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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
How could one justify the existence or purpose of a "Hell" then? — Outlander
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
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
how do you know we were “planned to do” something from this being? it’s simply all-knowing. — Ignance
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.
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
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
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
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
It may be more accurate to state that we would be less inclined to follow them absent the protection. — Ciceronianus the White
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
But what is the source of this contentment? — The Questioning Bookworm
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
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
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
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
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
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