MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different. — MoK

So we can conclude that Jesus and God is not one.

From the discussions so far, it seems to be safe to conclude that,
1) Jesus was not God. He doesn't appear to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If he was, then he could not be in the situation he was, and would not have said what the OP noted.
2) Jesus was not one with God. Therefore Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid.

You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed. — MoK

Well, it seems like a tough situation. But still practical reason tells me that killing is bad, and life must go on. Everyone has a cross to bear in the path of life. In some sense all life could be seen as suffering, and persevering and hoping for the best would be the meaning of life from religious point of view.

Keep going, and hoping for the miracle cure seeking the medical care in your example case with perseverance would be best for him, and doing so is moral good for sure.

It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours. — MoK

All killings and torturing are in the domain of the legal matter. They are not morality.
I am not sure what part of the world you are living, but in where I have lived and am living, any
and all death must be reported to the authority for investigation and the certification of the nature of death.

If any death was caused by killing no matter what circumstance it was, and if there were any suspicion of any form of torturing on others, then the case must be reported to the criminal investigation authorities for the legal proceedings with the courts.

Hence, they are not moral matter at all.

Great analysis on the points. Will go over on them again when time permits, and will get back to you if there are any points to clarify. Many thanks !!

Time is an integral part of motion and movement. The coin takes time of what, one second plus, to hit the floor. Now, if it would take 0,1 seconds it would be a lot faster, likely then to be thrown to the ground, not just fall with gravity. — ssu

Isn't it the other way around? Without movement and changes, there would be no time.
With the objects moving in space, time was deduced from the interval of the movement.
Time is an illusion, which has no entity or existence.

And seeing? Do you see gravity? Mass? Weight? And when light hits your eye's retina, that already is motion. So without motion and time, no "seeing". — ssu

Same with gravity. There are only motions. When mass or objects are released from the height in space, they constantly fall onto the ground. Hence, an imaginary force called gravity is invented.
Gravity itself doesn't exist.

You need time for movement, for past, present and future. Notice the word on the graph below. — ssu

As described in the OP, past, present and future are products of our minds. The graph seems to be depicting imaginary map of space and time, but time doesn't exist in the real world.

Of course there are changes, motions and movements. But they are not bound by time, or time is not a precondition for them. Rather, changes, motions and movements give rise to time in human minds as a form of perception.

Can you prove that movement doesn't exist?

If there's any kind of motion, there has to be time. — ssu

Movements exist for sure. I drop a coin, and it falls onto the floor.
But still I cannot see time. I only see the movement.

Space and objects are affected by the flow of time, for instance. — javi2541997

Sure, but this doesn't tell what the existence of time is.

Yes, a good point. However, being beneficial is not also evidences for something to exist. Here we are concerned on the nature of time and its existence. Time as an entity evades our perception i.e. it cannot be seen, heard or touched. Only the events took place and motions in process can be perceived.

We use them, and is important in science and daily life, but it is invisible and unperceivable. Is it something else we have been calling as time? Or there are entities and existences which cannot be perceived, but exist?

If we agree that something that is unperceivable do exist, then surely there must be a lot more things which we deny existence, but affect us should be existing?

We are not trying get rid of time here. We are trying to investigate the nature of the existence of time.

Yet another proof that there are many things we say exist, but don't. :nerd:

Can you prove temperature exists? or color exists? or charge exists? etc . — 180 Proof

A proof that there are many things we say exist, but don't.

as I understand it, is a proposition that is true, and necessarily so. A contradiction is a proposition which is necessarily false, and a contingent proposition is one that can be true or false. — Arcane Sandwich

The evening star is the morning star. Isn't it a tautology and also contradiction, but a true statement?

Isn't Geometry an object of thought rather than a way of thought?

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: — MoK

To reiterate the point, it is not the case that I am not happy with the example. It is the case that the example doesn't demonstrate a logical necessity that the premise guarantees the conclusion i.e. torturing doesn't necessarily save life.

It is an empirical case, where all possible and various causes and effects might be involved. The result is uncertain and unpredictable. Under that situation, torturing cannot be a justified ground for saving lives. With the knowledge and understanding of the situation via practical reasoning, if one went ahead with torturing believing that it would save lives, it would be a moral wrong itself.

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably? — MoK

You have to understand that not every action is moral action. Moral action means that it was reasoned, premeditated and contemplated before the action for moral good or duty.

Killing a psychopath before he kills me would be an act of self defense, which has nothing to do with morality. The action may be subject to legal probes in the society later, but it is not a moral issue.

I was trying to put the playing cards into numeric order from number 1 to number 64. It was not a fast process at all, because when I picked up number 1 card, number 2 card didn't jump up by itself. The number 2 card was hiding behind no.35, and I had to go through all the cards to find the bloody number 2 card, and so on.

It was a clear evidence in real world, that numbers don't exist, and they don't cause anything at all. Our minds see and order them into numeric order.

I cannot find a flaw in his argument. Could you? I am not saying that I agree with his metaphysics though but that is a different topic. — MoK

I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one.

You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you? — MoK

I thought it was a form of hikikomori, but maybe it is not.
It doesn't matter what it is. The whole point is about the principle of morality and how it works.

How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you? — MoK

If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man."

He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision. — MoK

Will have to persevere with advice and encouragement for leading positive life for him.

It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist. — MoK

It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption.

Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life? — MoK

I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. But he also has his right to decide on his own life. No one has right to decide his life for him.

Let's assume it does. — MoK

The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives.

So you disagree with your own statement? — MoK

Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement?

As I mentioned Aquinas distinguish between persons and essence. — MoK

Do you agree with him?

Let's assume so for the sake of argument. — MoK

I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. Therefore torturing is not justified and wrong. Don't do it.

Your conclusion that torturing is justified is based on your wrong premise that torturing will save lives. Your argument is invalid and unsound.

And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests. — MoK

Well, if you asked me about the case personally, my answer to that would be, you are asking a wrong person. I don't have enough details about the case to apply my pure reason on the case. You need to bring a 1000 pages of the social report regarding the case with his situations i.e. medical history and psychological analysis, and his family circumstance etc etc.

I would say, if anyone made a moral decision on the case without all the factual details, then it would be a sheer nonsense, not moral judgements.

Kant is just giving you a guideline. You don't have to cling on him with the trivial contradictions. You need to face and deal with the reality at present world.

As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it. — MoK

I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we?

Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information. — MoK

There is possibility that you have mistaken the identity of the folks whom you thought were terrorists, but they were not.

Torturing the folks are crime itself, hence you would be committing moral wrong there.
Also there is a possibility that no one's life is in danger, and your motive for torturing could have been caused by propaganda and paranoia or just a desire to torture someone.

And there is no guarantee that torturing the folks will give you any information to save any life. So why try to justify on torturing?

See this is a result of moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interest. It is not only wrong in factuality, but also could be committing moral wrong itself.

Kant would say, that torturing is not right way in saving human lives. Because it won't work and it is morally wrong itself.

According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here. — MoK

But you haven't asked Kant in person, what would be the case torturing the terrorists. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively?" and "Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? What if they were not the terrorists? What if you are trying to torture innocent folks for mistaken identity?"

I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role? — MoK

I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. If you are interested in my posts on the examples, you need to track back my posts. Obviously you missed what I wrote to you.

I think the point to bear in mind is that there is definitely not a consensus that reason operates independently of emotion in the human psyche. There is a holistic thinking process that includes the complete spectrum of human mental states, including logic, emotion, and imagination. — Pantagruel

You need to exclude all the irrational elements in the process of moral reasoning. If we mix them up, then you won't be able to arrive at the fair and just moral decisions.

So reasoning is a little black box then? Are you in some sense reducing reasoning to logic? — Pantagruel

It is not a black box.   It was to show a typical progress in moral judgement in order to help you understand where the emotions and reasoning are in the process.

Of course some folks would just make moral judgments from the Feelings and Belief stage, which are likely to be irrational  psychological states, which have little to do with the moral truths.

cannot be reasonably thought to be solely a function of reason. — Pantagruel

This is the process of how moral judgement takes place.

External perception on the moral case -> Feelings and Beliefs on the case -> Reasoning -> Moral Judgement.

So, there would be some elements of the emotional side of the moral case perception, but it would be reasoning which filters out the emotional side of the perception by interpretation and analysis on the content of the perception. The final moral judgements are always made by practical reasoning alone.

This claim is inaccurate because you are saying that reason ought to inform morality, and ought implies can. If people are only capable of acting psychologistically (which seems as though it might be true by definition) then saying that they ought to act rationally instead is either by definition impossible or else it is highly unlikely. In either of which cases it fails as a norm. — Pantagruel

You seem to have misunderstood my point there. I have not said much about reason, ought or can. I just said, moral judgements must be based on reason.

Most of what I said was about feelings, beliefs and emotions, and how they cannot be the foundation of moral judgements.

To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs, as my rational-defense claim illustrates. — Pantagruel

We are not denying the workings of beliefs and feelings and emotion in mental events. However, these mental states are largely caused by the other mental states within the self such as self imagery, self reflections and one's past experiences rather than the facts and evidence from the real world events.

Hence they are not in the domain of truth and falsity of knowledge values. When you believe in something, it could be either grounded or groundless and justified or unfounded. Likewise when you feel angry or feel someone is bad, there is no truth or falsity value in the feeling. You either have the feeling or not.

Moral judgements are objective knowledge that is either true or false. Yes, they can be true or false too. But because they can be true or false, they are knowledge and objective.

Beliefs and emotions are subjective, hence folks can have them or not have them. There is no ground for them being true or false. They are not moral truths. They are just feelings and beliefs.

Emotions are not "misleading" - they are a huge and significant characteristic of what it means to be human. — Pantagruel

If someone said to you, "I believe that you have insulted my intelligence. Therefore I feel you are evil and bad." How do you justify that claim?

According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? — MoK

Going back to MoK's point, Kant would ask you, if torturing was the last resort for the resolution. Have you tried all other means to get the information out?

The problem with torturing to get the information out, is that it may still fail to get the information even you have tried with utmost degree, if they firmly withhold the information. Then what is the point of torturing? It wouldn't have been the method fit for the purpose for saving any life. Hence it would have been an act of blind and pointless end, which would be an evident moral wrongness itself.

Reason can only guide you in making a choice. Committing to the choice will always be an act of belief. Reason absent committed belief is just rhetoric. Which is why belief - in whatever it may be - is always the foundation of every person's moral choices. — Pantagruel

Belief without reason can be groundless and unfounded. Beliefs must go through verification of reason to be fit for judgement and decision. They say justified beliefs via reasoning are knowledge. Beliefs based on feelings and opinions and interests are blind and misleading.

My point is that pure reason can resolve moral problems but adds problems. — MoK

This is why you need reasoning. You will know that torturing is not the only way to get the information. You could have good conversation with them, and persuade them to give you the information from their own accord. It is all about utilising your practical reasoning wisely and skillfully.

You see how feelings and beliefs could make rash judgements and decisions, and just resort to the barbaric ways to resolve the problem? Use your practical reasoning wisely, and the world problem could be resolved amicably for win win results.

My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide. — MoK

You build the situation with your perception and reasoning, not with feelings and beliefs. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests blind you from the reality preventing you from making right decisions and judgements.

These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons. — MoK

"share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being? :chin:

They are clearly different beings, but saying they are one is a contradiction. Even if John and MoK are humans, they are different, and they are not one. MoK is Mok, and John is John.

Even if it is a theological doctrine, should it not abide by the Law of Identity and Law of Noncontradiction in the doctrine? If any doctrine is based on ignoring these laws, then it cannot be a doctrine. It would be a religious dogma.