In higher dimensions, self-causing is possible.
Therefor the universe doesn’t need a God.
Reality can be ring shaped, or hoop shaped, when it comes to currents and times.
No matter whether you go forward or backward, you are still within the loop.
I have no clue what higher dimensions and the process of self-causing in them is and how this applies to the discussion. Time is ‘hoop shaped’(but not circular) as shown by post-Newtonian physics but this created more confusion than certainty so I am not sure how one would derive more confident propositions from the discoveries Einstein, Maxwell and the rest made in comparison to the certainty that the great logicians deriving their philosophy from the mechanistic, Newtonian sciences and operating on pre-Fregian logic and pre-Wittgenstein assumptions on human language and its connection to human mind and as an extension to the nature of human intellect and its limitations made few hundred years ago(Kant, Hume, whose dialogues on natural religion are still relevant and I recommend them to you). I am really not sure what you are aiming at here, nor do I think doing philosophy by applying science makes much sense, in this context or whichever else; scientific facts are not debatable, philosophy debates on their consequences and implications, not argues for them by using sophistry like the cocky idiots over on ‘Knowthyself’ forum who think ‘morality’ can be ‘explained’ and ‘solved’ with ‘biology’ or ‘biological theories’.
About what I’d expect from you. And shudder to think of my fate here – anywhere – if you are this omnipotent being.
Though you are clearly not an omniscient being.
If I do say so myself.
Ok. How does this change the fact that evil is knowingly choosing to harm that which did not wrong it, against its will and against its best interest? It does not.
That’s where imperfect beings that are truly evil, exist perfectly. They get what they truly deserve. This is perfection. This is just the way Existence/God is. Perfect. Perfection is Omnipresent and all being exist perfectly in It and in relation to It.
There is informed consent to being evil. That is all that is required for being suitable for Hell. If you consent to wrongly harming others against their will and against their best interest, you accept that it’s right for you to be harmed against your will and against your best interest. Call this place where this happens to you, Hell. I cannot believe you think this does not suffice. In addition to this, people have been aware of the concept of Hell for ages.
Let’s keep this in line with pure reason. I’ve already shown you what my reply to you would like if I took your attitude. Don’t you think it’s childish and insecure of me to say:
I’m ten times the man that you are. I’ve overcome more hardships then your baby mind can ever imagine, and it was easy for me because I’m ten times the man that you are. If you were put in the same circumstance as me, you would break so fast it would make your head spin. You don’t know shit about life. You don’t know shit about how to deal with evil or how to put it in its place. You don’t have a clue. You like evil. I don’t like you.
Thanks Observr524
Can you refute the argument in the OP without running into paradoxes?
Do you mean to say that you think imperfection exists in Existence? If so, I will argue that it does not. Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. Objectively that = a perfect existence (can you conceive of something better than a perfect existence?). In such an existence, perfection is omnipresent. If there was one point, moment, or instance of imperfection in such an existence, then that existence is by definition, imperfect.
Given the OP, Perfection (a perfect existence) is the case. Thus, by definition, all beings must exist perfectly in such an Existence. Imperfect beings exist. Some are evil and some are good. Since it is perfection for everyone to get what they truly/perfectly deserve, so long as the evil ones exist in a manner that is against their will and against their best interest, and the good ones exist in a manner that is in line with their will and their best interest, then everyone is existing perfectly. In other words, there is 0 injustice/evil in this Existence because everyone is getting what they truly/perfectly deserve without fail. Where this is not the case, then can it be said that there is evil/injustice or imperfection in existence. Regardless of how things look to us, given the OP, pure reason dictates there is no evil/injustice or imperfection in our Existence.
I do try. If you look to my last reply on infinity, I think this shows. Do you also try? In our discussion on Infinity, I did not shift to your label or word usage and you did not shift to mine. You say that I am wrong because I do not use words (infinity) the way they are commonly used, and I say I am justified in this because their common usage creates paradoxes.
Indeed. If it is the case that I keep this “I’m right - your wrong” thing going without finding out WHY anyone is right or wrong simply because I refuse to address the words, then of course I’m at fault. Of course I’m being evil in that instance. As I am an adult, I am less forgivable than a child and therefore more worthy of punishment than had a child done what you describe. It would take a lack of character or passion for goodness on my part to be doing what you describe. Some degree of evil (in the from of arrogance and a product of lacking humility) must be present in me for me to be doing in the manner that you describe. Would it no be perfection for me to suffer a loss of good as a result of this? Do you not want arrogant people to be put in their place? Is it not perfection for everyone to get what they truly/perfectly deserve? Is this not a perfect aspect of Existence?
I don’t know where you think we have a words issue here. Regarding infinity, that is a different matter. Look at my last reply to you and tell me if you still think that I’m unjustified in my decision to label actually infinity ‘Infinite’, and potential infinity (which mainstream maths calls infinite) ‘semi-infinite’. Obviously, I hope I’m not really evil or stiff-necked, but I don’t know for sure. You do evil/badly sometimes and you regret it if you’ve not allowed your conscience or genuine sense of good to be suffocated just so you can comfort yourself. For example, I am somewhat unhappy with how I replied to Zeroeth nature. I did sense some degree of evil on my part, and I did not reconcile this. Though I did not attack him, I didn’t care about how things looked in my reply to him, despite being aware of how things looked and how they might be interpreted by him. Had he not called me stiff-necked, I would not have done this. Had I changed dog to wall, it would have been better. It wouldn’t look evil to me.
I’m going to be frustrating here certainly, and refer you to this thread…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196448
It’s 4 pages right now, but will save us a ton of time.
If you don’t bother, it doesn’t bother me.
If you can’t be bothered to properly reply to the points that I have made, and, believe yourself to be going to be frustrating but still choose to commit to it anyway, then there’s no good or virtue in me trying to convince you that your belief system (or religion as I’d like to call it) is wrong.
I already have.
Punishment, torture, torment and abuse are all imperfect.
There is no such thing as a perfect way to do them because they are imperfect in and of themselves.
Very simple; that’s why you’re wrong.
You don’t need dichotomies in existence, just otherness… what James called affectance.
I think there is a misunderstanding of my post. I was not trying to present actual argument or comments. I was merely presenting an example of how to respond in order to achieve better communication.
I believe that definition is insufficient for discussion, much like “infinity = existence”.
Didn’t you just contradicted yourself?
That seems to be a subjective value judgement not a matter of facts.
“Deserve”? According to what factual standard? What defines when something is deserved?
The above are examples of my point here.
To you it seems that the word “perfection” implies a fact. But I do not believe that is correct. The concept of “perfect” requires a relative standard. But relative to specifically what standard? - “perfectly perfect”? - “perfectly good”? - “perfect for our sales margin”? - “perfectly vague”?
And I say that you haven’t seen how that word is commonly used. You have been using it uncommonly without realizing it. You see paradox because you misunderstand the words. Then you try to resolve the paradox by compounding the misrepresentation of the original intent by adding new words - a strawman argument.
I have just pointed out a couple of more. I wanted to see if you could get that word “infinity” updated before I went into other words. But I suspect you are just going to insist that you are right in your word usage regardless of any evidence I present.
I did. And I do.
What you claim logically implies that you don’t think it’s perfection for someone like Fritzl to be punished. Punishment = harming someone against their will and against their best interest. If you think it’s ok to not punish evil, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. You uphold your belief system, I’ll uphold mine.
I 100% agree with the fact that people can be disempowered rather than punished. Disempower abusers, make them take a ‘time out’ to reflect on how they misused their power, set them in the corner with a dunce cap for a while. Actually, even better, change their heart.
I’ve already told you this CR,
Your mind is scary. You actually believe everything that occurs in existence is perfect, thus no matter what we do (you by default) is perfect. But then you get confused and say that only god is perfect, but then you get confused and say because god is perfect and we’re all subsets of god, we’re all perfect.
We haven’t really delved yet into the magnitude of your contradictions in this thread yet. I’m coming at this from the most parsimonious way right now, and we can move from there.
Why? Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived (contradictory to deny). There is nothing better than a perfect existence (again, contradictory to deny). This is the outline. It’s sufficient in that its rejection is paradoxical.
No. x is imperfect and evil. x is getting what he perfectly deserves. Therefore x is existing perfectly. Everything in a perfect existence exists perfectly. This includes all imperfect beings. Where is the contradiction?
Ok then. In a perfect existence, those who are truly evil (of which I do not know who), end up suffering against their will and against their best interest, and those who are truly good (again, of which I do not know who), end up existing happily.
Existence defines when something is deserved or not. If x is such that he is unfair, then x is worthy of punishment. If need be, we can have a separate discussion on what constitutes being unfair, but I think it clear to both of us what constitutes unfair to a reasonable degree. The unfair person deserves punishment. The fair person does not.
I think you were too hasty in your conclusion. You didn’t even give me a chance to address your points. Look to the above and my replies, and show me again how the above are examples of your point if you are right.
Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. It does not matter to me if people use phrases such as ‘infinitely vague’ or ‘perfectly vague’ or ‘infinitely good’ or ‘perfectly good’. Simply put, perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. Do you agree with this? If yes, what is the point of talking about cases where people use the word perfect in an incorrect manner?
And how does perfect require a relative standard? Any rational human being will recognise that there is nothing better than a perfect existence. Suppose x said that he thinks there is nothing better than a perfect life. I would then ask x, would this life be better in a perfect existence? If x is at all reasonable, he would say yes it would. This proves that you cannot have perfection in an imperfect existence. For any given thing that you give me, it can be made better by virtue of it existing in a perfect existence. It can be made better by existence being perfect (the exception of course, is the perfect existence Itself, because it just is perfect…it cannot be made any better)
No, I see a paradox where others also see paradox. This is what I said to you in the other thread:
It doesn’t really matter who said x. What matters is that x be non-paradoxical. I know what Cantor said and I see a paradox in what he said. He also saw this himself. Thus, clearly, what he said was problematic/paradoxical. I think we should solve this in a genuine manner. Not ignore it and settle for some clearly unfulfilling theory (as all other forms of set theory have attempted to do).
So I don’t understand why you accuse me of seeing a paradox as a result of me misunderstanding the words. I am not adding new semantics. You cannot create semantics. You can try to label semantics in a manner that avoids creating confusion and paradoxes (which is what I’m trying to do). Again, had Cantor distinguished between actual infinity and potential infinity, he may have resolved the paradox that he himself saw.
I feel like you’re not looking at the evidence that I’m presenting, and your words suggest that you feel the same way.
In any case, I’ve addressed all your points on perfection. If I have not, then tell me which point I did not address. So with all that has been said, can you reject the OP without hitting a paradox?
CR,
You’re a fucking psychopath.
Here’s the deal you piece of shit scary ass god head.
If ANYONE in all of existence is having their consent violated in any way, it’s impossible for me to be in heaven.
You have no clue what you’re talking about.
Where what has been reported in the news about Fritzl is true, I don’t think a ‘time out’ is sufficient. As for changing their heart, sure, you could deprive them of their free-will, that way they are no longer good or evil. Alternatively, give them their free-will, give them knowledge on what is good and evil, and then let them consent to what they want to be. Let them choose what they want to be. You cannot change someone from evil to good without them changing themselves. It’s the way free-will is. If you choose for x for x to be good, then x did not have any choice in the matter. Therefore x is not morally good. x is a robot. If they are not willingly good, then they are not good are they? If they are willingly evil, then they are evil aren’t they?
Neither I nor you can do anything unless its perfection. But we are not responsible for perfection. We are not the instantiates of perfection. God is. We are only responsible for ourselves. If we choose to view existence as evil or imperfect, or choose ourselves to be evil, we will suffer because God won’t allow for anything other than perfection. We are imperfect beings existing perfectly because Existence/God is Perfect. This perfection is not as a result of us being imperfect.
I think you are biased and prejudiced (at least in this instance). Your reasoning is not pure. You allow yourself to take the appearance of things as facts that go against the dictates of pure reason. This is unreasonable.
Just a reminder that given the manner in which I associate an omnipotent being with God, and God with immortality and salvation, I am always interested in actual empirical, material, substantive proof of His existence.
Something more substantial then an exchange of more or less blind faith and arguments that consist of words defining and defending yet more words still.
If that sort of proof ever pops up on the thread, please let me know.
After all, the abyss that is oblivion being considerably more relevant for some than for others.
I think I’ve said all I needed to say to you.
And I’ve said all I needed to you. You’re a psychopath.
And I can guarantee you, you do not want to go to the hell you ‘deserve’.
My advice to you, shut the fuck up and learn.
May I also remind that as far as human knowledge is concerned, there is no higher authority than pure reason or a priori truths. The OP shows that it is clearly paradoxical to view Existence as imperfect. Where this is not refuted, it must be acknowledge as truth. None should accept any paradoxes in their belief system. Again, if a man’s belief system is paradoxical because he thinks non-existence can exist, or triangles are four sided, or Existence is imperfect, then he is at fault. He is not being reasonable.
If a man claimed he was Jesus and he started healing the sick, giving eyesight to the blind, and walking on water, and claimed that God exists and that he is Jesus, his proof will still only be empirical and therefore susceptible to doubt. Pure reason, is not susceptible to doubt. There is nothing more substantial than it when it comes to understanding matters of truth.
You don’t even understand infinity.
There is no highest infinity, there is no highest dimension … the word ALL cannot apply to infinity.
To exclaim that god is ALL is a mathematical contradiction.
I know you don’t realize this CR, I’m a resurrected being… my job is to fix existence as you know it.
When a being like you comes to a being like me, and states that ANY punishment is ‘perfect’, I’m going to fuck with you a little bit.
Hmm…
What part of “empirical, material, substantive proof” don’t you understand?
Look, if Jesus Christ does come back, every media outlet around the globe will “interrupt this broadcast” in order to bring us the latest substantial evidence that in fact He is Jesus Christ [God embodied?] “for real”.
Now, you might go up to Him after He walks on water, heals all the sick, gives eyesight to all the blind and performs countless other acts that could only be described as “miraculous”, and make your pitch to Him and to the world about “pure reason” and “a priori truths”…but I suspect not many will be more inclined to choose you over Him.
But that’s just me.