A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything m, people woukdnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death. — Benj96
Who is the someone? — Benj96
"Possibly" being the key word. — Benj96
Ignorance is not an excuse. — Tzeentch
In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being. — Tzeentch
How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. — universeness
I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death! — universeness
But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward. — Benj96
Sure. — Tzeentch
The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first — universeness
Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not. — universeness
So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT. — universeness
Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' ... — universeness
Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question? — universeness
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell? — universeness
God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably — universeness
Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
— universeness
Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism. — Tzeentch
Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action. — Tzeentch
No, morality is about individuals, their intentions and their actions. That's what I am talking about. — Tzeentch
No, because that question is not relevant to my take on antinatalism. — Tzeentch
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?
— universeness
I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no". — Tzeentch
If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe that combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time — universeness
Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.
Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it — Benj96
One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit. — Benj96
Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. — Benj96
Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!" — Benj96
s that not possible, for God to have an existent? — Benj96
Exactly what i said earlier! You're right Universeness. — Benj96
. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent. — universeness
A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. — universeness
Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power — universeness
But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe). — Benj96
Are you going to admit you are a panpsychist Mr Benj or am I totally off the mark?But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe). — Benj96
Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality. — Benj96
Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy. — Benj96
You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question:
s that not possible, for God to have an existent? — universeness
Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are? — universeness
So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation. — Benj96
Yep is akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want. — universeness
Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.