-wrong thread-

So, my point is that if we wish to extract the good from free speech, instead of treating free speech like a holy rite, we have to have institutions that are willing to enforce rules on that speech (much like our world class mod team here). — Hanover

I'll bite. What if slavery was legal. Or some other "one-day-to-be" widely condemned practice or belief that goes on commonplace in society that we have yet to determine is grossly inhumane.

Legally (last I checked) if I wanted to I could create a self-hosted private website or blog stating that I dislike "X people" and think they do not deserve to exist. This is passive. Generally speaking if it were active ie. actively recruiting others into a tangible collective that creates real and imminent danger to "X people", that is no longer free speech. Similar to how people can die if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater or that a random stranger on the street just sexually assaulted your child. Interestingly enough even telling someone you know cannot fight that another person who is extremely skilled in fighting is calling them very offensive names, or slept with their wife, etc. All these things can get people killed. "Free speech" is a relative amendment of an absolute, that absolute being "right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness". It is conditional and only exists when the absolute is present and not obstructed.

Moreover, the difference between the online environment and real life is in public (not private homes or establishments that many people mistake as true "public areas") there are the following laws along the lines of: "inciting a riot" (that guy's a terrorist!), "disturbing the peace" (shouting offensive things), "assault" (yelling in someone's face or stating intent to harm), "harassment" (anything short of the aforementioned) that can pretty much shut you up in any and all scenarios where said speech would become a problem (ie. the relative does not exist because the absolute is not applicable). This is a real legal action performed with an authorized law enforcement officer and the person directly in the real world. This would get complicated with said "world" being nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's that anyone can manipulate and "officers" who may or may not ever be known or exist.

A functional human brain free of disease knows what is moral and immoral long before it is fully developed. It is ingrained and hard coded.

A baby cries until it is nourished or cared for. Simple hunger or not.

Normal children don't cry when they get what they want. Normal children don't laugh when they are physically punished or harmed.

You don't smile when you're excluded or singled out or scammed, robbed, injured, or lied to.

Any response that starts with "a psychopath" or along the lines of "well what if I like being injured" is not applicable as yes, sometimes the human body and components can be "broken" or made to become so.

The only thing is "the lesser of two evils" ie. "the trolley problem". We don't know the consequences of our actions. The degenerate who picks a fight with you at a bar might go on to save the president of the country or cure cancer- somehow. Or he might go on to ruin or take the lives of more people than you can count. Who's to say what would or would not have happened by choosing to walk away from it, resulting in him continuing to live, and more specifically whether or not it was "moral" or "immoral".

Note this does not include cognitive bias hypocrisy ie. a child being raised to kill others because they're "bad" and so "it's good" and knows only praise and reaffirmation in doing so or social norms with said hypocrisy ie. slavery.

I assume religious writings are written by very few and are treated as truth largely just within the faith? — TiredThinker

That's one possibility I haven't a way to prove or disprove (as opposed to the "widespread popular culture/everyone's talking about it" way some believe).

In this particular case (the Bible) I believe it is true the purported sources (apostles, kings, prophets) even those in relatively menial occupations all had some "reputation" about them that set them apart from "just anybody". This of course was a time when information was heavily controlled especially literature. It is highly possible any of the texts we read today are simply not the same.

In my view, it's not something we're ever going to know therefore takes second priority. So as far as names of popular religions they are simply cultural terms to describe the alleged divine works of non-human entities, typically portraying a message to humanity from a benevolent being or beings regarding ways one should or must live. Rather, the observation and following of such wishes or commands in one's life as absolute truth or highest priority.

There is some disconnect between discussing religion purely philosophically. Many people who associate as following a certain religion are fundamentalist in nature to the point of myopia. They literally claim to believe in a divine being that can "do anything" and is superior yet think every possible detail or event regarding said being was forcefully written on paper for their leisure. This is the frustration I get most people feel when attempting to engage in philosophical discourse with religious people. "In the beginning..." - the beginning of what? Eternity? The 9 millionth planet this alleged omnipotent being can create at any time decided to make? ... people don't think.

Is it common that religious books write about historic events that there may not be evidence to support that they ever happened? — TiredThinker

Probably, but that's not really relevant if you classify evidence as this grand, incorruptible concept in which any proof of an occurrence that isn't literally written across the observable galaxy and out of reach of the destructive and manipulative hands of man "may not be evidence". I can catch someone murdering a man in my front yard. Just because I can't guarantee the photo I just took or the body I'm staring at in front of me "may not" exist 1,000 years from now doesn't mean I should just go back inside and take a nap now does it?

Either way if you're living in a mud hut and everybody you know in your mud hut town starts saying something incredible happened- it's probably relevant enough to jot down, wouldn't you say?

How exaggerated do religious texts get to tell a story for people to put faith into? — TiredThinker

Some say religion creates its own god or as atheists say Man created God. I can write down words on paper of any degree of accuracy I wish. Only until entire civilizations internalize one or more assertions or claims within over a prolonged period of continual self-propagation independent of my own doings can these words written down on paper be considered "religious texts".

Whether or not events in a book centered around a figure known for metaphors and non-literal euphemisms happened literally or not, entire civilizations lived and died as if they did. ie. The reality where an event did happen and the reality where an event did not happen become one and the same. The only difference between an alleged event having occurred or not having occurred exists solely before the event did or did not take place. The non-occurrence becomes the occurrence for all intents and purposes. Confirmed religious texts are absolutely fascinating as far as sociology and psychology of those before us and even our very own, if nothing else.

I am qiute a bit offended by many people — god must be atheist

Ah, the universal gateway to higher learning. I don't think any great mind started at another point of origin. Just an observation :)

To the point, contrary to popular belief, empathy is simply the ability to understand reality. Lack of it is not an "asset" or something "earned" or worked toward it is simply an intrinsic part of the logical process that is missing. In contemptuous individuals. pity is simply that nagging reminder that everything you thought you've gotten away with still exists and is being accounted for, if not in and by your own mind and if one ever ends up in such a state it is truly deserved and no being real or imagined would have anything to say to you as a result other than it is what you desired and chose to spend your time and energy to create. It is also a harrowing glimpse into the future of said individuals if I have anything to say about it.

The comparison is ridiculous. Deliberately? — Vera Mont

Indeed. However it is not about the comparison, what one should make note of are the underlying consistent truths present in both examples. You or I may be able to see them showcased in such an absurd scenario, I'm sure most do. But when blanket claims of morality or any subject for that matter begin to be thrown around and huddled against for intellectual warmth one is inclined to believe said blanket cannot ever harbor or become an incubator for, that which is counterintuitive to its purpose.

It wasn't a counter-argument or retort more of a request for the views of a poster I admire that may or may not help in clarifying OP's stance on one or more things, which at present seems to be unclear.

Seems to me you are simply choosing to ignore the definition of a well-known word for some arbitrary- perhaps philosophically provocative- reason. This is not-so-veiled nihilism pure and simple.

Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".

What is wrong with that moral claim? — Benj96

Quantity over quality. Similar to mistaking sound for substance. ie. "I would prefer to destroy the least amount of schools as opposed to the most amount of brothels because destroying buildings is generally considered immoral therefore it is the moral choice to make", etc.

If this is correct, does this automatically rule out the possibility of free will? — Paul Michael

No. What made you post all this? Curiosity no doubt. What made you curious? The intrinsic nature of your brain? That's kind of a whitewash isn't it? Under the same mindset, what can't be declared as outside of free will? "Everything I do has to make logical sense therefore due to the existence of logic the only act of free will is that which is purposely illogical."

Words are nice. They can make anything seem like anything and lead the mind across a full circle of legitimate stepping stones that constitute "a logic" without actually explaining or having any real purpose or effect on anything.

Someone missed the 2000s. You don't follow for follow, bro? You have to remember entire countries larger than the United States are literally just now getting widespread internet for the first time. It's like the 90s all over again. Which interestingly enough was a wish of mine. A novice sophomore in web marketing could go there now and be like... a tech god lol

Except when that ends up being the norm for a majority of people, then we need a society tailored around a non-work existence. — Christoffer

Hi, really enjoying your posts in this thread. Not my particular stance but you are explaining the arguments rather succinctly. It is "easy to digest" I suppose you could say while still being very meaty in points to discuss. I have not read every one of your posts in this thread with focus and perhaps am somewhat engaging in "drive-by philosophy" more so than commonplace economic model discussion but, if I may..

Everything we do is part of this capitalist mentality, everything is about some kind of status or monetary gain and loss, — Christoffer

Even fundamentally, the laws of the Universe are in play. Life itself, and all physical and biological aspects of it revolve around: energy. Ability to do work. There is no bastardizing this reality of existence as mere "needless slave labor by evil men". You could be the last/first person on an entirely new and lush world teeming with life- you will still "eat by the sweat on your brow", to quote religious scholars.

Let's imagine an unrealistically perfect and entirely automated world. Literally every exertion of energy the average person "must do" to live what is considered a "basic life" is no more. You wake up, enter your bathroom, smile at your mirror to have your mouth intricately cleaned on a professional level in a matter of seconds. You jump in the shower and essentially rotate clockwise for a minute or two and step out as if you just got back from a spa retreat. Your favorite breakfast is just being finished from the ingredients in your fridge onto a nice covered plate for you to enjoy at your leisure. Or perhaps you're about to take your "food pill" that delivers the nutrients and other necessities of a 5-course meal every 4-6 hours. We now joke about "staving people" the way someone would joke about someone having polio or some other long-vanquished ailment of time's past. You look out the window and see your Roomba-eseque landscape artist mowing the yard and spy your trashcan rolling itself out to the curb to be emptied by its fellow automated brethren. Energy, let us not forget about energy, for the sake of simplicity let's just say someone invented a drinking bird that actually works.

As you go about your motions of existence, knowing they will profoundly affect nobody nowhere, including one's self, you may stop to think... is this life? Surely I must be fortunate. Are there unfortunate people out there who still live in the hellish pre-automated world of labor from dawn 'til dusk? Should they be "rescued" from their purposeless naivety? Do they have a right to live as they please? Are they subjecting children to the needless suffering of another way of living? Do they have a right to do so? Do they have a right to oppose? How should such opposition be treated? Freedom to live as one pleases vs. freedom to create and subject other human beings to what is now "purposeless labor"? Think I'm far off and people won't start to think like that? Back in the day people use to subject their children to leech treatments and other forms of bloodletting in the interest of public health. Today, if someone sees you covering your child in leeches or drawing blood from them "to help them", you will have a SWAT team called on you. Even the old "chicken pox parties" are starting to garnish negative attention. Idle hands are the devil's playthings.

Basically, I find you're simply saying "everything we do is because we want something done" .. of course everything we do is supposed to "do something", we don't "do things" because it has no purpose. "Status and monetary gain" cannot be used as a blanket simplification to gloss over or detract from the intrinsic properties they bestow (or deny) to people: "who you are and what you can do". One doesn't become a "master craftsman" just so he has something to say after his name in introductions. One doesn't work to gain wealth simply because they're "supposed to". These are all done to advance a goal or desire, goals or desires that would exist regardless of the economic model or level of automation. Sure, if you're in possession of little resources, you will likely end up working a job out of necessity vs. pursuit of desire. This would also be the case if you were born or later experienced a handicap or just otherwise aren't that talented. These are also independent of economic models or social systems.

But as soon as capitalism enters a stage where the majority of the people already have accumulated wealth it starts to tap into just being about cash flow, earnings, and gains. It stops being a system of change and instead becomes a "Baudrillardian eldritch horror" in which people become a slave to it, regardless of whether they want to or not. — Christoffer

I think this statement needs to be dissected properly. Any economic model can be substituted with the true driving force which is "government rule" or "the way things are". Whatever economic model you declare to be operating under, willingly or not does not change the nature of the resources and accessibility of said resources that give the non-resource (currency) value. Needs and wants are still needs and wants unchanged regardless of how you facilitate their fulfillment or accrual . You need exchange. Be it cash flow or resource distribution. You need resources not to lose value/become a burden by sheer volume or unexpected turbulence. Be it by adjusting currency through administrative means or just making sure your time, work, and resources spent don't slowly eat and dwindle each other (so to speak ie. that your efforts result in at least producing something you did not have before). Growth is also an intrinsic part of life. You didn't start life as a full-grown man now did you? You also likely didn't start with a full-size factory or operation from the get-go if you have one now. Without growth you have decay. Nothing is truly stagnant. You expect to have children or at least that other people will, correct? The more people who sit down for a pie, the less pie is available. Therefore, you need growth. Be it tangible wealth in your pocket or larger (thus more expensive and labor intensive) operations in whatever the field may be.

Anticipating your thoughts on the matter. Cheers

A kid can gene-edit human DNA or create a global plague in his basement using a kit that can be carried on one's person. "Not having a job" is the least of issues regarding science and technology in this age.

TPF could face a lawsuit if a family member who perhaps is mentally ill delves a little too deep into certain philosophies. It's like this other forum I like: "No suicide threads". Is it likely? Does it make much sense to implement procedure over? Has anything schopenhaur done or posted reasonably any more likely to produce such an outcome than a simple discussion regarding if life is or is not worth living? The answer to all of these things is "No" but a certain moderator said something I like that stuck with me: "It's one of those unfortunate little things the rules don't happen to care about".

I have yet to read a reply (note I have not read this whole thread in a focused mood) that seems to change the "200 threads on the same topic" dynamic. If that is true I mean.. what? What is the argument here? :lol:

No discussion is impacted. It's just in one thread. This isn't Times Square. The traffic footprint is low. Do we really have time for drama for drama's sake? Must be nice.

What happens if the only measure of goodness was being good at the workplace? — schopenhauer1

Well, sure. As you've mentioned I am a consequentalist, no I see it as a "realist" for the reasons explained in previous posts in this thread. Every action has consequences. But, in the hypothetical unrealistic closed example of "within the workplace" assuming it has no effect or bearing on society or that I have no concern for that society if not just for the argument, Larry would be preferred yes.

Now is when I would go on "but at what cost?" ... narrate the Handmaiden's Tale and digress as said counterargument is dissected and I await revealing other points or clarify often by metaphor.

In a way, what else matters in today's society? — schopenhauer1

Well to be frank, not wanting to end one's life or rather to be part of a society people enjoy. Quarrelsome people have the one valid argument that perhaps those who dislike them are sensitive and too much sensitivity can be a detriment to one's life and those of others around them. Non-quarrelsome people have one of many arguments the most simple of which being "people don't like pricks".

Taken to the extreme. Society itself collapses without Larrys. Using a little Kantian CI.. A society without highly efficient outputers is one that won't be anymore. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, and perhaps historical fact, if a society has ever reached that point it's only a matter of time and a controlled demolition versus some distant possibility to be wary of. Again, Larry's only value is the fact he has value simply because he is not a person who "cannot do anything". This makes his attitude as relevant as whether or not his hair is straight or curly.

is a meaner world with better technology be better than a kinder world with much less technology/efficiency/output.. and perhaps one that would be on the verge of not existing anymore due to inefficiency and ineptness? — schopenhauer1

Better to who? Some people want a life on Mayberry Street with Mister Rodgers as Supreme Overlord. Others want "excitement" at the expense and in the form of varying tugs on society's social fabric. Depending who you ask, Sure. While it's around. Again, opinion. Possibly...

Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, — schopenhauer1

I get what your asking, just trying to make life not seem so devoid of any real value by including the fact not all that glitters is gold and sometimes it's better the devil you know in my counterarguments.

In my mind the consequentialist vs. virtual theorist scenario pretty much sums up anything going on in my head as it pertains to the OP.

What's your point? — L'éléphant

That's up to the reader, friend.

I think the answer is obvious. — L'éléphant

That's because you think you can control Larry or expect anything he can throw at you. I'm sure Larry would choose you too.

What is more "valuable" in a more general sense. — schopenhauer1

Subjective opinion or absolute if you were some sort of psychic.with the desired measurable item (profit made in USD, influence in number of Markets Reached, etc).

Potential including risks vs. concrete value. I'd take a handgun over a machine gun that's liable to blow up or otherwise cause harm to me or whatever my goals are. Value that can become useless or a detriment vs. a lower consistent value, basically. Unexplored potential?

@creativesoul made a good point. If Bob literally "cannot do anything" he's basically handicapped. This becomes 'is a handicapped person (or someone with no skills in the particular industry) more valuable than someone who is not handicapped or has skills a particular industry.' The question of attitude comes second to such a stark request and becomes irrelevant with that considered. I think so at least.

HOWEVER, Larry is also REALLY good at his job. He is the most productive person on his team, and creates great value for the company, even being a direct reason for its growth in terms of output. Jobs are created from Larry's output actually, and the products are quite useful to certain sectors of society in terms of satisfying the needs of that industry. — schopenhauer1

All philosophy aside, Larry is a few silver pieces away from being a full-blown Judas hence will never be little more than a liability and needs to be not around immediately. The only 'great value' Larry creates that can't be outsourced for a few dollars or replaced with a machine using the methodologies that never belonged to Larry nor have anything to do with him intrinsically but were simply adopted by him can be sufficiently replicated with a poster of a clown.

I was merely suggesting the possibility that all things have an explanation, rather that we can both "be right" about certain things as opposed to live forever in disagreement due to one of us not considering the other's possibility of which we both agree the other has no way of knowing.

To the point, "how does freewill explain <insert suffering here>", man does not expect unexpected consequences for his actions ie. a king having his whole kingdom destroyed over losing an unnecessary war driven by greed or a child suffering from lead or asbestos poisoning due to paint or building methods from the '70s.

Am I saying it's that simple, I'm right, and that explains everything? No, I am saying that it is a possibility that passes all of the reasonably assumed prerequisites of your inquiry.

How does free will explain childhood cancer? Tsetse fly? Covid? — Banno

In my limited experiences I've found there is an unspoken elephant in the room regarding humanity's origins and past, known colloquially as Original Sin. Things can get pretty Sci-Fi from that point on in casual theist-athiest compatible thought experiments.

But back to theist-compatible science, simple. Man was given instruction to produce children in a sacred covenant of marriage and to live simply without extravagance. We chose (someone and enough did somewhere up the line) to overproduce, to try to become gods of this planet with machines and technology that produce all kinds of lethal and harmful things to us ie. hazardous byproducts, radiation, air contaminants, you name it, wage war on others for worldly purposes and visit places we were not meant to be (could be radioactive land, places at risk for natural disasters, etc), as well as change the way man was meant to live by social practices whose effects on society are still largely unknown (some people are on the computer or the XBOX staring at a screen for days or even weeks on end without seeing another soul- that can't be good?)

1. God is not evil.
2. God did not create evility.
3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude.
4. The devil exists. — god must be atheist

2.) Evility was not "created" rather something greater than good or evil "freedom" or "choice" was created and so evility is merely one of many by-products of a creation that while detested is of no greater significance than any of the many others.

3.) See 2.)

4.) In mainstream Christian theology the "devil" is one of at least (assuming they are numbered incrementally) 665 other beings and possesses nothing special other than "being attractive" and apparently being able to convince others and gain power and influence that way..

Again, the average reader will see us as debating whether Santa Claus prefers to be called "Nick" or "Mr. Claus" but for what it's worth these are the facts of the chosen topic.

Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires? — Bartricks

Simple. Create a dude, ask him what he thinks about it. After all, that's the subject of the matter. I know people who love life and writhe at the idea of it ending or not existing. I know people who can't stand it and swear this is Hell who want to die. We all do. If it's good, go for more. If not, back to the drawing board. Nothing to lose sleep over.

Some people love a good life or death challenge. Others prefer peace and the stability that comes with predictability. You can't make everyone happy all the time so you know what they say, "one man's morality..."

Is monarchy the best form or kind of government? — Average

You use different tools for different problems don't you? If you're an up and coming agricultural society slowly transitioning from a pastoral one due to finding a place to settle long enough that people seem to tolerate, you have to decisively correct problems as they happen when they happen (famine, invasion, rebellion, etc) in order to cement your society's place in the area sufficiently well enough to begin the phase of permanent or modern society (industrial). You can't risk legions of men rebelling against you or small groups of citizens who in their ever growing freedom start to forget the horrors of survival and begin to shift their obsessions of desire from need to want, while still operating under ingrained the life or death biological mindset in every now shortsighted and selfish action. You need to stop it right then and there at all costs no matter who objects or, quite possibly, everybody will perish.

Now, once you don't have to worry about the lot of that your focus shifts to just making sure crazy, foolish, or large people don't bother or molest sane, intelligent, or smaller people so society can function as a free and friendly thing people want to and are proud to be part of and so will protect with their lives willingly and by choice, no conscription needed. This is what democracies excel at.

An excellent monarchy is better than a corrupt democracy and vice versa. Of course, common sense will tell you not only does the apple sometimes fall far from the tree, it can end up in the next city. Therefore, now that things have appeared to have settled some - for the moment - the cruel dictator telling you what to do depriving you of your wants is a larger concern than the benevolent monarch defending the kingdom against "the hordes" that would otherwise deprive you of your needs.

anyone tempted to give this thread an ounce of respect — Baden

You learn to separate the art from the artist. After all, were it not for the hectic world we live in and the idiosyncrasies it creates within ourselves we arguably wouldn't need art to begin with. A major unexamined tenet of popular non-deistic theist belief is in few words the idea that anything created or used for malice or ill-intent is or will ultimately be used for good (ie. workers of inequity produce naught, the lion will lay with the lamb, etc) and so encourage people to look for the good in everything and everyone, if not for strategic purposes and advancement of positive social change. Looking at things that way, that's not so bad now is it?

Not why should men be governed, but why must we be? It's a fair question, if not situation dependent. One asked by many an oppressed, decent man. Some of the obvious answers that may come to mind ie. burden sharing, united we stand divided we fall, teamwork makes the dream work, etc. may start to fall short to honest inquiry derived from pondering the numerous travesties committed by governments over the years as well as other, simpler forms of civilization that - while they were around - seemed to have done "just fine" with their own socially-derived customs and practices that purportedly kept most of the negative occurrences mentioned as rationale by supporters of "big government" at bay.

So, why must we be governed?

Why must you be governed? — NOS4A2

Because I was born into a society. That society that allowed the events of my safe birth to take place did not arise organically and is not a permanent, intrinsic feature of reality. Long story short, people think "biting the hand that feeds them" doesn't apply after it already did and allowed them to possess some semblance of independence. Doesn't work that way. In terms folks like that would best understand, every habitable inch on Earth is "taken" by people who vote "society" and they outnumber you. Sorry. lol

In other words, the purpose of suffering is to gain wisdom. It is a friend to the wise, and an enemy to fools

Agree? — Yohan

What is the purpose of a brick? A sword? To build and protect or to smash and destroy? What of dancing around like a loon and making funny faces? To each their own, surely...

Not everything has a purpose, that is to say we assign and judge value based on little more than experience and belief said experience has often fathered. Does a child who knows little of suffering experience the same joy and appreciation when receiving a desired item as a man who toils and claws his way to the same? What of a kitten raised indoors with little knowledge of predators and natural hazards placed outside alongside one who wasn't?

As proven by history that all communist systems have been enforced by dictators — Deus

I fail to see any system ever in place or that ever theoretically could be in place that if "taken on" wouldn't be met by something similar, one way or the other.

Any system that isn't set in place or would otherwise form naturally regardless of human action (gravity, society) is, much like the human body itself, in a constant state of negentropy (degradation).

Ready? As in prepared for? Against what? Keeping our sanity or defending ourselves?

Benevolent or malevolent, I see a problem.

It's not at all charitable and you've ignored what I said. It is not charitable to attribute to someone a view they did not express and furthermore a view that doesn't make sense.

I'll simply repeat what I said: to be in possession of all trees does not require being in possession of all potential trees. LIkewise, to be in possession of all knowledge dose not require being in possession of all potential knowledge. We're all potential murderers - should we all be locked up for actual murder?

And my definition of omniscience is clearly not trivial. How is it trivial? — Bartricks

If I may. I too was thinking along the lines he mentioned. From what I gather the conflicting premise is when someone says someone "knows everything" it, absent of sarcasm, typically means or implies anything that will or can happen which includes the product of 175 x 345 and whether or not it will or will not come to exist and if so what it's projected value is anyway. The idea of loose definitions and semantics is confusing, but from what I gather you assert that an omniscient omnipowerful being can define what is and what isn't knowledge per reason of creating new knowledge, essentially anything, at will, changing current meanings or realities, or destroying knowledge due to its intrinsic nature as omnipowerful ie. the number 2 doesn't exist unless it wants it to and if it does it can equal 3? Sorry if I'm muddying the waters or missing the point entirely. Men have debated this for millennia. It's confusing, lol.

even if I also have lots of false beliefs and fail to have lots of true ones, I will not fail to qualify as omniscient — Bartricks

Hm. An omniscient being that knows all there is to know yet "fails to have many true beliefs". Sounds a bit iffy to me. Sort of like not knowing "that thing you know how to do" happens to makes a whistling noise yet knowing "anything is possible" thus emulating a kind of omniscience where you both know and don't know how to whistle? :chin:

Truth is hard to pin down. Deceit isn't. Our senses feed our brain "reality" and as such are solely responsible for any and all understanding of or acquaintanceship with it. Sometimes they can be defective or altered (delusions, hallucinations, dreams). Who's to say all humans aren't, compared to what could be. Relative truth, that is to say a statement free of deception relative to the speaker that stands up to whatever scrutiny a man has learned in his short, short lifetime to be able to throw at it may be able to be ascertained by a certain formula, but absolute truth something that existed before the first number and would exist after the last intelligent thought I suspect is where things get a bit tricky.

It is said truth, reality, and the absolute has always existed. Before us, after us, with or without us, eternal and unchanged. Philosophy is merely consciousness attempting to speak the language of eternity. If such a language could be spoken - in the scope of a lengthy speech - the combined works of every intellect and scientist who ever lived would amount to little more than an unintelligible grunt.

Like any language, some are more proficient at it than others.

Imagine someone comes along and claims they have no respect for the value of human life — Paulm12

If they won't give you their kidney right there on the spot or object if you try to help yourself to it, they're bluffing.

(or the value of the lives of certain groups humans) — Paulm12

Like, race or social/economic class? Well, if you ever get shot in New York City you'll find out pretty quickly. A homeless bum runs to a nearby deli a millionaire built and calls 911 bringing an ambulance with an Asian paramedic driven by a black driver to take you to an Indian doctor just in the nick of time before you bleed out in some trash-filled alleyway. For example.

FWIW, this banning did kind of startle me. Street was a mod. I mean there's some positive "all men created equal" vibes there somewhere but, yeah. :lol:

Definitely gonna think more before I post. Which is good. I think.

I am sorry you felt intimidated. — Tobias

Ok see this is a good example. If you really felt that way you wouldn't have had to come up with a way to not-so-slyly call anyone who thinks the world, let alone intelligent debate, is better off without filth (not calling anyone filth just speaking about conduct and mindset) chickenshit.

Some people just don't like garbage, dude. That's not towards anyone, at all- other than behaviors. A simple "I disagree" will do, it doesn't have to be "Well knowing you I understand why you think that". If I'm already wrong you don't have to imply I have some deep, internal problem on top of it. Eh, some do. Don't you guys call that ad hominem or something? How does that advance an intelligent discussion? A political or business endeavor, certainly. But not a debate. At least not a real one with participants seeking knowledge and insight.

To his credit I think he is confusing Christians with "Christians". Most do. I know I did. And how. That's gonna have to be a story for another day though.

What are your thoughts on immortality and which type/ variation appeals or disturbs you the most? — Benj96

I'm afraid it would take me a lifetime to answer that. :D

Merely thinking out loud here, but.. how do you really know you haven't always been alive and just, forgot or something? Science is already talking about the possibility of consciousness surviving in a mechanical host so this is far from an explicitly spiritual concept.

All in all, I'm sure it hinges heavily on whether or not the person has a "good life". Perhaps beyond that, an unrealistically fortunate life. Where you can't wait to get up in the morning, whatever the reason be. Food, family, friends, games, work (lol), shoot even if you just enjoying getting drunk. The base argument would be something along the lines of "If you're having a good time, why would you want it to end?", I imagine.

I like the religious idea of immortality, where you acknowledge the body will die and while you are in your body, you are not your body. Sort of like when you enter your car. You don't "become" a Toyota lol. "Hold on honey, I'm a Toyota right now, I'll call you back." :lol:

Like I've posted before wishing for immortality for your body is a very foolish thing. You could be tortured for millennia by a currently non-existent totalitarian super government. Or trapped in a cave or something. I think there's a Twilight Zone episode like that actually.

One problem would be you would eventually have to outlaw having children without government approval. For obvious reasons. Another problem would be, yeah, why do anything? Not sure if you imply we wouldn't hunger or thirst period or if hungry or thirsty we'd still feel that way until we eat or drink? That's a big factor in how society would change.

In computer science it is known that it takes more computational power to simulate a computer system than the computer system itself has; typically, much more. — hypericin

Is this kind of like how computers used to be the size of a wall and now we wear them on our wrists?

Also,
You can't create a simulation on an average computer where the electricity works differently than it does in real life? Of course you can- it's a simulation!

For the record I do not believe reality is a simulation. More of a 'spiritual realms' guy myself. Now many people, for all intents and purposes, actually do live in man-made simulations, often of their own design- but that's another matter.

Define, "God".