Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right?

And as far as tiny brains, are you suggesting the bigger the brain is, the better?

Anyway, what do you mean by senseless? Do you mean a sense of purpose? — 3017amen

By senseless I mean absence of final purpose of anything.We are just floating on this tiny rock in this vast universe.I am saying fathoming the universe in our tiny brain is impossible

I am not denying the existence of God but we may be ruled by a benevolent deity to an evil alien civilization who is also in other words God.

Okay. What then explains existence? — 3017amen

Why should it be explained?We humans just try to fit everything in our tiny brains and take for granted that everything should be explain in this vast universe.What if everything is senseless?.

Third Reich led by NSDAP controls the UK, basically all of West East and parts of East Europe. Now the deceased victorious leader of Germany, Otto Strasser, is worshipped as a God like figure. Now understanding that Hitler was crucial part for Germany not to succeed, and that when lead by the leftist Strasser the Germans indeed somehow could pull off a remarkable victory against the allies, the actor then decides to halt himself before killing this baby, which is so crucial for peace and democracy to prevail and for Nazi Germany to collapse. Once on the ground again in 1889 the first actor doesn't believe this second himself coming from this alternated future and the actor ends up killing the first himself. By doing this, he kills also himself and then the city of Linz police have this strange case of identical twins committing suicide close to the house where the Hitlers live. And history resumes it's course that we know and Germany loses WW2.

Well, not funny, but anyway, just making the point how alternate history is problematic. — ssu

I agree.

n his post, Marco suggests that the established physics fails to explain all observations in three main aspects. First of all, he points out that our current knowledge of physics cannot explain how the universe began and everything about the beginning of the universe is now still under the category of science fiction. Secondly, he states that our established physics cannot explain why fundamental constants and other properties of the universe are as they are. Lastly, he talks about the second law of thermodynamics and suggests that the established physics can only describe this law, but cannot explain why this is the case. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that the existence of God can explain all these things, for there are records of God doing something scientifically impossible. — Isabel Hu

If we say that God is the reason for these things then why can't we attribute it to chance alone.What if everything was an accident that turned out to be something stable(our universe).What if the exact workings of chance in this universe are beyond our intelligence?.What if the highest probable event known to us might be the rarest thing to happen in this universe?.My conclusion is WE JUST DON"T KNOWbecause we are entities just floating on a tiny speck in this vast universe.We just come up with these arguments just to convince us that some higher and immaculate entity is present in this universe because it is just depressing to think that you are the most refined entity the universe can make.

One of these things is not like the others. — Pfhorrest

:razz:

Hitler from the Nazi-party, and same things would still have happen, as they previously did. And we would still be in same situation. Probably would have needed to wipe out whole ideology, and that would have had led to slaughter of whole Nazi-Germany, and afterwards his acts would have been recognized way worse than Hitlers was. Still that man had some pretty horrible idea, and probably lacked moral. — batsushi7

In my opinion if Hitler didn't exist then most likely the Nazi party wouldn't have reached this present fame.

Why would have he killed the baby tho? Just he could have taken/adopt the baby Hitler, and would have raised him to be good. Perhaps he could have raised him with liberal,green,feminist ideologue, and the result would be something like he would march in LGBT parades, support capitalism, and welfare. — batsushi7

Now, what would the world be like if the aforementioned things happened?

As baby's don't have comprehension or fear of their own death it wouldn't cause any suffering, so far as I can tell. — JacobPhilosophy

I think this topic is now wandering outside NU because in NU our only goal is to remove suffering and I think the baby is neither happy nor suffering now.So we can justify its killing even in positive utilitarianism because as you said killing the baby is fun for the parents and no on outside mourns for the infants death.

Suppose you have a $100 bill, and a molecule-for-molecule counterfeit of one — hypericin

If it is that exact of a copy then it shouldn't be considered a counterfeit and is there any other distinguishing feature you haven't mentioned.

Ergo, if such a document allowing somebody to do so is now legal, all I have to do is enter somebody's home with a pistol, shoot them, and show the cops a document one could presumably in the idea of freedom, print out from their home computer and sign. Not complicated. — Outlander

Don't always see it as a tool for misconduct.

Right now I'm thinking of a 10 digit number. I'm not repeating it, and there's no way I will remember it in 5 minutes. Could a sufficiently clever alien, arriving on a venus like earth 10 million years from now, retrieve it? — hypericin

I think the no hiding theorem is more about quantum information than about memory.I think it is
totally possible to retrieve your memory if it is stored in the form of waves.

his is why I believe, under my view, that it is amoral — JacobPhilosophy

I am not thinking it should be amoral.It is nothing.The infant should be left.But anyways Karl popper(philosopher who introduced NU) knew that it would entail the possibility of killing people.

There are plenty of smart people who don't discuss it at all. — Pro Hominem

Yeah I think I went too far there.I apologize. Every branch of philosophy contains smart people. These are the people I think are smart in the branch of theology.

so murder is only permissible using NU when the baby is suffering, so as to minimize it in death? If this is the case, how do we decide when an agent becomes morally valuable? Is it when they gain consciousness/ sentience? — JacobPhilosophy

Suppose we have a super infant who can speak and think properly from the moment of his/her birth.

I think its moral under NU to kill the baby if the infant says that he/she does not want to live in this world.

I think its immoral to kill the baby under NU if the infant refuses to die and wants to live in this world.

I think it is amoral to kill the baby under NU if the infant neither derives pain or pleasure from dying or living.

But here we do not have a super infant.How can anything be decided about its wants?

If morality is a stage ,then:A stage which is nice and strong is moral
A stage which is dirty and weak is immoral(supposing moral is greater than immoral) A stage which is non existent but still can be build into strong(moral)
or weak(immoral) stages is amoral.(supposing that amoral actions can be viewed as immoral or moral)

But in the infant case there is no idea of stage.

I am no philosophy student but please correct me if I am wrong.

Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy

No need to apologize its just a healthy argument.

I simply want to learn together with others. Is that possible here? — Ansiktsburk

That is totally possible.Just do not expect others to feel that they are learning with you,some people just want to win over others.But learning totally allowed here.

I have noone to discuss Nietzsche or Sartre. — Ansiktsburk

Same here.

Can you clarify the method they employ to kill the infant?

Please provide your data. — Pro Hominem

Martin Luther,Soren Kierkegaard,Fyodor Dostoevsky(not considered a theologian but discusses theology).I think they are smart because they didn't write for their time but took the fundamentals of everything from human attitude towards divinity to why we should take the 'leap of faith'.

My point was there there wouldn't need to be a reason. They could do it just for the fun of it, and it would cause no suffering, if the murder was painless. — JacobPhilosophy

Here there wouldn't be reason because you didn't pick a decision making entity.In NU actions which minimize suffering are considered good.In the first case I proposed its okay to "murder" the infant because it minimizes suffering.
But just doing for the fun of it isn't going to get us anywhere.
But if you say that the parents are killing the baby because they don't want the infant to live in this cruel world created by a cruel god.Then they should have known that Anti natalism is an option.

ouldn't one justify murdering their own child? Assuming both parents agree and no one exterior to them would mourn the death of the new-born, and assuming that the death is painless, surely this wouldn't cause any suffering, no? — JacobPhilosophy

You did not place the parents in a context here.Let me do it for you

1st Case:
The child has some rare genetic disorder in which he/she will have amplified pain sensitivity.So then killing the baby is justified because the parents want to reduce suffering for their child.

2nd Case:
They wanted a boy but it was a girl .So now they decided to kill the child.Now it is wrong because the main aim of NU is to reduce suffering(death etc).Now what if the child lives to an age of 100 years and dies happily Or live only up to an age of 12 years and still lives happily.

In the second case the parents are preventing happiness for their child for their own satisfaction. Isn't selfishness wrong in NU?

But having a purpose isn't the defining feature of objects.

Ostrich can't fly nevertheless it has wings.

Wrong fellow, it is also the deliberate act of intelligence. You will never find me discussing the theology of the Christian Holy Spirit, not because I'm lazy, but because I'm too smart to waste my life on something so fantastically absurd. — JerseyFlight

But discussing theology is not a "non-smart" thing.In fact it is the thing that is mostly discused in the world by smart people.

I think people who do things of questionable or blatant disregard for morality fall into two categories. Those who believe they are doing what they're doing for a greater good (with or without sufficient evidence or solid reasoning - for example teasing or harassing someone sensitive so they can "grow thicker skin", the logic being life can be tough and the more crap you can tolerate the better off you'll be) — Outlander

But if a person thinks he is doing something for a greater good which is now harmful to some one and beneficial to some others,can he be considered totally bad or good because this becomes a matter of perspective.

So even if you proved in best rational to prove they are wrong, they just simply ignore you because of faith and religion. What only makes them want to seek meaningful argument that fits their religious agenda. — batsushi7

But even then some questions are still debated .

I would like eternal life, so perhaps I wish I could turn into God, or some powerful being. — batsushi7

I have a video advice for you

Click here

So, for example, the two of us, conscious beings, can become unconscious. By non-conscious people generally refer to things that were never conscious in the first place like rocks for example. — TheMadFool

True.And whats your view on afterlife.

Don't be too much of an excrement poet. Graffiti invites graffiti. — Nils Loc

atisfied if they take out the garbage this time. — MortalsWrath

And excreta attract flies which attract the crows.

I call the community in the here and now, rise up in mutiny, and tell the moderators exactly what you think of their mother, and quite possibly where she was last night. — MortalsWrath

That is rude they will be offended by knowing that she was with me.

God negates justice — JerseyFlight

Can you elaborate on that?

n contrast, Western conceptions of God describe a creator/created, master/slave, owner/property arrangement that is entirely inconsistent with these "justice adjacent" concepts. Being coerced into behavior that one does not wish to participate in through the threat of social or physical harm is not just, yet it is the foundation of most God-centered enterprises. — Pro Hominem

How do you think we got the conception that god is just?Did we start by conceptualizing that god was just or more simply was our morality back then deontological or Consequentialism.

Does it require other people? Probably. It's hard to believe that if there were only one living human, they would give much thought to justice. — Pro Hominem

I agree with you.So you think that justice does not reside in an entity but in relation between the entities.

I would say you are partially correct in the sense that morality is based upon human flourishing.But here the word 'Human' in my opinion doesn't encompass whole population.So what might be 'flourishing for some one might be 'torture' for some one.Based on these views we can say that nothing is inherently moral or immoral.