Hell is either a grace, in that the right people are suffering, or a problem, in that the wrong people are suffering. When the forces of good are twisted or used neatly to put you in hell, you will suffer.

The greatest good is morality, the highest good is God.

If God is literally the name of the driving force and mirror that allowed life to begin.

Mirrors and forces are in the image of evil and good.

Good is an exclamation of 'what is', evil is a choice question about 'what isn't'. You use evil to affect good in strange ways, otherwise good is a matter of predetermined behaviours that all ought to be moral but in cases where we are engaged with technology our predetermined behaviours can change for the worse.

We're given a chance in, for example, our house, to redeem our natural, pre-tech-submission ,moral behaviour, you think passively as you conduct predetermined automation, you are confronted with impulses over your mind making you notice morality, and are either criminal or moral in mind.

Tech submission is fine but it ups the game.

that's nothing distinguishable with any true quota, it's merely your crews signature attitude. Fine, I won't argue against you, but I know most of you are wrong.

No, the problem is the flamboyant pseudo-intellectuals who have over-reacted to things for the past century, probably for social or even financial profit. There's nothing wrong with scouting your mind for theories about how life began, other life and why and how to be moral.

Because of these people we get ideas like: gender identity, going to Mars (for a need to 'get off the planet'), pointless wars(whereas religious wars were generally more meaningful), unfair trade, and much much more.

The pope doesn't seem like such a bad guy, he doesn't seem like the type to promote stupid policies, at least under his leadership our policies would be wise. It beats a quick look and moan about how confused you are.

Yes I do mean that and more. Hard is a broad category.

In my opinion it's all a moral consequence, it's fair that the sufferers are suffering, either by way of skill or law, and in the case someone would be unfairly suffering, it is compensated on the spot, such as farm animals existing in dimensionality nearby their suffering form to avoid any suffering. Everything is morally accurate, if you deserved to suffer because you were defeated or broke a high law and got caught, you suffer. If you're suffering coincidentally, a miracle happens and you avoid all of it.

understood, but isn't this just reaching the same conclusion, aren't you being malleable to be hard? Just wondering. It seems that you hypothetically want to perform greater than others in such a way it would reflect as 'hardness', or as I put, difficulty/tolerant - it seems so but in the face of the world, more.

For some of us, Lionino, I guess it isn't.

well if that's word salad to you others of the less intellectual of this obviously-perfect world feel the need to make a statement in disagreement with me again, try not to base it on promiscuity of history of like-minded people, because that would obviously be a foolish debate, and I'd probably ignore you.

My words have made a good imprint on this forum, I have set a good example. I'm sure they got across, beyond whatever mad, criminal delusion you're having...

I don't agree with you, it seems you lack the intellect that others don't to even make a valid contribution to this.

For example, what about the following is not an emotional response? Wanting a game of cards to work so you use human intervention.

In some respect Atheists aren't perfect representatives of Atheism, Atheism is not illogical but Atheists progress sometimes in a way that suggests it is illogical - which is wrong.

Card Game Analogy
A deck of cards cannot be properly shuffled without the use of mysticism; a human intervening using the blank side of the cards or in secret is necessary. The Card Game analogy is to ask whether the card game is a true game even with mysticism implied, or is it not-a-game. If argued yes it is a game, then wouldn't the same apply to scientists who use mysticism to create theories? Does mysticism really mean lesser than true?

You can believe otherwise to any moral action, such as if someone gives you pain, you can believe it's fine. You can forgive petty crimes. If you desperately want to feel pain or bring danger to yourself purposely, it may not be immoral to hurt you. Does this answer the original query?
Beliefs can make moral propositions true or false, but are not necessary to morality, you either are or are not moral - whether you believe that you are or aren't, or not.


The following is just a long technical metaphor to explain a point:

Morality could be split into 4 odd categories: 1 including 1 thing, 1 including 3 things, 1 including 5 things, 1 including 7 things.

1. Morality.
2. Calmness/Coolness/Cuteness
3. Hardness/Softness/Wiseness/Kindness/Meanness
4. Smartness/Sternness/Cleverness/Greatness/Swiftness/Clearness/Lightness

And these were hypothetically 'Hexagons of high morals' - morality - is a pure hexagon. It is the root of morals - it is the element of morals. There's just one high good to live in accordance with, it means you're either with it or against it.

Infinity is said to go on forever, so in some manner we can say it has an everlasting aspect. If one infinity is set such as an infinite staircase, then another is set as walking the infinite staircase, and we have created corelate negative & positive infinites, then in the everlasting realm of both is a perfect conclusion. When both infinites are in their everlasting aspect, at some point there will be change.

Would you then argue that infinity is like exposed electric or wiring and it cannot conclude?

you seem to think the supertask is generating so fast it evades us, in fact we can meet it and persevere at the front of its generation, or even cut it all in one swift equation, S.

Lucky he has got Barkon joining his ranks, you can be confusing noAxioms.

Edit: you wouldn't be able to walk the infinite staircase to the end, but you can definitely conceive the completion of the task using mind.

A greater good is as simple as a good that's greater than another good - it doesn't imply high goodness.

Thus, killing a dog to save a life is potentially a greater good, but like 180 proof said it's not definitively moral.

I am wrong actually, there is a 'finite' answer. Michael knows what he is on about - ask him.

it's sort of not looked at. You measure one infinity against another stronger infinity that is untop of the first. It 'can' naturally complete this sequence, but in saying that, it can't be shown other than by talking infinities.

In my opinion noAxioms isn't right but he was better at the time, and Michael makes a good point, but also isn't right. It's my theory it stands incomplete unless completed through potentiality, in theory it can('t) be done.

this is completely agreeable, thanks for your wise insight.

your mother said 'Don't be a push-over' - I don't see how that's any different to 'have a little hardness to you.'

'What criterion of value do you measure 'hard' against?'

The legitimacy of breaking or being defeated.

This would also imply that because we might break, or be defeated, in that we would then have to experience loss in X degree, that 'hardness' is ought to a high degree.

No. You don't learn good and evil through experience, you already know good and evil since birth(and maybe prior).

Good and evil are more elements of discourse.

You learn morality and effects of specific actions, and of the elements themselves, but they are a priori to life.

I.e. a baby progresses in its learning experience, it tries to understand itself, to reach a state where it can survive.

Thoughts based on feelings about knowledge, to expand on what we already know, and to improve our self control from the wisdom of understanding how to interpret facts, fiction and their use.

Comfort.

If the statement is comfortable, leading to progressive thinking on the matter(in that it makes sense and has a whole thought-wave associated with it), and is super-sound that it's logic appeals to reason (the fact it entertains/enlightens us to a certain perspective), it can be regarded as good conversation. Though this prospect would be based on probabilities, it's still possibly beneficent for multiple reasons(such as if it's false, it still may be possible, and that's negated if it's true). If we have conducted science, we can then determine if it's true, and it ought be a trustworthy source based on comfort - if it fits or seems possible.

I don't think so(I don't think it's illegal). It is in effect, browsing and sometimes buying. We are allowed to build ideas and conjectures about what we browse, and a computer article shouldn't be any different.

It's whether or not it is a simulation at its root you question, I can't tell but we are in an ideal configuration of life where a perfect eclipse occurs in our solar system. Which is something to at least feel shocked by, and being shocked, I can at least lean towards the answer it is a simulation at its root.

Does that not entail that it is a simulation as well? I rest my case.

how does one moment transition to the next if not by zooming through hyperspace-time?

4D space is easy, it's just the nature of the zoom. As you zoom passed stars in the night sky and realize yourself in whatever juxtaposition you may have caused.

In short answering that question would be going out of my comfort zone of letting thoughts pop up and acting on them because it was created by you to test my mettle but I have no real need to testify.

it's not my sort of question. *Not my sort of question dance* I'm a philosopher, and this is a philosophy forum.

perhaps this is beyond you. And if moral judgement is to be displaced, perhaps you made the decision to be in this state.

a locale in a universe.

Purpose and value.

Think of it vice versa.

Why is value important? Because it serves our purposes.

Why is purpose important? Because it's commands our values.

Why can't the term 'simulation' refer to things as it normally would by dictionary definition - why must we assume some solitary metaphysical significance?

Light reflecting off of objects and producing color and form in mind is a kind of simulation. My idea about the sun being a frame that literally frames space and locks those in its locale into a physical reality, whilst other stars, who's gravitational influence we are not part of, have no physical reality to us, is another example of a possible simulation(but it's just a random theory I had).

Why is the original post an argument against a more normalized use of the term simulation? Why can't the universe work reversed from a off-center of the final product? Why must the big bang had to of happened rather than it's just the anti-thesis to what was actually produced by something more miniscule?

It's possible some of your bodies have already run off - and I'm not joking.

Can it ever be disproven, and is it likely, that some may have discovered memories or signs of previous life? Perhaps there is a collection of dreams, that occurred since time in mother's womb, to the present day, that preserve abstractions of former dimensionality, and self-hood they once experienced. Perhaps there are direct memories in some minds of previous life. There's reason to suggest that could be possible, and nothing to say it's unlikely(maybe prone to deception), other than the subjectivity surrounding other people's minds. I wouldn't assert that religion is based on faith alone, but evidence cannot currently be provided. Science is based on faith in rationality - faith is not some loose term to be reduced to nonsense or improbable, faith can be rational, faith can be superficial.

Yes.

Otherwise your body would run off, hypothetically speaking, and in trying to take you for a ride that's infinitely painful, you would probably float up into space in some ethereal form and exist somewhere in-between this universe and your previous form, and somewhere else, but more somewhere else. There is an element of freedom to will, the part of your life to cause expression, petty imagination, and so on, but most of this universes type of life is predetermined and regularly re-determined(as per sleep and dreaming). There are constraints, you have physical form - meaning that you can only perform within the constraints of physique. The universe's form is physical, meaning a lot of things were determined since the beginning, such as house building and monkeys. However, however small it may be, free will is necessary to prevent fatalism.