I'd be happy to discuss this as well, it's really interesting.

I suppose a god exists. I acknowledge my suppositions can possibly be wrong, but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief.

However, I do not suppose I know the nature of God; as God is undefinable to begin with — he does not possess intrinsic accidental nor essential attributes. What we know of him, is only approximate. In fact, his maximum superiority is not mentioned in the bible (eg. omniscience and omnipotence) so we do not know for sure what conceptually, God is.

I will also have my take on an argument for God, specifically. It will tackle religious pragmatism and the underlying paradoxical characteristics towards the indication of flaws in faith.

I believe in God; the christian god specifically in the roman catholic belief that's monotheistic. I believe in God solely by faith. The god named God. I couldn't simplify it further.

Furthermore, we know it's complete madness when we acknowledge the fact that saying our mad thoughts out loud would cause repercussions, let alone building it to structure; into something we believe is art. That bringing our thoughts to life can be really immoral, that influences our actions, like hunger drives us to greed. Some can be fundamentally artistic, like a poem against world war, supports art morally.

I guess what I am implying is that the presence of our dark thoughts is only known by ourselves alone. No seriously, nobody knows the most peculiar, abhorrent, and treacherous thoughts that contain our imagination. How does that correlate to art and madness? is that the selection of our imagination is evidence that art and madness has a disparity. When we think of madness, we are able to isolate that directly from creativity and artistic preferences — putting them to words is the difficult process.

If cooled down then the concept of pedophilia is refined, therefore not the maximum idea is portrayed. Pedophilia, unless portrayed to convey a message, is just disgusting. I am confused I am sorry.

I do understand the argument of the correlation of these two things despite their antonymous characteristics. But that idea of those two words being antonyms, has to possess a definitive disparity - because if not, then people wouldn't be able to distinguish art from things that are not artistic. People know pain because they experience pleasure — in fact, the understanding of degrees in everything came from the combination of British empiricism and rationalism, although it wasn't identified like that before.

That is insensible. If there were no difference, then a person who is opinionated that pedophilia is an art, has it's validity about creativity and logically, it is considered to be an art.

I am a theist. I believe in God and I am in a religion - so we have different perspectives.

To be honest, it's incredibly difficult to show that God does exist, but it's super easy to disprove why he doesn't — OpinionsMatter

Karl Popper's theory of falsificationism

If a theory cannot be disproved or falsified - It is not scientific. This is true as the existence of God is not by the validity of observations but by faith. Philosophically, faith relies on believing something without conclusive evidence, so it is not much valuable in the table of Philosophy.

What I do believe; is that it takes more faith to attempt to disprove the existence of God than believing in him. The concept really, is that faith does not require arguments, the philosophy of religion should rely on faith and faith alone. Obviously, that was not the case for free-thinkers, and thus, the constant argument for the existence of a god was born.

So is it fair to assume that this all began because of questions from atheism? If so disproving the existence of a god requires more faith. More ideology.

By representation do you mean, something reprising a role of a primary subject or merely just an assumption?

The events of our creation was caused by this causer, so I apologise, I don't understand. If he created us, which if you are theistic or not, that is a known concept, he should be capable to intertwine with contingent affairs.

The necessary being, God; is omniscient so he should be able to know the perspective of contingent beings, and therefore still be the reason of causing that cure. The curing process though, might be something really out of the detail, one small alteration of ecological relationships or just one more carcinogen causing cancer. The necessity of him actually leads to knowledge beyond the human capacity to know, so yes, he should be able to intertwine to contingent events.

:lol:

Take Aquinas' argument on God's existence. The theory of causation and motion - that things has happened because of a necessary being making that happen. The doctor who, you argued, made your prayer come true, is also because of God - back when he was in primary to his present career, it was caused by an uncaused causer.

Personally, I believe the arguments of Aquinas and most especially Anselm are not much of logical value, but they can be potentially utilised for other arguments - like prayer. Whether it makes sense or not, we really just can't know God yet for sure as even his characteristics as an all knowing and powerful god is not written in the bible.

To add, something necessary would be like a Mathematical statement. As a mathematical statement cannot be contradicted unless its beginning terms are altered. Something contingent would be like an opinion 'All cats are yellow' just because all the cats you saw were yellow - doesn't necessarily mean all cats are yellow.

The difference is the state of being. Contingent beings like us human beings, do not correlate to godly principles. Necessary beings like God or a god - do not correlate to humanly principles. So the argument for the existence of God by Anselm and Aquinas mostly imply to necessary beings.

An example would be the envy of God - he will not allow you to praise other gods or prophets beside him. Yet envy for him, is only approximate to human envy as he is undefinable.

A prayer of thanksgiving is gratitude for the things you have today which logically, is because of prayer - or God's (regardless of what god) actions. To conclude, if the existence of God is true, we only know an approximate definition of him. Therefore the accidental and essential intrinsic attributes cannot define God - he is undefinable.

Then you did exactly that by praying about the dog simply to see what would happen. — emancipate

Negative. A prayer should be in a form of request and when granted by God, it is a gift. Although this theory somewhat contradicts with free will and human's rational capability, a request - happens for a reason. When Jesus was tempted by Satan - he was dared to 'call thy angels as the Lord will catch you when you fall'. That is no longer considered as a request, as it is more of a condition, than a request.

A test is a dare without any faithful ideology. Just to see what happens.

So we have reached an agreement.

I am taking judgement by given information

• He has no sign of addiction or alcholism.

• The situation has happened only a few times.

Just because a few mishaps of personality wherein he doesn't actually get to control his identity because of a case of drunkness, does not condone necessity of breaking that relationship. It is understandable that he must have a moral duty to apologise for being an asshole, as it is his decision to be drinking in the first place; that he should be mature enough to remember the consequential happenings of drinking. I understand that he should still be held accountable for these past actions. However a mature relationship is to understand the flaws of the other, and to address these flaws beforehand, if he disagrees so, then there is no reason to wait.

But if these actions are not addressed in the first place for change and consideration, it would be just plain spiteful to leave him, as it is not recognised directly as - a problem.

what is he saying while sober? It's not "sorry I made you feel uncomfortable and disgusted by my actions while I was hammered, I don't want to put you through that again, I'm going to commit to not getting so drunk around you or whatever else". — Judaka

That is also not given. I mean, has he said, something LIKE that at least?

here
is a link to my question regarding two decisions and which outweighs the otherethically, and morally that is somehow related to this topic.

I do believe that as a girlfriend — she should not make an evaluation immediately and should take it for a while and see how it goes.

He's forcing her to make a choice but I don't think it's right that the guy just acts like a bystander. — Judaka

I also think that he is not forcing her to make a decision. When having an intimate relationship,
I guess this one might be an exception as they are, like she said, have only dated 6 times. Other than that, it wasn't mentioned how long they were for together. It should be common to be comfortable around one's company, so he is merely doing the typical characteristic of intimacy in a relationship. As like the girlfriend asserts, he still treats the girlfriend as it follows:

During the times he is sober he has never done anything crazy. He was a respectful man, and he treated me with chivalry. — Susu

Assuming the argument, the narrative here is how much moral actions be allowed to redeem some immoral actions. Because evidently in her post, he sounds like a man of respect besides being drunk.

If this guy really cares about you then he should have more respect for you than getting hammered in your presence and making you feel uncomfortable. — Judaka

So the man is wrong for being excessively drunk, which is occasionally, yet not right for acting with chivalry and respect when he is sober? Personal identity varies by the person's capacity to think. Empiricist philosopher John Locke proposed this 'memory theory' that your memories is what makes you, you. If the memories, including the memory to act with respect and chivalry, are not carried by him as he was drunk, he should not be held accountable for these actions. Yes, it was his choice to get drunk, but it wasn't no longer after he had a few drinks.

I would gladly participate into that discussion. It gets complex by the time where you know who the people are on the railroad, how personal motivations affect your utilitarian views.

Thank you so much for your answer.

Not “unethical” exactly. My moral view is both determined and determinate in terms of ethics. — I like sushi

I apologise, I don't understand. Determined meaning permanent dogmas that can't be contradicted?

I merely just extrapolated the distinction of morality and ethics, and partly to see your conclusion, which was unclear. Do you conclude that one is good and the other be bad? or maybe something else? The whole point of my question was really to merge metaphysical principles, to ethics, and how by doing so (in relating to your decision) disrupt your pursuit of happiness, the hedonist view of meaning.

Will changing your essential attributes affect your existential authenticity at the same time your happiness? The answer I was hoping to acquire was something with a set of rules, like how the size of something that's deemed flawed or toxic affect your ethical life.

In my opinion, language does not necessarily conform to being part of a country. Not speaking the language, does not affect a person's compliance to being a person of that country - as long as the cultural traditions, interests, and preferences etc are met.

One can be considered Spanish, if by heart the person believes they are Spanish. However, it doesn't change the essential fact that they are not Hispanic.

I would listen, and do, to critique about my behaviour, but I certainly wouldn’t take what some random people say about me as “correct” and the “best way to live” MY life.

That is considerably, the most passionate answer. As opinions from other people do not really matter, not because it's your life, but because you feel you got it together. Would that be an unethical thing to do? as, like you said:

Ethics is about what people as a whole view as “right” — I like sushi

That is only but of, a branch of the whole ethics rudiment. It is only between consequentialism; pros and cons are measured to determine what is right, and utilitarianism, wherein what is right is distinguished by the amount of people an action makes happy.

So your decision, toxic attributes (We all have some of those) must be taken into consideration but not some arbitrary audience on my 'correct' way of living life. Rejecting utilitarianism, according to you, ethics is about what most people think is 'right' so you living your life as you want it to, is unethical?

First, you can't automatically assume that criticism of others has any merit.

So the evaluation of morality or, criticism having any merit, depends on your ethical perspective?

These toxic attributes I mentioned, can either be accidental or essential. Comparatively, accidental attributes would not necessarily affect existential authenticity as essential attributes do. Suppose you're addicted to drugs, your mother would probably ask you to change as it is immoral; by government laws, and unethical; just by your mother's perspective. lessening your drug use would still make you a drug addict, but removing it entirely changes your identity, you're not essentially, a drug addict.

Suppose your drug addiction was developed by peer pressure, ethically; peers would look at as ethically right most probably because by hedonist motivations, and not morality.

We all have at least some basic, shared implicit interests which are typically protected under a collaboratively constructed social contract.

Please do say I am wrong if I am. Isn't a set of laws and principles agreed upon people, morality despite motivation? and ethics being still a moral point of view, but not with certain dogmas and laws but free thinking and rational reasoning.

If you break one of these norms or live in a way counter them, even if it doesn't cause you strife or you don't have a problem with it, what you're doing would be an issue and you should change.

That matches entirely with morality and not ethics, but if reason is motivated with good purposes, would that negative action as you say a 'norm' be ethically correct but we could agree as, immoral?

We call plants alive but they don't have life.

—

Plants are alive as they fit into biological criteria of living, which as follows;

• Responsiveness to the environment.

• The ability to grow

• Procreation.

• Respire.

• Excrete.

• Have a unique set of cells.

• Move (Plants follow patterns of light energy).

To answer your question, several philosophers have a different perspective towards the essence of life. To begin, it should follow through by attributes of a person — and yes, you definitely are a living thing. What makes you, you though, is your attributes. Wherein attributes can either be: Accidental, or Essential. Accidental attributes, is like a handle of a knife, that can be wooden or rubber. An essential attribute, is what makes a knife, a knife, is it's blade — where without it, it would not be a knife.

For a human being, is where it gets tricky. Interestingly, numerous Philosophers from the roots of early existentialism and just dark nihilism, have paradoxical concepts of them. Some believed that life is just meaningless, wherein it's meaninglessness, actually makes the meaning. For an existentialist's view, they believe that it is up to you to develop that essence and thus, giving meaning to a meaningless life.

Thank you so much. That has brought me closer to a conclusion. The only thing I still want to know, is that should one necessarily be moral and the other be immoral? or one be moral and the other be less moral? or maybe both decisions does not conform to a set of principles?

I am really sorry if I am so fussy about this, it has really bothered me for the past weeks.

So will the man who is in discontentment, whom has changed in that 30 years, be the same person who did those traits in the last 30 years?

The interesting part is will that transition of 30 years change that man entirely and perhaps not be held responsible for his past traits. If he is content for inhumane actions and immoral traits, wherein the people who criticizes him are not, is that ethically moral? is that, good?