lift it.
You still don't see the paradox?
Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift?
It means two things:
1) If he can LIFT it, it means he CANNOT create a rock that he can't lift. Not all-powerful.
2) If he can't lift it, then it means he cannot lift a creation. Not all-powerful.
Quote:
I'm through the definition of what I believe to be "good", claiming that what you label as sins in the real world, I do not, however I do also point out in the next part that it may not be wise to make our society work, due to a lack of ressources.
I'm not following you at all. What has society got to do with Heaven, and again, what has resources got to do with YOU, the person, being good?
a good person is a CHARACTER inside that person. In ANY situation. Not just where there are many resources. It matters what the person THINKS. If that person thinks that blowing people is ok if he doesn't have resource X (but he does), he IS NOT GOOD. PERIOD.
Saying otherwise is like saying God is not omniscient, which says a lot about all-powerfulness you speak of.
Quote:
I'd label anyone, who's not in the current moment limiting the freedom of others as "good", but on the same time, I write it's important to notice that in our society, limited ressources and lack of proper technology may mean, due to dependence of eachother, that, what you call sins, can be a true problem. However, as stated, these problems are a matter of lack of technology, not something that in the future should label someone as "evil"/"bad".
Again, you confuse me completely. What do problems have to do with evil? Slavery was in the past an efficient way for society to boost its economy (especially mining), more efficient than otherwise. So it wasn't a "problem" but that doesn't mean it was "good".
"Problem" is subjective anyway, because what is someone's problem, may be someone else's solution. I do not see what it has to do with good or evil or "bad" or whatever.
Quote:
I disagree, and I don't think this part is a premise either, God can decide wether or not God wants to find out, so to speak, but then again, I suppose it's partly making God into more like a person, in the end, it doesn't convince me that your thought have any saying in relation to others
My text is in green.
That was supposed to be the conclusion (3), sorry
There's no such thing as "relation to others", it's only "relation to God", wtf is so hard, why do I have to repeat this a hundred times? It is NOT the others that judge you.
And your argument is poor. Just because others are INCAPABLE, i.e lack the "power", to see your TRUE self (not what you radiate in actions), doesn't say anything about you being good or bad.
Remember you have to be good for it, not do good.
Quote:
It's a matter of private property actually, or to say, like you've the right of free speech, you've the right to make a speech no one may ever hear.
On the other hand, when you enter someone else's property, he has the right to scan you.
Quote:
Your analogy is false of a different reason however, as Heaven as mentioned earlier have infinite ressources, therefore scanning for a bomb would never be necessary, as if there was a bomb, and it exploded, it wouldn't be able to due any harm in the first place, some wouldn't even notice it, because they chose to, etc.
What has that got to do with infinite resources?
Secondly, I don't think Heaven has "resources", infinite or otherwise, frankly I am completely amazed by what you can come up with
And thirdly, SOCIETY PROBLEMS do not equal GOD'S "PROBLEMS".
Society problems are MAN's problems. God's problems are GOD's problems.
Quote:
However in real life, we've a limited amount of ressources, which means we've to take some precautions, however scanning for the bomb really never solves the problem, solving the problem would meaning make the bomb ineffective of its object in the first place, which I believe, is what we strive to, or to say in the big picture:
A gradient towards unlimitted ressources and the necessary technology, for making possible of a common purpose where everyone is free to do what they want to the limit of not reducing the limit of others, and through that limit have security of said freedom.
That's just plain wrong. The person who bombs WANTS TO SEE OTHERS GET BLOWN UP AND SUFFER. You limit HIS freedom for the others' freedom. You limit HIS happiness for others' happiness.
Naturally, for a "good" Heaven this would be ok and he would get cast to Hell. You see, he doesn't just want his PERCEPTION of seeing others blown up, he really wants to blow others up (why else would he get the bomb in the first place?). In the case of Heaven even more so.
Your view is not a common purpose at all, it is a hypocrisy to say that, because it is a purpose that you and others agree with, but not the suicide bomber.
Quote:
It matters, because you, and your common, are probably going to be those who live in this Heaven.
You never answered my questions, instead you always seem to respond as if you don't get them.
I said previously, countless times, that you get judged upon entering (or "checked" if that's what you to use as analogy). Heads up: it's not the others who check you, it's the security guard/God/whatever that does it. What does it matter what person X thinks? It's not person X who is the judge here.
Quote:
Only as long as ressources are limited and the necessary technology are unavailable, otherwise you've to come with some examples that convinces me, if you want to convince me (as I believe since you're writing here).
Dude it's pointless to discuss this, because when you said Heaven or afterlife, I thought you were talking about the religion, which SAYS those things are sins, as much logic as it would make to you, or whether you don't view them as sins. Of course if you are talking about a personal Heaven it's hard for me to argue with it (likewise I never said that it's true, but I thought this thread assumed afterlife or w/e) because it is a sort of:
You: "Actions matter"
Me: "Thoughts matter"
and even though I gave examples why thoughts matter (omniscience), and what you are (you=person/soul, not your actions), you still refuse it (saying stuff about private property -- and PROBLEM is you take them LITERALLY, I took them only as analogies: what has God got to do with it? it's mostly human concept).
Besides, I explained countless times why it's what you THINK that matters, what person YOU ARE, not what you do (and even otherwise I do not see what infinite resources has to do with ANYTHING). This is all that's needed to convince you otherwise,
Heaven is made up of good souls, not made up of good ACTIONS.
Furthermore I think it's a bit poor argument to use 'resources' in the equation since none of us know how Heaven is like (it may not have time, nor space...). Questioning God's logic OUTSIDE this world (not in this world) is hypocritical at best while claiming God is all-powerful. If he is all-powerful (one of your arguments), doesn't he, I dunno, view the logic OUTSIDE of this world with vastly different intellect than you do? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 21, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why do you insist on that?
Because you haven't been able to come up with counter examples that could justify your claims (in my view of course).
Quote:
You still don't see the paradox?
I believe I do, as I've written it long ago as well.
It's however, as stated earlier, irrelevant, it's included in the premises. You can challenge the exact meaning of the premises, but not the premises themselves, which you seem to try to do.
You may of course disagree with the premises, but then there's no debate really, because your answer derived from my very first post, where I wrote given these premises, it must be like that.
Quote:
What has society got to do with Heaven,
Both have the first premises, being "good", but only one have the second premises "all powerful" (i.e. infinite ressources).
That's why analogies between society and Heaven does not work, unless you can argument to a degree that would convince, that the problem is unsolveable, and thereby independent, of the ressources invested, given the proper technology.
Quote:
and again, what has resources got to do with YOU, the person, being good?
With infinite ressources, you can make it so (with the right technology) that there's no such thing as a "bad" thing.
Quote:
"Problem" is subjective anyway
These problems I talk about, are the problems of dependencies, which means that persons who aren't limiting the freedom of others, through direct actions, are still doing illegal stuff. With proper technology and unlimited ressources, problems like these won't happen.
Examples of these problems, well you wrote about the medic who would not give first aid, I can write about the parents who want an abortion, the problem rises due to dependency and it's easy solveable, given we've the ressources and the technology.
For your problem, automatic regeneration, or preservation of existence through other means, would solve the problem of dependency of other people in the moment of crisis.
The same can be said about making it possible for fosters to survive inside, or outside, of the womb, through the correct environment.
Again, much better solutions can be put forward, when the only limit is our imagination, our real hurdle is not to agree upon some common purpose, that's the easy step, it's not to agree upon we need unlimited ressources or the proper technology, that's logical, no it's to actually achieve it.
Quote:
It is NOT the others that judge you.
No, but the sentence is derived through the future way of living, in that context it should be clear what's important.
Quote:
Just because others are INCAPABLE, i.e lack the "power", to see your TRUE self (not what you radiate in actions), doesn't say anything about you being good or bad.
It doesn't matter, simply because the world is what we experience, I couldn't care less what others are thinking, as I'm not experiencing it, nor do I wish to.
Quote:
On the other hand, when you enter someone else's property, he has the right to scan you.
He does not have the right to limit your freedom in any way (except for the limits already present, independent of the person in question), if his scan does so (example, means you cannot decide to have unheard talk) then his scan is limiting your freedom and is not okay. Again, the thing with private property is that you own everything, everything is in your power, but when you invite someone in, then they're still free, they do however not pocess any power over your property, it does not mean you pocess any power of them on the other hand.
You can make rules people have to accept before getting invited in, but in the optimal society, no matter what rules you decide upon, you'll not be able to limit others freedom through private property.
Quote:
I don't think Heaven has "resources", infinite or otherwise
It's the second premises, God being all powerful, means that Heaven, as Gods club, as you put it, have infinite ressources through God.
Quote:
And thirdly, SOCIETY PROBLEMS do not equal GOD'S "PROBLEMS".
Not all society problems, true. However some does. With unlimited ressources, it should become equal, because then the premises are equal:
#1 "Good" (everyone gets what they want), #2 "All powerful" (unlimited ressources, with proper technology, i.e. being able to solve every problem).
With the only difference in #3, but then again, I don't think that difference really matters.
Quote:
God's problems are GOD's problems.
God can pr. definition not have problems, due to premise #2.
Quote:
The person who bombs WANTS TO SEE OTHERS GET BLOWN UP AND SUFFER. You limit HIS freedom for the others' freedom. You limit HIS happiness for others' happiness.
I repeat myself:
A gradient towards unlimitted ressources and the necessary technology, for making possible of a common purpose where everyone is free to do what they want to the limit of not reducing the freedom of others, and through that limit have security of said freedom.
I changed a word, limit to freedom, it's was a typing mistake.
Note it's the bomber who's limiting the freedom of others through the actions you describe, not others who limits the freedom of the bomber, as the limit of the bomber is already present.
Quote:
Your view is not a common purpose at all, it is a hypocrisy to say that, because it is a purpose that you and others agree with, but not the suicide bomber.
It's true that those who cannot get what they want through because it's limiting the freedom of others will not agree upon this purpose.
Everyone should of course also have the right to choose. As you write a bit earlier about perception, all we can know is that we're here, we cannot know if all what we see already is just an illusion, or to say, is just a simulation.
However, being in a simulation, where you do not know it's a simulation, is a choice only the given person can choose, and is the only case, where a person like this, could get such a want through and accepted.
Again the choice will always be up to the individual, and you're right, the purpose will never be common for all, because when wants get dependent on others, all solution dissapears.
That's the sole reason for wants like these cannot be accepted in the first place.
As it is however, we're all unique and thereby equal, therefore we cannot let the wants of controlling others (bombing them, using them, etc.) unwillingly be accepted.
Quote:
You never answered my questions, instead you always seem to respond as if you don't get them.
Touche, but then, in that way, it's probably not so weird we're going in circles.
Quote:
it's pointless to discuss this, because when you said Heaven or afterlife, I thought you were talking about the religion
This has nothing to do with religion, it's only about, given an all powerful and "good" entity exists, and given Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go.
Quote:
and PROBLEM is you take them LITERALLY, I took them only as analogies:
I answer the analogies, because if they're not analogies, they'd not share the same answer.
However I think most of your analogies have been false, due to Heaven and society of today not being the same thing, where Heaven again is defined through the 3 premises.
#1 "Good" (I.e. everyone gets what they want, to the limit of not reducing what others can get)
#2 "All powerful" (I.e. unlimited ressources and proper technology to solve every problem)
#3 A place where everyone wants to go.
All these 3 premises are something that society have the potential to fullfil, but until it does so, any analogy between Heaven and society is false, unless it's independent of the 3 premises to begin with.
Quote:
what has God got to do with it? it's mostly human concept).
That's what the debate is about, i.e. if God exists, and the premises I wrote were true, then everyone must go to Heaven, otherwise at least one premises is false. However the premises I choose are some I believe most would agree upon in the first place, and about the very first one being "good", if God was not "good", God would be a ruler through power and not through agreement, which equals slavery.
Quote:
Heaven is made up of good souls, not made up of good ACTIONS.
What does the souls do in Heaven?
For it to be a Heaven in the first place, through the third premise, actions is most likely required.
Quote:
Furthermore I think it's a bit poor argument to use 'resources' in the equation since none of us know how Heaven is like (it may not have time, nor space...).
Heaven is defined in this debate through the 3 premises, which means ressources fits in well, all it simply says is that Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go, because they can get what they want.
Quote:
If he is all-powerful (one of your arguments), doesn't he, I dunno, view the logic OUTSIDE of this world with vastly different intellect than you do?
Maybe, but any given problem only requires a limited intellect to solve, more than that, is more than needed.
Therefore, any kind of argument with the ways of God is too complex for anyone of us to understand is not a valid argument.
God can choose if we should understand it and further more, if God does not get our agreement, but makes actions upon us anyway, then that's limiting our freedom to a degree of slavery, or if you however agree upon it, then it's giving up your freedom, and to some extend even your free will.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 21, 2009 11:53 AM |
|
|
Rereading the posts, I see that I use the same to answer most of your questions, so look at your questions in this context please:
Premises of debate (you can question the meaning of them, but if you do not accept the premises themselves, then there's no debate really):
#1 God is "good" (Everyone gets what they want)
#2 God is "all powerful" (Which means also able to go through any paradox there may happen, even through the premise itself)
#3 Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go (Because they get what they want, no matter if it's a paradox, due to the all powerfulness, and gettnig what you want, is of course what you want).
And that's it, no hidden deals or anything like that.
Conclusion, given the premises are correct, everyone goes to Heaven. (Of course assuming there's a God in the first place).
Every problem you have risen, I've answered through the same way also.
For the problems of Heaven: None can be, due to the all powerfulness.
For the problems of society: For limited ressources, and lack of proper technology, lots of problems can be, but these will be false analogies.
For unlimited ressources and with proper technology, society becomes equal to Heaven to the extend, that society must always obey the laws of logic, and of course also requires to be "good", before it can be a place where everyone wants to be.
Quote:
No, it's not bad because if something is bad, you just feel that it's bad. "Badness" is completely dependent on one's brain activity. Also freedom is something that a human can understand only when something happens in their brains.
When you die, nothing happens in your brains anymore.
Did I remember to answer this?
It's very simple, given you logic, nothign can be bad, if there's no brain activity, thereby no activity can never be bad.
So killing someone, or to say removing their activiy, is not bad, as long as no bad activities triggered during the murder.
That's of course something I disagree with.
Let's define ourself through what makes us unique, the inner observer that is in this world, expressed through our body, or to say, our consciousness.
With this definition, what's "good" requires first of all
#1 That we're here in the first place, that we're consciousness.
Given #1 is not true, then that's the opposite of "good" in the worst sence possible, so nothing at all is as "bad"/"evil" as it gets.
#2 That we've our free will to actually decide upon ourself.
Given #2 is not true, you'll be no more than an observer in a machine you've no control over. It's the case of people who cannot control their lusts/emotions to an extreme degree, letting these take the control of their life, an example of this would be drug addicts, but that's only a mild example, an extreme example, would be someone who gets controlled through a remote.
#3 That we've our freedom to do what we want to do, as long as it doesn't limit the freedoms of others.
Not having this, is in the extreme case, equal to slavery, and in the normal case of everyday life and unfortunate doing of us lacking ressources and the proper technology.
All in all, no activity at all, is the worst state possible, because then you're not there.
It's worse than not be able to do anything than simply be there, because then at least you are, and then there'll likewise be the possibility of #2 and #3 to become true once again.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2009 05:37 PM |
|
|
Premise #2 is the paradox mate, I don't know what's so hard to get. Just because you can enumerate premises doesn't make them consistent or true in any way, and I pointed why BOTH #2 AND #3 are flawed in some way (#3 first, #2 recently with the paradox).
And I can't provide counter-examples because you use a specific definition (personal I might say) of Heaven, so it's kinda hard to argue against it. However here's a try.
Heaven exists to host good souls, not good actions. (if you don't agree with this, then there's really nothing I can say -- the actions may not even exist given that Heaven may not have "time", so it would be something entirely different!)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OhForFSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 21, 2009 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Premise #2 is the paradox mate
I know, however as stated if you wanted to attack the premises themselves, then that's for other threads, I do however agree, but in the sense of after life, and in religion in general God is illustrated as being all powerful.
Quote:
And I can't provide counter-examples because you use a specific definition (personal I might say) of Heaven, so it's kinda hard to argue against it.
I understand, but if Heaven was not a place where everyone wanted to go, then Heaven God would already fail to be either "good" or "all powerful".
Quote:
Heaven exists to host good souls, not good actions.
I understand that is something that seperates us, as I don't agree (like you guessed), I believe for Heaven to be somewhere everyone wants to go, actions have to be.
Then again, it may of course be something completely else no one has ever thought about etc., though that's likewise for another debate, as this debate I started is not and was never meant to be about religion.
So am I wrong in my conclusion that you simply disagree upon my premises? Do you agree upon my conclusion given my premises are assumed true however? If so, then I don't think there was a reason for a debate in the first place, if not then you must be able to come up with counter arguments/examples, that I should agree with, as logic is objective.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I know, however as stated if you wanted to attack the premises themselves, then that's for other threads, I do however agree, but in the sense of after life, and in religion in general God is illustrated as being all powerful.
What are you talking about? Of course I "attack" the premises themselves, you said I should provide counter-arguments, and I did (what else?). If I render your premises incompatible with each other then that's that, otherwise it would be just us mentioning our two opinions and no counter (from both of us) at all.
Quote:
I understand, but if Heaven was not a place where everyone wanted to go, then Heaven God would already fail to be either "good" or "all powerful".
Nah, like I said numerous times, a criminal wants to also be in society, does that make the cops evil for imprisoning him?
Or let's take this another way: the criminal ONLY is happy when he KILLS someone, like I dunno, someone who annoys him (like a racist or some other ****). Anyway how would you PLEASE this criminal, WITHOUT altering his brain (that is, his freedom) or replacing him with a robot?
You can't give him "punch bags" because that would NOT satisfy him, he's not stupid. He wants to kill real humans (or souls).
The only way would be, if you restricted him freedom to do so (altering his brain or replacing it with a CPU), but really, I don't think that's a good way to show "love" to your kids no matter how bad they behave...
Quote:
I understand that is something that seperates us, as I don't agree (like you guessed), I believe for Heaven to be somewhere everyone wants to go, actions have to be.
I thought everything related with Heaven more or less was about SOULS and 'good'. You shouldn't have used the word "Heaven" in the first place then.
Nevertheless what you propose is an impossibility, at least, the way I see it. At least without altering people's brains or freedom to THINK (which is MUCH more important than freedom to DO).
Quote:
So am I wrong in my conclusion that you simply disagree upon my premises? Do you agree upon my conclusion given my premises are assumed true however?
I can't agree because your premises are contradicting. I don't think it's even a question of "IF" because the flaw is obvious.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 22, 2009 09:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course I "attack" the premises themselves, you said I should provide counter-arguments, and I did (what else?).
I expect that any given debate is on the same premises, I said that gives these premises everyone had to go to Heaven. For there to be a debate, you must disagree with my arguments.
If you disagree with my premises it's a whole other debate I believe.
Personally, I am not really interested in the validity of my premises, because they as a subject does not interest me (it doesn't matter, as it doesn't help you in your life no matter if it's false or true), but that doesn't matter however, because this thread was about the after life, and I wanted to make it clear, that given those premises I listed, which I believe most people agree upon when thinking about the after life, then everyone would go to Heaven.
Quote:
Nah, like I said numerous times, a criminal wants to also be in society, does that make the cops evil for imprisoning him?
If society was made such, that the criminal would no more be a danger, then yes that is something I'd see as "bad"/"evil", because it's limiting the freedom unecessary.
If not, then look at my former post about why I think heaven<->society analogies are false.
Quote:
the criminal ONLY is happy when he KILLS someone, like I dunno, someone who annoys him (like a racist or some other ****). Anyway how would you PLEASE this criminal, WITHOUT altering his brain (that is, his freedom) or replacing him with a robot?
I'm not interested in pleasing anyone, I'm interested in everyone getting the maximum amount of possibilites available, without limiting anyone else in the process.
Quote:
The only way would be, if you restricted him freedom to do so (altering his brain or replacing it with a CPU)
In stead of removing free will, then make the consequence of the actions impossible, yes it's limiting his freedom (not free will), but it's not a freedom anyone of us have (to limit the freedom of others).
Again it's not others that limits his freedoms, because he cannot limit those of others.
Quote:
Nevertheless what you propose is an impossibility, at least, the way I see it. At least without altering people's brains or freedom to THINK (which is MUCH more important than freedom to DO).
After life wise - God is all powerful, so nothing is impossible.
Society wise - Certianly you've to restrict freedom to make consequences of actions that limits the freedom of others impossible.
Then again, I don't think I ever wrote anything else:
Freedom to do what you want, to the limit of not limiting the freedom of others.
This limit means you cannot limit the freedom of others, i.e. you cannot decide anything upon others, but anything else, where existance is not involved, you can.
Meanwhile, this limit also means, that no one can decide anything upon you, but again, anything else that's not an existance, so to say.
Quote:
I can't agree because your premises are contradicting.
That (the validity of the premises) doesn't matter, all it really shows is what is already known, that religion have major logic flaws, and likewise is not very likely to be true, however that doesn't have anything to do with the debate I started, I believe.
And again, as it's not a thread about religion, but the consequences of the given religion (or at least what I believe is what is commonly thought (and that's what I decide, as it's under those assumption I made my arguments) as the fundament of said religion) given it's true to begin with.
If you'd like to show people, that it's unlikely that there's at all such a place, then certainly you should attack the premises laid out, but that just isn't the point about this debate I believe, I believe the point is to show that given these premises are true, then everyone must go to Heaven, no matter what.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 22, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I expect that any given debate is on the same premises, I said that gives these premises everyone had to go to Heaven. For there to be a debate, you must disagree with my arguments.
If they are based on the premises, then they are contradicting also
Quote:
If you disagree with my premises it's a whole other debate I believe.
Personally, I am not really interested in the validity of my premises, because they as a subject does not interest me (it doesn't matter, as it doesn't help you in your life no matter if it's false or true), but that doesn't matter however, because this thread was about the after life, and I wanted to make it clear, that given those premises I listed, which I believe most people agree upon when thinking about the after life, then everyone would go to Heaven.
I don't know what sort of after life you mean, but if you are talking about religious people, they sure as hell don't believe in what you just said.
Quote:
If society was made such, that the criminal would no more be a danger, then yes that is something I'd see as "bad"/"evil", because it's limiting the freedom unecessary.
If not, then look at my former post about why I think heaven<->society analogies are false.
because you think God can magically make anything (even contradicting the logic HE created, which means, he's not all-powerful as he can not create a good logic!), yet you don't even know that. it's a paradox, you CLAIM a paradox, your argument is a paradox (the all-powerful paradox). How can I reply to this in some other way than to say that it's full of blind assumptions because... it's a paradox? I can't.
Quote:
I'm not interested in pleasing anyone, I'm interested in everyone getting the maximum amount of possibilites available, without limiting anyone else in the process.
By the way, this would be getting into a whole different topic of "isolation" and "consent" (psychology), there's no action that is isolated from others. Likewise isolating the actions also removes a lot of freedoms...
Quote:
In stead of removing free will, then make the consequence of the actions impossible, yes it's limiting his freedom (not free will), but it's not a freedom anyone of us have (to limit the freedom of others).
Again it's not others that limits his freedoms, because he cannot limit those of others.
But the others ARE limiting his freedoms, because he wants to kill them (he doesn't care about limiting their freedoms, all he wants is to stab them, for example).
Another example: someone shoots in a direction. Another person goes there, so by shooting he will limit that other person's freedom. But on the other hand, the other person is ALSO limiting HIS freedom to shoot in that direction.
It goes both ways. I can't believe you think this is so simple, it's like we're in elementary school where everything can be black or white.
Quote:
After life wise - God is all powerful, so nothing is impossible.
But that doesn't make all actions "loving" or "good". But if you think the after life is devoid of all logic altogether, then why are you even arguing about it? YOU are using logic yourself (premises) to describe it, yet you claim it can overcome logic? That makes no sense, you can just say a simple claim like "it always works, don't ask me how, everything is possible" and you're done.
Quote:
This limit means you cannot limit the freedom of others, i.e. you cannot decide anything upon others, but anything else, where existance is not involved, you can.
Which limits my freedoms, hence why not everyone would agree. (see for example, the analogies above).
Quote:
That (the validity of the premises) doesn't matter, all it really shows is what is already known, that religion have major logic flaws, and likewise is not very likely to be true, however that doesn't have anything to do with the debate I started, I believe.
Sorry but your premises have nothing to do with any religion I know of. Sure they may be full of logical flaws (religions), but not the flaws I used for your premises, because the religions I know are totally different.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
nik718
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
|
Non-existence.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 26, 2009 01:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If they are based on the premises, then they are contradicting also
That's not true, and I think you know it. 
All that is logical true, is logical true, but it still depends on the premises to be true in the first place, for it to be acutally true. I don't claim any of this to be true, so the best you can do is to challenge the logic of it, which is the arguments.
The arguments are not non-logical, because the premises they're argumenting for, may - or may not be true.
Quote:
I don't know what sort of after life you mean, but if you are talking about religious people, they sure as hell don't believe in what you just said.
I can't know for certain what the single religious person believes in or not.
Nor do I know what the majority believes, but I claim, that I think they believe in the premises I state (i.e. God being all powerful, God being good), etc.
I do also claim, that a person who'd bow down to an all powerful deity, without the "good"-factor, is a person that's being supressed, which means I can only imagine people who'd disagree on the second and third premise, God being all powerful (unlikely), and Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go (May be so).
Then I can however claim that given premise 1 and 2 is true, then premise 3 actually logically follows, as that is, of course in my opinion, the only "good" thing to do.
All in all I can however state that given this person believes in the premises stated, then everyone must to to Heaven, no matter what this person believes otherwise.
So for a conclusion of my own thoughts, I'd say that only the people who don't believe in God being all powerful (like I believe you do not, as you believe God is bounded by the logic created by God in the world where God created said logic) are the people who'll disagree on my premises, logical speaking of course (As many can agree with every argument and still refuse to do what is logical).
Quote:
(even contradicting the logic HE created, which means, he's not all-powerful as he can not create a good logic!)
I don't understand why being able to break the rules you make yourself, removes your all powerfullness, however I still agree that all powerfulness of course is a paradox, however I don't believe it matters for the thread.
Quote:
How can I reply to this in some other way than to say that it's full of blind assumptions because... it's a paradox? I can't.
Well that's the kind of reply I'd expect, if I was to state that my premises were true, i.e. a religious thread in general, but that's not what I'm stating, I'm stating that given there are true, then logically these consequences follows, I don't care if they're true or not however.
Quote:
By the way, this would be getting into a whole different topic of "isolation" and "consent" (psychology), there's no action that is isolated from others. Likewise isolating the actions also removes a lot of freedoms...
I do not know about these terms, which would make them hard to debate in the first place for my part.
However, if you find it relevant, I'd take it into consideration as an argument if you'd explain exactly what your point is above this.
Quote:
But the others ARE limiting his freedoms, because he wants to kill them (he doesn't care about limiting their freedoms, all he wants is to stab them, for example).
Imagine that killing is impossible. Of course it's limiting his freedom, but I never wrote anything else: All to be free to do what they want, to the limit of not limiting the freedom of others.
Others aren't limiting his freedom, because to do that you've to require an action dependent of the person whose freedom is getting limited.
They aren't requiring anything of him, he's however requiring something of them, which limits their freedom.
Therefore he of course can't have his way.
Quote:
Another example: someone shoots in a direction. Another person goes there, so by shooting he will limit that other person's freedom. But on the other hand, the other person is ALSO limiting HIS freedom to shoot in that direction.
The real problem is the consequence of getting hit by the bullet, imagine a system of protection (let's go sci-fi and say an energy shield), which makes it impossible for the bullet to do any damage.
So he can shoot the bullet, and the other can go there, no one has their freedom limited.
If you want it so, that you can shoot the bullet and actually control it from there, then we're back again at private property through a private simulated world, etc.
Quote:
It goes both ways. I can't believe you think this is so simple, it's like we're in elementary school where everything can be black or white.
Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, all in all, if you want to convince me, you've to come up with examples I cannot counter in a satisfying way, all I see is that you get repititive in some areas, this doesn't mean I get convinced, unfortunately, I believe, I do the exact same thing, which also mean, that you probably aren't getting convinced as well. I hope that my recent highlight of the dependent of others factor will make it more clear, after all it's what seperate my idea from the real world as it is today, and without it, I believe my ideas are solid.
Quote:
But that doesn't make all actions "loving" or "good".
Nope, the premise of "good" takes care of that part.
Quote:
But if you think the after life is devoid of all logic altogether, then why are you even arguing about it? YOU are using logic yourself (premises) to describe it, yet you claim it can overcome logic?
Logic still exists in our world, if it didn't, then my arguments would have no meaning, true.
So in relation to this world, there's only that option, it doesn't mean, that God maybe will do something completely else, but as long as the logic of this world exists, then in our eyes, God can only do that single thing, for those premises to be true.
Again, it doesn't mean, that God can't do something else, and likewise inform us about it, and make it still seem logical to us, by either tamping with our free will, or the way our world is created, or something I can't imagine.
Quote:
Which limits my freedoms, hence why not everyone would agree. (see for example, the analogies above).
Certainly freedom gets limited by the limit itself, that's the first thing I'm saying (Freedom to do whatever you want except (limiting) limiting the freedoms of others).
Everyone is free to disagree upon such a system, of course, but if they'll not live by the system (i.e. want to be able to control others, either their freedom (make others their slave), or their free will (make others their zombie), or maybe even their existance (murder)), then they of course wouldn't choose to be in such a system, otherwise they'll live by the system, and there's no problem (as if there were, they'd just leave).
Of course, you can imagine the middle road, people being in a system they do not support, but it beats whatever they could think up by themselves, again it's up to people to do what they want, I'll only ever set a single limit, and that is limiting the freedom of others.
In contrast to heaven, however, God, being all powerful, can even solve this problem (eventhough having both A and not A is a paradox), which again means, as God being "good" everyone wants to go to Heaven (and again, stuff said in the bible and other religios books, are too unlikely, to be taken for facts. )
Quote:
Sorry but your premises have nothing to do with any religion I know of. Sure they may be full of logical flaws (religions), but not the flaws I used for your premises, because the religions I know are totally different.
So God is not all powerful in the religions you know?
Well I think that'd be quite wonderful, however that'd on the other hand mean that these people would have an after life in danger, which should give them the impression to do something (not only Gods will, as it isn't absolute anymore, without the all powerfullness), to make certain that they "after life" is secured.
Or to say in other words, fight for creating a place where they can get what they want (for an after life, etc., etc.).
So such a religion, I would imagine, would generate great society evolution, but I find it hard to believe, that many would dwell to this religion however (only assuming it for being true, until they wake up, realising there's no truth value in it, and either abbandon it or require to be convinced).
Which again, in the end, would mean, with or without said religion, we'd still try to achieve what we want.
So following those thoughts, I've a hard time imaginging people actually wanting to follow a religion of a God that's not all powerfull, probably only using it, like emotions, as a source of inspiriation, on the very same standard as anything else said, but not explained.
On the other hand, if said religions inspiration would be very good, then I can follow many would dwell at it, but unlikely that anyone would go so far, and start taking it seriously without reflecting upon it in the first place (like giving in to emotions, without question, because they've been right so far).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 26, 2009 03:20 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:21, 26 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
That's not true, and I think you know it.
All that is logical true, is logical true, but it still depends on the premises to be true in the first place, for it to be acutally true. I don't claim any of this to be true, so the best you can do is to challenge the logic of it, which is the arguments.
It's not logically true, it's a paradox, I said this numerous times and explained why it is a paradox. Not sure what you don't get (see below).
Quote:
I can't know for certain what the single religious person believes in or not.
Nor do I know what the majority believes, but I claim, that I think they believe in the premises I state (i.e. God being all powerful, God being good), etc.
No I'm talking about your definition of Heaven.
Quote:
I do also claim, that a person who'd bow down to an all powerful deity, without the "good"-factor, is a person that's being supressed, which means I can only imagine people who'd disagree on the second and third premise, God being all powerful (unlikely), and Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go (May be so).
You don't HAVE to bow to God, you know. You pray when you need his help... don't you ask respectfully your parents the same way, or are you spoiled brat type (metaphor obviously)?
Quote:
I don't understand why being able to break the rules you make yourself, removes your all powerfullness, however I still agree that all powerfulness of course is a paradox, however I don't believe it matters for the thread.
It matters a lot. Here's why (and this answers the following logic argument too):
Let's call the logic we know (the one God made for this place) as 'human logic' for simplification.
1) You use human logic to extrapolate views on afterlife (which may or may not be bound to same logic)
2) You use human logic to say what God can or can't do regarding said logic: that is, you say he can modify the logic as he pleases WITHOUT affecting the people, since he's all-powerful, right?
(remember, if changing logic to suit 'the bad guys' in Heaven affected people it would be a BAD thing, even if possible by an all-powerful entity -- it would be similar to replacing human minds with CPUs... not very "good" or "loving" ).
3) But that is a paradox: your argument is all-powerfulness, but you overlook the fact that CHANGING the logic renders him NOT all-powerful, since he can't create a logic that cannot be changed. (he "can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift")
Either way, he is not all-powerful, so you either accept our human logic is limited, or that this argument has TWO contradicting solutions.
The reason it's obviously a paradox is because we are bound by the logic created by God. I don't think it's a very good thing to use it to "explain" the paradox, because it has two contradicting solutions, so it's kinda worthless
And yeah, some people "follow" religion because they AGREE with God's viewpoint, not because they want to go to Heaven: that would be SELFISH. Remember, someone who does GOOD ACTIONS but only does it for himself so he can end up in Heaven (or so he thinks) is SELFISH and SINS, and he will NOT get into Heaven.
It's like a political party, you are not required to vote for it (let's say, agree with it), that doesn't mean others won't. You don't worship God for your own good, you worship him either because you respect his help, or you agree with his policies.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Eden
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2009 08:48 PM |
|
|
After life
Ultimately I don't care whats after this life. If there is some big judgment thing about my works, good or bad, well I think I'll be okay, just as long as I try to live life as a 'Good' guy...and if there is nothing after this, well just read my sig by Shakespeare below. In the end I'm going to be ready for both .
____________
If I must die, I will encounter darkness as a bride, And hug it in mine arms." —William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 11:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If there is some big judgment thing about my works, good or bad, well I think I'll be okay, just as long as I try to live life as a 'Good' guy
I'm still surprised that some people would ever respect/accept such a fate of a higher court whose only argument of being "right"/"good" is that they've the power to decide, and claim an intellect so superior that we would never understand anyway.
Quote:
and if there is nothing after this, well just read my sig by Shakespeare below. In the end I'm going to be ready for both.
The text in your signature reveals an assumption that you're still there, what if there's no you at all (no consciousness/awareness/uniquely defined entity/soul)?
Quote:
It's not logically true, it's a paradox, I said this numerous times and explained why it is a paradox. Not sure what you don't get (see below).
Here's an analogy that would maybe make it more clear.
Any given "accepted" mathemathical theorem is logical true, because it logical follows from the definition, independent of the defintion. However it's only true in the context of the real world, if the definition is true in the area of use.
So something can be logical true (arguments, and theorem in math), without being true in our life, because it depends on the premises(definition in math) to be true.
What this have been about all along is, given these premises holds true, then this consequence follows.
Not an inquire of wether or not the premises actually holds true.
Quote:
No I'm talking about your definition of Heaven.
God being all powerful and "good" actually means Heaven must be such a place in the first place.
Quote:
You don't HAVE to bow to God, you know.
Having to accept anyones supreme decision over your possibilities, independent of what you think, and without any kind of explanation, that's bowing down to me.
Quote:
1) You use human logic to extrapolate views on afterlife (which may or may not be bound to same logic)
True, but it's also in our eyes, which holds true as long as our logic is the same as always, in our plane of existance.
So what I believe really have been discovered here, is that the term "good" is relative to the logic of the given plane of existance.
I'm talking of "good" relative to our plane of existance.
So it doesn't matter what the logic is in another plane, as long as logic is the same in this plane of existance, we can talk about God being "good" in our eyes through the actions in another plane.
Quote:
2) You use human logic to say what God can or can't do regarding said logic: that is, you say he can modify the logic as he pleases WITHOUT affecting the people, since he's all-powerful, right?
God can do this, being all powerful, but have not, otherwise our logic would have changed.
Then again, everything could be an illusion and blabla, if we continue this, we might find another paradox, we might just conclude that anything can be and we know nothing really, especially when taking in an all powerful, yet never measureable, variable into every single equation for having an ever true response, so I don't think it makes much sense to try to apply logic on the premise of all powerfulness, as it's a paradox in itself.
And again, like God can do both A and not A, God can also create a logic God can't change, and change it, applying logic on a premise of all powerfullness makes no sense in my opinion.
Quote:
some people "follow" religion because they AGREE with God's viewpoint
Which is fine and all, if it wasn't because there're so many logical faulties, that I think, that most people actually maybe claim to agree with God, but in reality follows a tradition brought through authority (parents / priest / teacher, etc.) and actually agrees with these few points, because they've been taught so.
What I'm saying is very simple, I don't think anyone who've read the bible would believe it to be Gods words, unless they're affected by more than logical justification of information when choosing knowledge (emotions), and I don't think anyone would ever let someone tamper with their free will, freedom and consciousness, willingly.
And again, because someone does something for themselves, and not others (being selfish?), should never be a reason for them not to get exactly what they want, if:
A) What they want, won't limits others (be dependent on others, without others having a choice) (As God being all powerfull, A can be neglected).
B) There is sufficient power and technology to use this power to achieve what they want, again without limiting others (being dependent on others, wihtout others having a choice) (As Good being all powerful, B will always hold true)
C) God is "Good" (Means that God actually cares and wants everyone to get what they want to the degree possible) (Again as God being all powerfull, what's possible is unlimited).
But I do imagine that the whole Heaven/Hell thing comes from society with reward/punishment, where you'd to do something for the person who gave the reward, not for your own good (getting the reward), before this person would give you the reward (i.e. having a slave (or what some might think as love, because this person would do stuff for the one with a reward)), likewise the punishment, when you did something wrong (of course only in the eyes of those in power, like the one with the reward is one in power), you'd get punished (taken revenge upon, in the name of the people (servants) because that'd satisfy the people and it'd not only be unlikely with more of these (unless they'd to), but the people would not attack en masse).
The same goes for the reason of the reward having to be for the one in power and not for the one who wishes the reward, because selfish people are those who might want to claim the power one day, removing all of those, and you'd remove all corruption.
But again, all of this is only in the eyes of the one with the power, not in the eyes of the given individual, who'll be driven to go blindly by emotions, conditioned to do certain things and having evolved a habit (or actually dependency) towards the one in power, stuck in their everyday life.
And all of this, would make the one in power safe, and give this person the freedom of what the technology of that time would offer, but it'd not be "good", eventhough this person would claim so (loving the people -> revenge on the "bad" / love from the people -> no attack en masse / removal of any who'd want the power for themselves (sin of selfishness), and much more).
That's however only for religion, as that's pretty much the system of the bible, and the system of the time of the bible, it doesn't belong in this thread though, which is why I won't keep on replying when you start to talk about sins, etc.
And finally, intentions only matters when a crime has been done, and only in our current society, because our only current solution is isolation, and we're only going to isolate those who're a threat (intentions).
Intentions won't matter when doing good, it doesn't matter if you get help from Castle or Inferno, as long as we're talking about doing good (i.e. no dependency that arrises, or to say that you don't give up your freedom, free will, or consciousness(soul)).
So if inferno suddenly started doing bad through the possibilities they got doing "good", then we're not talking about doing "good", and then it of course matters what intention they have, but then we're back at doing "bad".
In a society where doing "bad" is impossible, intentions won't matter.
In a society where doing "bad" is possible, intentions matters when deciding upon if the person is a threat to society and needs to be isolated.
Isolated persons should however still have the exact same opportunities as the rest of us, except they're of course isolated (can't decide to be around others).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's an analogy that would maybe make it more clear.
Any given "accepted" mathemathical theorem is logical true, because it logical follows from the definition, independent of the defintion. However it's only true in the context of the real world, if the definition is true in the area of use.
So something can be logical true (arguments, and theorem in math), without being true in our life, because it depends on the premises(definition in math) to be true.
What this have been about all along is, given these premises holds true, then this consequence follows.
Not an inquire of wether or not the premises actually holds true.
I don't understand a thing you just said.
Quote:
God being all powerful and "good" actually means Heaven must be such a place in the first place.
Yeah, Heaven is God's place, so those who agree with God get there. Simple.
Others won't even want to go there, after all, it's like a capitalist votes for a communist...
Quote:
Having to accept anyones supreme decision over your possibilities, independent of what you think, and without any kind of explanation, that's bowing down to me.
You don't accept anything. You don't like God's opinion, you don't stay near him or his "house" (Heaven). Simple as that. Same as in real life. If you don't like a person and think he is an ***hole, you stay away from him.
Quote:
True, but it's also in our eyes, which holds true as long as our logic is the same as always, in our plane of existance.
Man you are utterly confusing me with:
- "in our eyes"
- "independent to ourselves"
- "relative to ourselves"
or anything of the sort.
I'm talking about the logic here, the mathematical logic, the absolute logic. There's no such thing as relative logic, it's just your illusion.
But, if you do refer to our plane of existence (whatever that may be), then it's alright, I already said, using our logic, God is not all-powerful, no matter what, because of the paradox.
Quote:
God can do this, being all powerful, but have not, otherwise our logic would have changed.
You were supposed to read the conclusion first to see why it's not so, instead of quoting each separately...
Quote:
And again, like God can do both A and not A, God can also create a logic God can't change, and change it, applying logic on a premise of all powerfullness makes no sense in my opinion.
If he can change it, it means he can't create a logic he can't change. Not sure what's so hard to get. It's elementary logic.
Quote:
Which is fine and all, if it wasn't because there're so many logical faulties, that I think, that most people actually maybe claim to agree with God, but in reality follows a tradition brought through authority (parents / priest / teacher, etc.) and actually agrees with these few points, because they've been taught so.
Obviously I don't think we are to discuss organized religion here, I was merely pointing out a "ideal" concept.
(because I agree that the bible has been corrupted)
Quote:
And again, because someone does something for themselves, and not others (being selfish?), should never be a reason for them not to get exactly what they want, if:
I disagree. Like I said before, Heaven is a place for good souls, not for good actions. If you are selfish, you are not a "good" soul. That's all there is to it. It does not matter whether you have the power or not, as long as your intention is bad. Simple. See?
Quote:
In a society where doing "bad" is impossible, intentions won't matter.
Disagree totally, see above. Of course "matters to whom"? To you or to God?
Personally, if I could read minds, and I was in God's shoes so to speak, I would also judge people based on what they are, not on what they do. That's what defines them.
Here's an example: a psycho is not as guilty as someone who does actions willingly. Someone with a mental handicap is not a "bad" person if he does bad actions, because it may not be his choice. Animals are not bad either, again, because it's the choice and freedom to choose that matters what defines yourself, NOT THE ACTION.
Quote:
Isolated persons should however still have the exact same opportunities as the rest of us, except they're of course isolated (can't decide to be around others).
If by "opportunities" you mean "freedom to think" I agree, but if you mean "being helped by others", then I disagree. He's bad, let him deal with problems himself.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 04:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, Heaven is God's place, so those who agree with God get there.
I think that's false logic. God have to allow people to enter, because it's Gods place, it has nothing to do with agreement.
Quote:
You don't accept anything. You don't like God's opinion, you don't stay near him or his "house" (Heaven). Simple as that. Same as in real life. If you don't like a person and think he is an ***hole, you stay away from him.
Here's the problem, God decides who gets to do what they want (go to Heaven, or go to where they want), but not everyone gets this, which would then mean, that God is limitng your freedom unecessary, which I believe goes against the premise of "good".
Quote:
But, if you do refer to our plane of existence (whatever that may be)
Which is exactly what I did, our eyes means in our view, and our view is in our plane of existance, logic will always be relative to plane of existance if it differs between planes of existance (and I don't know what that is either, except a place where the laws of nature may be different).
Quote:
I disagree. Like I said before, Heaven is a place for good souls, not for good actions. If you are selfish, you are not a "good" soul. That's all there is to it.
Until you can convince me of thoughts independent of actions can be "bad", then we disagree.
Quote:
Quote:
In a society where doing "bad" is impossible, intentions won't matter.
Disagree totally, see above. Of course "matters to whom"? To you or to God?
To the people of said society.
Then again, when I talk about "bad" in this context it is in relation to my own definition, which probably is much different from your idea of "bad".
Quote:
Personally, if I could read minds, and I was in God's shoes so to speak, I would also judge people based on what they are, not on what they do. That's what defines them.
If I was in Gods shoe, I'd not judge at all, but give everyone the opportunity to get what they want, not just in after life, but bringing the after life down here, for me it'd not matter if someone didn't care about others than themselves, etc., because everyone would be free and equal.
I'd not read minds either, because that's violating that freedom.
I do however agree with you, that's what defines them, but only from their own perspective, because they know what are lusts and what are will, so they can seperate and know exactly who they are.
However what matters are those of your equal, and they can only measure upon action, so in their perspective, actions matter, but they do also know for bad actions (accidents, loose of control) that you've to take the factor of lust into consideration, but you'll always be your actions in the perspective of others, or that's at least my experience (since we can also only communicate through actions).
Quote:
Here's an example: a psycho is not as guilty as someone who does actions willingly. Someone with a mental handicap is not a "bad" person if he does bad actions, because it may not be his choice. Animals are not bad either, again, because it's the choice and freedom to choose that matters what defines yourself, NOT THE ACTION.
Your example is true, but your generalization is not (as we can't know for certain when something is an action of will, and when it's an action of lust).
It's the uncertainity that in the long run makes other see you for your actions, not the thoughts they can't observe.
Quote:
If by "opportunities" you mean "freedom to think" I agree, but if you mean "being helped by others", then I disagree. He's bad, let him deal with problems himself.
I mean independent of others, like it's for everyone else, but I don't only mean the freedom to think.
To be more precise, isolation should equal the opportunities of society with the only exception of being isolated.
I'm not going to complain about it's not like that as it is now though, because our ressources aren't unlimited.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 04:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:43, 27 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
I think that's false logic. God have to allow people to enter, because it's Gods place, it has nothing to do with agreement.
Why? I wouldn't feel comfortable in an ***hole's house myself, if people think God is an ***hole...
Quote:
Here's the problem, God decides who gets to do what they want (go to Heaven, or go to where they want), but not everyone gets this, which would then mean, that God is limitng your freedom unecessary, which I believe goes against the premise of "good".
For the hundred time, Heaven is not a magical place where happiness automatically exists. Heaven is not the place where "everyone wants to go", ANY paradise ceases to exist as a paradise if people who don't agree with the policies get in.
It would be like, a society would look pretty damn healthy too if the diseased are kicked out -- because only healthy ones are in. Does that mean that the city is "the place where everyone wants to go, because it is so very "immune"? Do you think this makes that city AUTOMATICALLY get rid of diseases? Does that make the city very immune to the diseases?
NO, it's because it keeps the disease out that it's that way.
Replace "disease" with "bad people" and you get the analogy.
Do you ever have any other argument than just cling on to your idea that Heaven makes people happy automatically? (not sure where you even got it from, for sure not from religion!)
Quote:
Which is exactly what I did, our eyes means in our view, and our view is in our plane of existance, logic will always be relative to plane of existance if it differs between planes of existance (and I don't know what that is either, except a place where the laws of nature may be different).
Yes and I still don't see how that is very relevant to what I was talking about, actually it reinforces even more. It is obvious, from the paradox, that "all-powerfulness" cannot be defined with our logic because it's impossible either way.
Quote:
Until you can convince me of thoughts independent of actions can be "bad", then we disagree.
Dude, I don't know what's your problem. Let's take two cases here:
Case 1: we're talking about religion. Selfishness is a sin. You're not God, and Heaven isn't your place, so really there's not much more there is to it.
Case 2: we're talking about philosophy. Thoughts define a person. Bad people don't get in heaven. Read that again. Notice the second word, please. It says people, starts with 'p', not with 'a' from 'action' (or rather, souls, but we're talking philosophically)
It's not whether something is "bad" or not, it's because you ARE bad that you don't get in. Here's the thing: I actually agree with this. Like I said before, if I had the power to read minds, for sure I would also judge people based on what they ARE rather than what they DO.
Quote:
To the people of said society.
Then again, when I talk about "bad" in this context it is in relation to my own definition, which probably is much different from your idea of "bad".
Yes, to the people of said society. In which case, heaven is God's society, and the people in it (which are good souls). Not bad souls
Quote:
I'd not read minds either, because that's violating that freedom.
What freedom? You can just ignore heaven if you don't want that, see, freedom.
There's no choice if everything has the same outcome. You might as well replace everyone with robots. That limits freedom, or idea of "give everyone whatever they want".
Quote:
However what matters are those of your equal, and they can only measure upon action, so in their perspective, actions matter, but they do also know for bad actions (accidents, loose of control) that you've to take the factor of lust into consideration, but you'll always be your actions in the perspective of others, or that's at least my experience (since we can also only communicate through actions).
We lack the ability to read minds, this doesn't mean God does.
Quote:
Your example is true, but your generalization is not (as we can't know for certain when something is an action of will, and when it's an action of lust).
We can't, but God can. Are we talking about the same things here mate? Why do you insist on "other people's perceptions on us"? It's not "other people" who judge us...
Given that God is all-powerful (your argument), surely it should come as no surprise that people!=God right?
Quote:
I mean independent of others, like it's for everyone else, but I don't only mean the freedom to think.
To be more precise, isolation should equal the opportunities of society with the only exception of being isolated.
What do you mean by "the opportunities of society"? That's AID or HELP from society given to someone who doesn't respect said society, why would you give them that in the first place?
I would kick them to an isolated island to deal with it themselves.
Oh and btw, a parent who gives his kid everything he wants and becomes a spoiled brat is not my definition of "good" at all. Keep that in mind for analogy
PS: When I say thoughts define yourself, I MEAN it defines yourself ABSOLUTELY. Lack of knowledge or precision or power to KNOW this doesn't make it false. For example, if we lived 20000 years ago, and we can't see atoms, that does NOT mean they don't exist. Just because YOU can't see someone else's personality doesn't mean it doesn't exist absolutely and defines that person.
God is omniscient. Think about it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why? I wouldn't feel comfortable in an ***hole's house myself, if people think God is an ***hole...
You're not forced either, the one you don't like, and/or disagrees with invites you in. You know what you want is inside, but you still have the freedom to choose.
The other way: The one you dislike, and/or disagrees with, doesn't invite you in, but banish you to the only other possible option, which is a place you don't want to go, but you've no choice.
That's removing your freedom unnecessary.
Quote:
Heaven is not the place where "everyone wants to go"
Goes against premise 1, and/or premise 2.
Quote:
There's no choice if everything has the same outcome. You might as well replace everyone with robots. That limits freedom, or idea of "give everyone whatever they want".
Where did this come from?
Quote:
However what matters are those of your equal, and they can only measure upon action, so in their perspective, actions matter, but they do also know for bad actions (accidents, loose of control) that you've to take the factor of lust into consideration, but you'll always be your actions in the perspective of others, or that's at least my experience (since we can also only communicate through actions).
We lack the ability to read minds, this doesn't mean God does.
Quote:
I would kick them to an isolated island to deal with it themselves.
Just because we don't have the technology necessary for having someone in our society (isolation), does not give a reason for them to not be our equal in every other way possible.
Quote:
Oh and btw, a parent who gives his kid everything he wants and becomes a spoiled brat is not my definition of "good" at all. Keep that in mind for analogy
A parent who influences the outcome so the kid things the entire world is about the kid, is to some extend a bad parent, but a parent who allows for the kid to find out what he/she wants, via experimentation and is there to provide safety against consequences that goes out of control of the kid, are in my opinion a good parents.
The line, however, is very thin, and probably also depends on who're judging.
Quote:
PS: When I say thoughts define yourself, I MEAN it defines yourself ABSOLUTELY. Lack of knowledge or precision or power to KNOW this doesn't make it false.
Quote:
We lack the ability to read minds, this doesn't mean God does.
Quote:
Given that God is all-powerful (your argument), surely it should come as no surprise that people!=God right?
The reason I wrote about what defines us in the perspective of others, are because it's other people/souls we're living together with in Heaven, it's their (and our own) wants that matters, and our thoughts (that does not express themselves in actions) can never influence the actions of others, and thereby never the wants of others.
Due to this, and due to that we should have the privacy of thought (the ability to be unheard upon wish, goes along the same right, as the right of free speech, and the right to chooce to ignore someone (not hearing them)), it's both "wrong" to judge on thoughts and to even read thoughts in the first place.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 05:09 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:10, 27 Oct 2009.
|
ohforfsake, I don't get what's your point with the premises. They are statements, you can't argue with statements, except to make your own statement. I could say your premises go against my premises too, what's the point?
Also take note what I said with restricting freedoms: if everything you do leads to same outcome, no matter what, then WHERE is the freedom in this? Might as well just tie you up, same thing because everything leads to same outcome.
If you spit on society, you get kicked out. Respect and you will be respected. If you spit on God's principles (for instance, that selfishness is a sin, and you think it's "a right with no consequences"), then you alienate yourself from them. Plainly like that.
This is choice and consequence. Freedom to choose.
By the way I can't believe how hypocritical you sound. You say you should have a right to private thought: which is fine. But if you go into God's place, what do you expect? Keep your thoughts to yourself then, but don't demand to be let in...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ohforfsake, I don't get what's your point with the premises.
All I claim is that, if those premises are true, everyone must go to heaven.
Quote:
They are statements, you can't argue with statements
You're not supposed to either.
Quote:
Also take note what I said with restricting freedoms: if everything you do leads to same outcome, no matter what, then WHERE is the freedom in this?
I still don't understand where this comes from, but I guess that you mean if every action/thought/whatever we take/do doesn't change wether everything will be what you want it to be after passin away, then we've no freedom?
Well if my guess is right, then I disagree, and also remember, you can always choose not to do go to Heaven as well, but that's like using your freedom to remove your freedom.
Quote:
If you spit on society, you get kicked out.
Not if it's impossible to spit in the first place in any other way than to affect those who allow to be affected.
Otherwise, yes you're right, you get isolated (it's also to dangerous to have you in other societies most likely, and these won't accept you anyway), doesn't mean you still aren't equal in every other way however, because there's no reason to limit this, except for a lack of ressources, which would equal todays world.
Quote:
If you spit on God's principles (for instance, that selfishness is a sin, and you think it's "a right with no consequences"), then you alienate yourself from them. Plainly like that.
I can of course only talk for myself, but I honestly don't care what other people thinks, or if they agree with me or not, if I'd the power, I'd still give them the opportunity to get what they want.
If you've no reason for limits, you should put one up.
Quote:
This is choice and consequence. Freedom to choose.
It's a fake consequence, a consequence that's not due to a law of nature, but due to what someone thinks is right and wrong, such kind of consequence can never be accepted, and is just as bad, as when criminals have consequences of getting executed, tortured, etc.
Quote:
By the way I can't believe how hypocritical you sound. You say you should have a right to private thought: which is fine. But if you go into God's place, what do you expect? Keep your thoughts to yourself then, but don't demand to be let in...
I don't demand anything, but to be truely good, you'd allow people in, as long as you'd be able to maintain it as a Heaven, and with unlimited power, you'd always be able to do so.
Secondly, eventhough you invite someone into your private property, it does not give you the right over said person, they still have the exact same rights as always, only difference is that you decide over your place, but you cannot discriminate their rights, such as reading their mind, or limiting their freedom in any other way (i.e. command them).
|
| |
|
|
