Human nature may be regarded as destructive because it has learned how to use nature and control nature to the degree it suits our purposes. — Brett

I think a lot of our needs require some sort of destructive elements. Eating for instance, terraforming our environment.,

But that's not specific to just humans. From bacteria to large animals, you see similar types of destructive behavior.

Reason responds in a fluid way. It’s fixed as a core attribute but it’s responses are fluid.

In fact our nature is exactly the same now as it was earlier. — Brett

I agree with this.

At our core, we need 4 basic things: eat, sleep, sex, drink. Everything we do revolves around delivering those 4 basic things at a particular combination specific to each individual.

So that will never change. What changes are the methods and strategies to attain the sufficient combination.

For example, 3 squares a day, 8 hours of sleep - are both recent inventions. Back then, people ate one large meal and maybe had a snack. And it was also common to break up sleeping periods into 2 distinct times. Some cultures have a "siesta" or nap period during the day, for example.

Perhaps I come from a different world to you because I have most certainly seen the darker side of 'normal'. And I really don't whether your view is the more common experience and whether or not mine is the deviant one? — Jack Cummins

I'm from the Philippines. One of the poorest countries in the world and where those types of behavior definitely occur but are still not the norm considering the population of 100 million.

For example, estimates of drug users are in the 4-5 million range.

There's also a healthy sex trade and a lot of alcoholics.

However, those are things that some of the poor are getting into because of their environment but it's hardly sustainable because of the costs involved. It's not something regular people want to get into just for the heck of it. Nobody wants to be a sex slave or to have to sell their kids.

The addicts I know got into it because they somehow got into the wrong crowd in school. And these crowds are typically led by kids with familial issues.

So, you were really supposing a better side of human nature than the one conjured up by your words. My imagination comes up with far different ones: the people who drink alcohol and take drugs secretly, work hard when the boss is watching but slack off when unsupervised and those who have secret sexual affairs, and endless other possibilities. Perhaps I have a grim picture. — Jack Cummins

Well, I'm sure those things occur as well but the fact that most consider those as "deviant" behaviors tells me that it's not the norm or default.

And as I've said, those things you mentioned like doing drugs, getting drunk, having affairs, etc... require considerable effort in procurement, implementation as well as post-binge recovery - not to mention the high risk of getting caught as well as the penalties involved.

And so, people that tend towards these things, in my opinion, have possible issues (such as possible abuse, environmental pressures, neglect etc...) that are causing them to behave negatively. These are not normal circumstances.

But if it is true that when no one is looking we just do what is convenient what does that say about our innermost, private relationship with ourselves? — Jack Cummins

When you posed the question, I immediately thought of the stoplight scenario where you're in an intersection with a red light. Nobody's around, no cameras, empty street, do you go or wait?

Another scenario would be where you maybe find yourself hungry and penniless and you come across a bakery with bread but no people. Do you get a loaf for yourself or do you wait for the owner to beg for food?

Or say you're at home in quarantine, do you try to learn new skills like a new language, take up an art, find work you can do at home or do you simply relax and wait for quarantine to end or your savings to get used up?

Over 1 trillion years, when technology and biology will have evolved enormously, will life be related to the same things as today, i.e. survival, the pursuit of happiness, the avoidance of suffering, love, hate, etc., or will it relate to completely different things that we cannot see today? — Eugen

I think living things will always want to survive and thrive, this means they will always want to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering and want to promote or enhance their well-being.

However, the form that life takes at that point might be very different - assuming complex sentient life survives or possibly return to their most basic form (amoeba, bacteria and other simple organisms) if sentient life doesn't survive.

I mean technically you do observe mass when you weigh something on a scale and we do observe energy everyday in terms of color, light and soundwaves. — Darkneos

Yes, we have standards of measurement so when we say that an object has such and such properties, we can easily confirm it to be true or not.

When it comes to subjects that can't be measured such as feelings, or personal experience, then it becomes more tricky because we would need more than just testimony to confirm a statement.

I think the question you ask, 'What would you do when no one is watching?'is a good one to ask to reveal to us the depths of our individual nature because it goes beyond the facade and pretence we maintain to pretend to others about being a 'good' person. — Jack Cummins

I think the answer to that is we'll do what's most convenient.

It probably occurs subconscious in filtering our information to fit into our thought system and probably at the worst it sustains prejudice. But mindset is probably also a factor. For example, if one is feeling low in mood it would be more likely to tune into hearing comments of a critical nature. Concentration and attention also play a factor. I know that when I have been told that when I am busy concentrating on something, especially reading, I can become almost oblivious to my sensory surroundings. — Jack Cummins

I can totally relate haha

Anyway, yes I agree that all those things come into play in adding obstacles to how we see or don't see things.

I believe this is why it's necessary for us to be with others to sort of calibrate our view of reality. Even if we're of the same mind, like you said we'll never experience something exactly the same way and so we need to agree on some standards or some base concepts that are true regardless of our perception.

That's kind of why I don't like how divisive media can get. It's pegging people into either being this or that when both views are important.

I am suggesting the importance of mind in enabling us to be conscious creators of meaning. This is not denying the insights of neuroscientists, but I disputing the more behavioural perspective. The point which I am making is that we have choice in selecting, as minds, in selecting how to engage with the outer world. — Jack Cummins

Yes indeed. We can only absorb a limited amount of information and so we naturally end up filtering what doesn't fit with our world view.

So, 2 people can live in the same neighborhood and one can perceive a nice safe place but the other may see danger around every corner.

Besides mere filtering, we also end up reinforcing this belief - by keeping company with like minded individuals, favoring publications and hobbies that suit their perception.

So what is basically a shared reality becomes split into very different worldviews.

I remember my dad talking about how he used to hand deliver documents for his clients and then wait days or weeks for those documents to be processed and approved and only then can he get moving with regards to fulfilling the request. After doing so, he'd then wait a few weeks (sometimes months) for actual payment (he had a field plowing business). Because he had a limited number of tractors, he couldn't manage more than a few clients at a time in the 60s.

Now, we can be anywhere and make and fulfill transactions in minutes. That's a lot of time saved, allowing for more transactions and more business. And payments are also near instant.

So you could potentially be far more productive while at the same time have lots of free time to do whatever you wanted.

However, all this speed means we could also quickly get swamped or we could end up fighting for clients as business becomes easier for others to get into your niche. This is very stressful and our quality of life could suffer greatly.

But for sure, I'd rather be hospitalized now vs say in the 60s or earlier. I'm glad we're going through this Pandemic now vs the time prior to cable, internet etc...

Our human limitations are what requires us to be a part of a group to sort of give us a more complete picture - but still, the picture is still going to be incomplete as there are forces, zones, frequencies that humans cannot detect but are a vital aspect to the workings of the cosmos and the environment.

One example would be the magnetic field, which many animals use to navigate but some we can barely even detect.

Maybe, if we were to integrate better with nature, we might be able to get a better understanding of these other forces that would make our picture of reality more complete.

How could one justify the existence or purpose of a "Hell" then? — Outlander

Hell is a remnant concept that the Jews picked up from their captors - who didn't have Omni gods.

I think, that you can have utopian life, if there is nobody trying to convice you, to actually do something with you against your own opinion or without your permission. — SkOwl

Yes that would be ideal but again living with others means that we have to forgo some freedoms as you said in order to maintain a peaceful coexistence.

But, the education, justice/mediation systems would have helped ensure that issues never get blown out of proportion.

well-being means, at least from my point of view - doing whatever they want as long as it dont act toward somebody else without their own permission — SkOwl

Well-being for me is more like a state of being. As in being content, secure, comfortable etc... In the context of being part of a community that's living in an environment that's constantly changing.

That's one major element that I find missing in a lot of "utopian" models - the ever-changing environment.

I like the definition of music as emotional expression. The rhythm mimics and drives our heartbeat, the melody works around the rhythm telling a story.

Together, they capture our attention and can either match, enhance or change our mood. It can make us go from sitting quietly to dancing. Sometimes, the musicianship alone is enough to put us in a trance like state.

Music can convey so much emotional depth and nuance in just a few minutes that would require a writer to use many pages to capture if they only had words to work with.

I think a society that bases it's laws on the principle of preventing unnecessary harm and suffering would be a good start. The ultimate goal would be to enhance everyone's sense of well-being.

To achieve this as well as sustain it, I'm thinking that we should try integrating better with the environment - only taking what we need while giving back whatever we can to support the balance of nature - not change it as we're doing now.

We have examples of how this was being done with the native cultures worldwide who managed to survive and even thrive for thousands of years before being conquered.

We could integrate those principles and add our scientific knowledge to further enhance the relationship.

how do you know we were “planned to do” something from this being? it’s simply all-knowing. — Ignance

Maybe there is a plan maybe there isn't. Point is that in the context of this Omni-being, all it's creations can only do what it wants. There is no choice.

you don’t do certain things out of a laid out blueprint of your existence, you do whatever you FEEL you need to do in the present moment, whether that’s eating, going to work etc. there’s no magical being sending thoughts nor controlling you to do things.

Indeed. This is how I view things as well.

Yeah. There is 1 plan, or one path, whatever you wanna call it, which is this gods' alone and all it's creations are there do enact the plan.

The creations technically *can do something else but they never ever will.

Everything is planned, predetermined. According to most religion God has a plan for each and everyone of our lives. And then came free will. We have freedom to ignore this plan, and live and do as we please. Granted, it doesn't necessitate this non-acceptance wasn't known long before it happened and all actions aren't known. It means we have the freedom to either accept or reject the plan for our life. Theo-philosophically speaking at least. — Outlander

Only the option is available but you can never choose it. There is only the plan which all gods creations follow.

All acts are planned.

If I know a friend has an alcohol addiction, and I planned for him to become sober and improve his affairs, I could present every opportunity and yes even show him the most likely outcomes of either continuing or discontinuing his consumption, he still gets to make that choice and it is still his. So, if I offer him 5,000 dollars to either go to a nice rehab, and get his life on track, with the caveat that he can actually choose to spend it on whatever he wishes, I knew his choice, but it wasn't my plan. Makes sense somewhat eh? — Outlander

What's different with your example and this deity is that this deity made you knowing you would be an alcoholic.

This God didn't come in after your alcoholism offering a better option.

So this would be a better example:

You make robots that can do 2 things - go left or right and you know exactly which way the robots would go. Robot 1 - left, robot 2 - right, robot 3 - right etc....

The robots "can" go either direction but you already knew where they'd go prior to making them. So it's the same as if you made Robot 1 go left only, 2 right only, 3 right only etc...

can you both expand on your respective points for me, please? im not really grasping this. how can’t an omniscient being be a passive observer of these actions taking place? just because the being knows what’s going to happen before it happens wouldn’t mean the action wasn’t done out of the creature’s own accord/self interest? it’s not like God has a joystick for every individual organism and it has a hand in any actions taken by them? — Ignance

This being isn't passive because it also supposedly made us fully knowing each and every decision we were going to do. Everything was planned, predetermined.

We can never do what we weren't planned to do.

Well, that's interesting!

At any rate, this is also why I think there's a tremendous drop off in such events since the advent of commercially available recording equipment, not to mention the 24/7 surveillance most major cities have now without a single verifiable recording of such miracles or deities.

Our state is dependent on both the environment as well as how we choose to react with regards to the environment.

We cannot choose what happens to us for the most part but we can indeed choose how to react. It's not an automatic thing or rather, it doesn't have to be an automatic thing where a specific reaction always follows some specific event. There's a process involved and the more aware we are of that process, the more we can dictate how that event would affect us.

Our morality is based on our biological and cultural evolution. The biological part is based on what humans as a species need to survive and thrive, the cultural part is based on both the biological needs as well as what works for the group as a whole.

We can usually see 2 general principles at play in most organized systems:

1. The prevention of unnecessary harm and suffering as well as the promotion or enhancement of well-being."

2. Might makes right.

Successful cultures, societies, governments are those that adhere to the first principle the best. Systems that follow the second principle are often more dangerous, chaotic and overall inefficient.

The specific details are always changing because the environment is never static. The planet itself undergoes cycles and so cultures are typically going from one state to the other. Usually, younger or declining systems move towards Might makes right and the more mature or progressive systems favor the first principle.

That said, pertaining to your specific question:

On October 13th, about 70.000 - 100.000 people had assembled to observe what Portuguese newspapers had been ridiculing for months as the absurd claim of three shepherd children that a miracle was going to occur at high-noon in the Cova da Iria on October 13, 1917. According to many witness statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disk in the sky. It was said to be significantly less bright than normal, and cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The sun was then reported to have moved towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening some of those present who thought it meant the end of the world. Astronomers across the rest of the world did not observe any unusual activity of the sun.

In answer to the question "How many people can be simultaneously mistaken about the Sun hurtling toward the Earth", the answer is apparently somewhere between 70 and 100 thousand. 500, then, is small fry. (And, just to be clear, the Sun did not hurtle toward the Earth. We're still here.) — Kenosha Kid

Well, I have questions about this event as well.

The dancing sun phenomenon itself was said to have been some supernatural miracle but is it? Back in the day, people made prophecies about vanishing suns and moons, as well as predicting rain - but we already know all those things follow cycles and we know when the next eclipse will be coming.

So, is the dancing sun just another yet unknown natural phenomenon? Now of course we do have a prophecy so the question is does the church have records of such cycles? I believe they do.

There's also the whole timing of the thing. At that time, there was a great schism between Rome and Russia, between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox. So, might there have been some agenda that Rome was pushing?

Miracles or politics?

I have a couple of questions regarding this event.

Nowadays, we don't really consider witness accounts to be very reliable. We need additional evidence to be sure. That's why we have near mandatory video surveillance in major cities.

That's the difficult thing about religion as most are based on witness accounts.

So, if we were to subject those same witnesses to the same rigorous of questioning as we do (even to victims) today, how many of these accounts would be considered as valid?

There is a section regarding the resurrection that states that 500 people "saw Jesus." That is indeed a good number. But again, what I would ask is, how do those people know who they were looking at? Might this be an issue of mistaken identity?

We also have the account of Josephus, the sole account outside of the gospels that speak of a Jesus figure.

However, some are claiming that the section of Jesus was a recent addition to his work since just prior to that, he was known to have been highly skeptical of messianic figures. And he has also been shown to exaggerate things greatly.

So how trustworthy is this source?

Hate is not the opposite of love. The opposite of love would be indifference.

It may be more accurate to state that we would be less inclined to follow them absent the protection. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes that would be more accurate.

I think the belief that such rights exist has its basis in self-interest and, Ayn Rand and others notwithstanding, think that self-interest is not a virtue, and isn't a basis on which moral conduct should be determined or judged. The fact that all are entitled to such rights makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. — Ciceronianus the White

It may not be a virtue but self-interest is why most people do what they do. If laws weren't in place to protect our interests then we would be less compelled to follow them (edited).

But what is the source of this contentment? — The Questioning Bookworm

Its security. The feeling of safety.

The group provides us with most of our needs and the authority figures are there to ensure that these services continue.

We share an aversion to unnecessary pain and suffering. We share an aversion to unnecessary risk.

Leaving the group exposes us to all of that.

Thank you for pointing out my habit of placing judgment. To be honest, I find it difficult with my catholic background and my now non-theistic perspective.

That's why I'm interested in finding out the origin of this story to see the significance of the symbols they use. Because most of these things today might not mean the same thing as it did when this was first written.

Nothing - the conversation is very carefully free of judgement:

“Where are you?”
“I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”
“Who told you that you were naked?”

What is deemed ‘evil’ about nakedness is the fear of ‘evil’ to which such a state draws our attention: vulnerability, humility, judgement by others, etc. But initially, ‘evil’ is an arbitrary distinction which Adam derives from relating his state to God’s presence, and recognising a difference. — Possibility

Interesting how they used the awareness of nakedness to show the effect of this knowledge of evil. I'm curious to know the cultural significance of nakedness in those days.

At any rate, isn't this state of humility/inadequacy in the face of god something Christians are taught that we should have? Why is this being put in a bad light in this case?

Given that God appears to have created everything at this stage, and given Adam ‘dominion’ over all of it with only one instruction, it seems unlikely to have been a static or limited existence by comparison. — Possibility

Eden (barring the serpent) strikes me as a place where everything is seemingly perfect. No calamities or situations that cause some sort of scarcity and even competition. In effect the opposite of what we experience and what they experienced upon their banishment.

haha yes. But what else can we expect when we just launched the first space telescope in the 60s?

What is innocence? If it’s a lack of experience or knowledge of the world and how everything relates to each other, then humans would gain this over time, regardless of any distinction between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. It would certainly be much easier to develop this with the benefit of eternal life and information from God - our own distinction between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ seems more of a hindrance than a help in this respect. — Possibility

Yes indeed. The text does not explain exactly what "evil" is. They only show the after effect - for instance, how adam and eve suddenly discovered they were naked. So, now we're putting a value on the realization of nakedness or of nakedness itself being "evil." What about it is evil exactly?

It's also not clear what information from god they would have gained in their eternity. It could be just a static existence. Forever wandering around doing and seeing the same things.

I disagree that God made any attempt to delay experience or knowledge of the world in this story. People have a tendency to read a lot more into this story than is in the text. I was raised Catholic, and was actually quite shocked to read it after many years away from the church, and realise how much I had been ‘primed’ to interpret the text in a certain way. Developing introspective awareness of our tendency to judge the characters ‘good’ or ‘evil’ by eisegesis I think is part of the purpose of the story. — Possibility

Yes, I was raised Catholic as well and the "innocence lost" interpretation is what I could recall from that. But, I've since changed my perspective and don't really like the term "evil," to be honest. I find it to be such a loaded and possibly misused term.

At any rate, the point still stands that we don't exactly know what 95% of the universe is made of.

There is an assumption here that evil exists independent of human perspective. The way I see it, the dichotomy of good vs evil is an entirely human construction. What the serpent did, even what Adam and Eve did or didn’t do - none of this is perceived by God to be evil. The story implies that God judges them, but we are the ones passing judgement - we are the ones distinguishing between good and evil. — Possibility

I completely agree. It is a human construct and we are constantly changing these values.

What if he had chosen instead NOT to eat that fruit - what if he’d taken the option to heed the instruction from God (without necessarily ignoring information from the world), and eventually enjoy the fruit of eternal life?

What if there was no distinction between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ to speak of - just a choice between ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration? — Possibility

Another interpretation is that their eating the fruit resulted in the loss of their innocence.

Is it fair to expect humans to retain this innocence for an eternity?

It seems to me, god was hoping to delay the inevitable.

Indeed. And we're talking about G7 powerful countries here.

What of the rest of the world, who are far more and growing exponentially, who don't give a damn what they do to themselves and the planet?

Well, it's too late for that anyway. All we can do at this point is try to survive what's coming and cancer and heart disease will likely be secondary issues to basic survival needs - as it is already now for huge populations worldwide.

Yes, I think our group oriented nature is what's often forgotten when we talk about human nature. Our world view, moral compass, living habits are shaped by the various group systems we belong to.

I think it's a mistake to take man out of that context and treat the individual as if it were a separate completely "free" thing. It hardly ever is.

I expect that life expectancy to reset itself because, no matter what we do, climate change will continue to cause massive deaths worldwide and mankind is supposedly causing a 6th mass extinction event, or some asteroid will come for a visit, which means that possibly 90% of all life will die off.

However, the planet will reset itself and life will again flourish.

The question is what form "mankind" would take at that point:

Will mankind learn to coexist with one another as a productive part of this planet's ecosystem or will mankind be as it is now - eating, drinking and burning everything in sight?

If it's the former then yes, we should continue with all of the ways to extend our life. If not, then it doesn't matter because we'll just make the same mistakes and cause our own demise anyway.