Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange—meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with color and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.
for gods gods rules for pious men pious mens rules we choose our chains great and small there are ones that choose none among them are those who follow just one tread the needle the answer is simple silence and one to reflect the logos and whole united by golden rule
idk about in other religions but in judaism and christianity there are angels. they have no free will and can only do good. they are indeed inhuman. god loves them as his children, same as all his creations. i don't actually believe in that stuff though.
Xavier Parker
your golden rule would justify war. you've said as much yourself. you've said both parties agree to it and that makes it adherent to the golden rule. you've also said it doesn't matter that maybe neither party would want to be killed, the golden rule is still in effect simply because the desire to kill is reciprocated. you justified this way of thinking by saying that everyone is the same person. we then went on to observe how thinking of everyone as the same person justifies literally any behavior under the umbrella of the golden rule: if you do anything unto others, but you are them and they are you, then obviously you would they should do it unto you, because that's what you're having them do by doing it unto them.
therefore, i reject your interpretation of the golden rule. i believe the golden rule should be modified as such: do unto others as you would they should do unto you if we assume the two of you are not the same person, regardless of whether that assumption is factual, which is a metaphysical question outside the scope of the rule in question.
Eli Roberts
>in judaism and christianity there are angels. they have no free will and can only do good. Then why did some of the angels rebel against God in genesis?
Jackson Robinson
wonder where's glitchie at i'm sure he knows how to talk about this issues
Isaac Diaz
presumably because that was god's plan. but i'm no expert so i wouldn't know.
Benjamin Reed
you believe war is unjust when both parties agree on it? when the indian's refused conflict and protested by ceasing work at the threat of death was that not them exercising golden rule against an invading force, the message was clear: "you will not rule us through force, we will not play your game, if you want to rule the land of india you will rule it over our graves" golden rule is divine and if you cannot understand it even in the case that all are self then you do not understand the self, what is the source of war and how to avoid it is far simpler than making a rule that outlaws it, it is by understanding the self and giving that knowledge in digestable form to those who wish to follow it how many children love to fight? war is literally a pissing contest of ideologies, resources, territory and so forth, if you do not consent to it you will have karmic protection, what happened to germany when they went against golden rule during the nazi era? what happened to japan? what happened to the colonial british empire? rome? what happened to any great empire that lost their way? you can build an empire through subjugating force but you cannot maintain it, stagnancy and corruption will creep into the framework, the officials that make it to the posts will be the ones that do not understand the weight of the crown, the tree will be gnawed hollow and a breeze will crumble the brittle tree that has become a house of cards
Carson Wood
Imagine the jew gods face when!!!!
Brandon Allen
>Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? YES! GOD WANTS YOU TO BE GOOD! GOD IS GOOD! THE BIBLE IS FILLED WITH THINGS THAT MAY SEEM HORRID, BUT THEY ARE MOSTLY TRICKS OR METAPHORS DESCRIBING AGES AND THINGS THAT ARENT FOR MOST. >Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? NO! THERE IS NO BAD. BAD DOES NOT EXIST. GOD DID NOT CREATE BAD AND HUMANS HAVE GOOD HEARTS SO WE DID NOT CREATE BAD. THERE IS NO BAD. THIS IS A PERFECT WORLD CREATED IN HIS IMAGE. WE "PERCEIVE" SOMETHING MIGHT BE NEGATIVE. THAT DOESNT MEAN IT'S NEGATIVE. THAT MEANS WE THINK ITS NEGATIVE. >If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange—meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with color and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil. THERE IS NO DEVIL. GOD WOULD NOT MAKE THE DEVIL. WE ARE NOT CLOCKS. WE ARE HUMANS. WE ARE GOOD. >It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. IT IS NOT INHUMAN TO BE GOOD, PERIOD. YOU CAN BE THE MOST GOOD PERSON ON EARTH AND BE SEEN AS INHUMAN BUT ITS STILL YOUR RIGHT TO BE HUMAN. AND THERE IS NO EVIL ANYWAY, SO. >The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. ALL OF THIS IS WRONG, INHERENTLY. THIS IS BASELESS YIN YANG DUALITY. GOOD IS. WE AL HAVE FREE CHOICE. WE CAN CHOOSE TO LIVE BY THE SKIN OF OUR COATTAILS, BUT THAT IS A POINTLESS ENDEAVOR. THERE IS NO REASON TO BE ANYTHING BUT GOOD. AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE FREEWILL. GOD HAS GIVEN UP FREEWILL INDEFINITELY. THIS IS OUR LIFE. ITS OUR CHOICE TO LIVE IT. MOST JUST CANT SEE THROUGH THE PAIN TO MAKE CONSCIOUS DECISIONS THAT SEEK TO SPREAD GOOD AND PROCREATE HARMONY, ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE WITH BALANCE. ANYWAYS, GOOD IS ALWAYS. >But what I do I do? Because I like to do. AS
>when the indian's refused conflict and protested by ceasing work at the threat of death was that not them exercising golden rule against an invading force, it was indeed them exercising the golden rule against an invading force, if and only if the following can be said of the specific people who exercised the rule as such: assuming they aren't the same people (even if metaphysically they really are, that doesn't matter, because it's logically valid to postulate counterfactual hypotheticals), can it be said that if those specific people were instead in the place of the invading party, and the invading party were the ones forced to work at the threat of death, the indians in question would have wanted the people they were invading to refuse conflict and protest by ceasing work? if you can say that's what they would want under those circumstances -- which i certainly don't doubt -- then yes, that was an exercise of the golden rule. if not, then no, it wasn't. it's really not that hard to understand.
Juan Walker
GIVEN US* FREEWILL INDEFINITELY WHOOPSA
Brody Martin
are you sure god is this good(or are you being delusional)? ,how many chaos,natural disaster did he cause ?
you haven't even studied the problem of evil(haven't you?)
Xavier Robinson
my hatred of unnice figs is so profound that it cannot be revealed with words even my direct students who meditate on it all theor lives will never truly grasp the secret
ITS CALLED LIFE. WHEN YOU VIEW THE WORLD IN SUCH AN IMAGE, YOU CAN SAY IT'S A HORRID PLACE, BUT HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE HAVE AN ORGASM IN A DAY? AND THAT ALL AT ONCE IN JUST ONE DAY. IS THAT NOT A LOT OF PLEASURE TO COUNTERBALANCE THIS NATURAL DISASTER, EVEN THOUGH I AM DISGUSTED BY BOTH. AND, FURTHERMORE, TO WITNESS A TSUNAMI OR A TORANDO IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST AWE INSPIRING THINGS TO SEE SOME NATURAL, ORGANIC DISASTER BEING WROUGHT UPON THIS EARTH, PURELY BY CHANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. WOULD YOU NOT FEEL CLOSE TO GOD AFTER EXPERIENCING SUCH A THING?
WELL STOP ADHERING TO DEATH. LIFE HAS OVERCOME DEATH. AS SET, MYSELF, DEATH IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATING MY WHOLE LIFE. GOOD IS. DEATH IS NOT REAL.
i am person a i am person b i am in the shoes of person a, i choose intent harm i am in the shoes of person b, i choose intent harm both persons a and b have chosen intent harm = golden rule allows
i am person a, i choose intent not harm i am person b, i choose intent harm person a chose intent not harm, person b chose intent harm, golden rule violated
think of it like soldier vs soldier and soldier vs civilian, the civilian didn't sign up to get gunned down and unless they pick up arms and try to kill the soldier there is no reason for the soldier to gun them down, the soldiers have the military force and the civilian has a choice of comply or die depending on the demands, there is always a choice
Jackson Scott
the problem of evil has a pretty simple solution. just consider heaven. eternity is infinitely many times as long as a lifetime. from that perspective, it's quite petty to proclaim anything in the mortal world to be "evil." in the bigger picture, that's like saying "daddy my chocolate bar has a tiny slightly off-colored fleck in it, the existence of that fleck is very bad and the confectioner is surely either out to get me or not worth his title."
Josiah Jones
imagine abiding to a king who enslave,torment,exploits you ,yet to keep you in his control he only needs to impress you and keep you locked with his soldier,but the twist was nobody ever met the king. the domains of his corrupt kingdom is eternal and big.
>both persons a and b have chosen intent harm = golden rule allows but that's not how the golden rule works. the golden rule is "do unto others as you would they should do unto you (under the assumption that you and they are not the same person, regardless of the possibility that this assumption is counterfactual, since counterfactual assumptions do not necessarily invalidate their containing conditionals)." if person a does not want intent harm directed toward them by person b, then for person a to choose intent harm does not adhere to the golden rule, regardless of what person b chooses.
Angel Reed
mm dat autism
James Cox
if you want to understand a higher entity all you have to do is think of what you would do if you were in their "shoes" go as close to your core as you possibly can, without any bias or any horse shit of spooks, just look very very closely to your true nature and then think "what would i be like if i were in their position", congratulations, you've grasped the higher look at how you treat the "lesser lifeforms" around you, look at how you treat your fellow men and how you think of them, now imagine that person with unlimited power and no fear of any punishment and reality as its playground just understand that they are both actually the same entity playing two roles and if they both go for it they are consenting to being dicks and deserve to get slapped by each other over their pissing contest
Matthew Murphy
i read all esfores posts in a childlike voice
Zachary James
alright then why would hell exist for? can't he just makes their mind do no harm for other?(can't because survival?(how about a certain system where everything doesn't need a case for survival(heaven?)(the question would be why he need to create earth(which is the source of evil)
"waah, waah, we want to be free you big bully, give us freedom!" "okay you big babies, you want freedom? here is freewill, you know what? ill throw in a reality to go with it, have fun knowing the price of freewill you ingrates" "yaay, fuck the tyrant we are free!" "yeah freedom is awesome, hmm... gimme that" "haha yeah, wait what? no that's mine" "hehe, you better give me that or else.." "or else what bitch, step up" *ape noises and fighting* "strong assholes rule over weak assholes hurrah!" *bunch of weak assholes huddling together* "hey guys you know that one strong asshole who beat all our asses, he is the biggest asshole and we should gang up our assholeness to kick his ass" "yes, united by our hatred for the biggest asshole we can be even bigger assholes than that big asshole" *everyone nods in agreement* *birth of civilization* we live in a society
>just understand that they are both actually the same entity playing two roles but that doesn't matter, because we've postulated they are not. and, once again, a hypothetical being counterfactual does NOT invalidate the reasoning that follows from it. if we have deduced Q from P, but we know P to be false, it still holds true that IF P WERE true, THEN Q WOULD be true. it doesn't necessarily hold true that Q IS true, but the IF-THEN is absolutely true without question, insofar as our reasoning in deducing it is without flaw (the counterfactual nature of our premise NOT constituting such a flaw in and of itself).
so. if we ASSUME that A and B are NOT the same entity. which should be allowed REGARDLESS of the truth or falsehood of your allegation that they in fact ARE, on the grounds that there's nothing inherently wrong with a counterfactual hypothetical. THEN, since neither A nor B want violence against THEMSELVES, it is NOT adherent to the golden rule for them to agree to commit violence against ONE ANOTHER.
to rephrase slightly: the golden rule is NOT followed because IF A and B WERE NOT the same entity THEN it would NOT be the case that A and B both want harm directed toward THEMSELVES, and YET it IS the case that they both choose to direct it at one another. the golden rule is not satisfied because UNDER THE POSSIBLY COUNTERFACTUAL ASSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ENTITY, it follows that what they choose to do to one another does NOT adhere to what they want done to themselves.
Parker Young
IMAGINE BEING HUMAN, AND SPENDING YOUR WHOLE LIFE TRYING AS HARD AS YOU CAN, NOT REALLY KNOWING YOU EXIST, WANTING ONLY LOVE AND HAPPINESS, EVERYDAY. TO SEE OTHERS, NOT BE THIS, WHILE AT TIMES, IT SEEMS THEY ARE, BUT TO HAVE YOUR CLOSEST FRIENDS AND FAMILY DISREGARD WHO YOU WERE BECAUSE OF SOME SOCIETAL TREND OR SOME MENIAL CHOICE MEANT TO REFLECT A POSSIBLE OUTCOME OR FREEWILL EXTENSION. IMAGINE BEING HUMAN, A SMALL, PRETTY INCAPABLE, DAY TO DAY, CONSEQUENTIAL HUMAN BEING AND DOING THIS, FOR YEARS, JUST TO MAKE OTHERS HAPPY. TO HAVE TO BOW DOWN TO OTHERS, ALTHOUGH SUPERFICIALLY, JUST BECAUSE YOU TRUST THEM. TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THIS WORLD, IN A WAY. TO DEVELOP SOCIETY AND STILL BE LOOKED DOWN AT. THIS IS THE CHOICE OF A PEASANT. AND I WANT NOTHING MORE. AND I HAVE HAD FUN THE WHOLE TIME. WHAT DOES THE KING HAVE ON ME? HAVE I NOT RULED HIS KINGDOM? AM I MERELY HIS QUEEN? MY PRIDE FEELS MORE THEN SUCH. ALL I SEE ARE LOVE. SO, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU NOT DO, THAT YOU COULD? JUST TRY TO BE REAL (SEE: ALL THAT YOU COULD BE). SEE HOW IT IS. B.E. (BE ENTIRELY YOURSELF). HUMANS ARE BEYOND CAPABLE, YET, THEY ARE DISAPPOINTING, BUT THIS DISAPPOINTMENT DOES NOT STEM FROM THEIR INABILITY, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY THINK OR HAVE BEEN PERCEIVING THAT THEY CAN DO MUCH. A BELIEVING HEART IS YOUR MAGIC. MAGIC IS REAL. GOD IS REAL. LOVE IS REAL. THERE IS MUCH TO BE DISCOVERED FROM JUST SITTING IN YOUR HOUSE. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, PLEASE TRY. I HAVE SEEN AND EXPERIENCED THINGS THAT WOULD COMPLETELY END THE FOUNDATIONS OF YOUR REALITY AND BREAK THEIR LEGGINGS. THIS IS NOT A BORING WORLD, I ASSURE YOU. youtube.com/watch?v=cDTon-RRn4k
how many posts in this thread were made by human beings
Jaxson Hall
>if you want to understand a higher entity all you have to do is think of what you would do if you were in their "shoes" go as close to your core as you possibly can, without any bias or any horse shit of spooks, just look very very closely to your true nature and then think "what would i be like if i were in their position", congratulations, you've grasped the higher THIS IS THE TRUTH. NOW, IMAGINE WHY ONE WOULD EVEN WANT NEGATIVITY IN THE FIRST PLACE AND *POOF* EVERYTHING IS FREE AND GOOD. >i am person a i am person b i am in the shoes of person a, i choose intent harm i am in the shoes of person b, i choose intent harm both persons a and b have chosen intent harm = golden rule allows
THIS IS NOT REAL, BECAUSE IF YOU WERE FOLLOWING THE GOLDEN RULE, YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO HARM IN THE FIRST, WHICH IS WHY THE GOLDEN RULE WAS ADAPTED, THEREBY CIRCUMVENTILATING SUCH A POSSIBILITY FROM OCCURRING AND BEING A LOOPHOLE. LIFE
"ad populum" isn't a fallacy when it comes to definitions because definicions are decided by group concensus. words mean whatever the majority thinks they mean
Julian Flores
boring or not it doesn't matter,impartiality,truth and logic is what i'm looking for (if there's enough mass why wouldn't the peasant revolt?(the king has control of the influence of the soldier(missionary,knight,underhands)by the means of value itself(influence,money,safety) but for those who suffers can't become happy(for a reason where they have nothing(even if they have it won't be enough)))) this is the cycle of torments for them that they can't escape
Dylan Baker
EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS WORLD AND WE EXIST NOTHING SHOULD EXIST THERE SHOULD BE AN ENDLESS BLANK... THEREFORE, THE SPIRITUAL REALM MUST!!!! ENTIRELY! THIS IS NOT RANDOM. THIS IS NOT A SINGULAR OCCURRENCE OF A FLICK OF INSANITY BY OUR CONSCIOUSNESS DEDUCTING US INTO THIS SINGLE LIFE AS THIS VERY MOMENT, UNTIL WE EVENTUALLY RECEDE BACK INTO THEREOF. THERE IS PURPOSE TO US OR THIS WOULD BE BLANK NOTHING FOR ALL AND EVER.
lets say the majority of americans would start saying ax instead of ask, would that mean that the word would be changed to ax by definition?
Brandon Campbell
I FEEL YOU. WHEN YOU SAY "FOR THOSE WHO SUFFER, THIS IS A CYCLE OF TORMENTS, I FEEL A TINGE, I FELT A PAIN IN MY RIGHT THUMB. I KNOW EXACTLY, BEFORE I FELT THE PAIN WHAT IT IS YOU TELL YOURSELF, SELL YOURSELF EVEN. (MONEY ISNT REAL, GOD IS) WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SEE, WHAT YOU HEAR, AND EVEN WHAT YOU FEEL IS NOT ALWAYS THE TRUTH. THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY SEEM. THIS ALLOWS SOME COOL THINGS TO EXIST AND SOME POINTLESS GARBAGE TO HAPPEN SOMETIMES, MAYBE AS A TRIAL OR A TEST, OR EVEN AS AN ALLOWANCE OF PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS TO COUNTERACT EACH OTHER IN SOME INEVITABLE BEING OF SUCH. MY POINT IS, YOU ARE. YOU HAVE FREEWILL. YOU CANNOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, ATTEST TO SOMETHING YOU DO NOT WANT TO OR FEEL MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU DONT LIKE. THIS IS ALWAYS AND FOREVER. GOD -WOULD- FOR THIS.
hate to break it to you but have you ever considered that the reason we exist in this very moment is very mundane and easily explainable by simple word, "boredom"
Thomas Parker
yes, that's how definitions work. Words mean what they're used to mean.
Gavin Harris
btw your version doesn't even hold up under its own logic anyway.
let's suppose the golden rule is, in fact, do unto others as you would they should do unto you, WITHOUT the assumption that you and the other are NOT the same entity, and in fact ASSUMING you ARE.
then take A and B. but instead of being at war, suppose A, a soldier, is attacking B, a civilian.
A is E. B is E. (E is this "same entity" we've been talking about.)
A wants harm to come to B. A does not want harm to come to A. B does not want harm to come to A. B does not want harm to come to B.
It follows, from simple substitution, that E wants harm to come to E, but does not want harm to come to E.
First of all, that's already a logical contradiction. Reductio ad absurdum. But regardless, the golden rule is still satisfied. Notice that in both cases (wanting harm and not wanting harm), E wants the same for E as it wants for E. This is of course a tautology, but it's still a crucial point, because it shows, no matter what anyone does to anyone else, under YOUR interpretation, the golden rule remains satisfied. They're both E, and it just reduces to E wanting something for E that it also wants for itself. Thus E, the only actor in the exchange, is doing unto others (E) as it would they should do unto itself (E).
Seems like a pretty useless rule.
Aaron Edwards
it would explain the conflict, eternity of peaceful existence is boring you ever be so fucking bored you decided to seed life with random base stats and adaptable coding just because you are so damn bored of everything you've already seen countless times?
Anthony Morris
NOPE HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED THAT IS THE THING HOLDING YOU BACK? TRUST ME. I HAVE SEEN MAGIC, BY FAITH, DO. I HAVE SEEN HEALING, BY FAITH ALONE, DO. BOREDOM IS SO FAR FROM ME, I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU SAY IT, UNDER ANY REASON. I LITERALLY KNOW OTHERWISE, AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS NOTHING.
if you understand that e is a and b you do not need the crutch of golden rule if you are explaining to someone who doesn't you can only get so close to the explanation without forcing them to see the truth with their own eye
Logan Scott
THE FUCKING POINT OF THE GOLDEN RULE IS TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT, SAME AS ONE WRONG DOESNT MAKE A RIGHT. AN EYE FOR AN EYE. ITS FUCKING SIMPLE. STOP BEING RETARDED IN THIS. A PERSON WANTING TO HARM HAS ALREADY BROKEN THE GOLDEN RULE, PERIOD, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT HARM TO COME TO HIM.
if you would understand what your magic and healing is you would not call them that (i think) OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD FACE HUMANITY'S DARK SIDE AND REALIZE WE ARE SADISTIC AND MASOCHISTIC CREATURES THAT REVEL IN CAUSING AND RECEIVING PAIN AND TORMENT ON EACH OTHER BECAUSE WE ARE HIDIOUS DISGUSTING CREATURES THAT WERE A MISTAKE TO EVER BE GIVEN A FREEWILL TO
Ian Butler
your implication would be "if there's no suffering there would be no happiness" then consider heaven there's no suffering there either yet everyone is happy,so therefore we can conclude that pain and suffering does not AND shouldn't be necessary to exist
next will be the freewill problem,consider an organism without a capability to think or feel emotion (parasite or bacteria) can you give this bacteria the ability to solve a math equation?
or consider if the brain were in coma(can you wake yourself up?)
Gabriel White
>if you would understand what your magic and healing is you would not call them that (i think) IT IS FOR GOD. I HAVE FAITH IN THAT. I DONT THINK GOD WOULD SWINDIGGLE ME. HAVE FAITH. YOUR HEART -WOULD NOT- LEAD YOU ASTRAY. IT IS A FREE, GOOD THING, EVEN IF YOU FEEL OR SAY YOU AREN'T, ALWAYS. >OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD FACE HUMANITY'S DARK SIDE AND REALIZE WE ARE SADISTIC AND MASOCHISTIC CREATURES THAT REVEL IN CAUSING AND RECEIVING PAIN AND TORMENT ON EACH OTHER BECAUSE WE ARE HIDIOUS DISGUSTING CREATURES THAT WERE A MISTAKE TO EVER BE GIVEN A FREEWILL TO THERE IS NO SUCH THING. I KNOW FROM MY CHILDHOOD, AND, GIVEN ITS "RIGHT" TO EXIST, IF YOU CAN CALL IT THAT, LET'S TACKLE IT OBJECTIVELY. IF THE CONCEPTS UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT IS THEY STOOD FOR, WOULDN'T THEY... STOP EXISTING? WHY WOULD THEY EXIST IN THE FIRST? AND, HUMANS ARE MADE TO ERROR. IF WE WERE ALL COOKIECUTTER ROBOTOS, THAT WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH FUN, EVEN THOUGH GOOD IS VERY FUNNSIES. AND FURTHERMORE, FREEWILL WOULD ALREADY STATE THAT THESE THINGS WOULD HAPPEN ANYWAY, SO WOULDN'T THEY ALREADY BE ABSOLVED? >so therefore we can conclude that pain and suffering does not AND shouldn't be necessary to exist DING DONG MY POINT, BUT ITS HERE ON EARTH AND HAS BEEN. WE JUST ATTEST OTHERWISE BECAUSE FREEWILL ALLOWS. >or consider if the brain were in coma(can you wake yourself up?) I WOKE UP FROM KINDA SCARY DREAM LAST NIGHT. THESE GUYS WITH A BIG NAIL IN THEIR NECK AND HAD NAILS GORING OUT OF THERE HEAD AND I HAD FORGOTTEN I WAS ARMED, SO WHAT I DID WAS I ALT TABBED (IN MY DREAM) AND CLOSED THE PROGRAM, WHICH WOKE ME UP. I, IN TWO SEPARATE WAYS, ENTIRELY SEPARATE, DID WAKE MYSELF UP, WITH ONLY THE INTENT OF WAKING MYSELF UP FROM ONE.
>if you understand that e is a and b you do not need the crutch of golden rule But what if you understand but just don't agree? For instance I understand the *claim* that they're the same entity just fine, and I can see how, if someone did understand that to be true, they wouldn't need the golden rule. However, I don't think it's necessarily true. Note that I didn't say I don't think it's true. Just that I don't think it's NECESSARILY true. There's no evidence for it. There's no evidence for the golden rule, either, but the golden rule is a prescriptive claim, not a descriptive one, so it's not a claim of the sort that has a truth value or admits proof.
William Moore
you seem to completely miss my point(give it a few times read)
i also should note that this wouldn't be a problem if the being is different(other gods),also freewill does not exist, everything is a plastic presets of cognitive processes
Ryder Cooper
even by trying to overcome this nature you are still stuck in the cycles because to want to overcome desires is a desire in itself the cycles and insidious until you have completely burned yourself out of everything and just die you are not free from them you can try to go to any direction but you are not moving anywhere, no matter what you try or don't try you're still wanting to exist in a world of these concepts only once you really truly want to get out of it are you free from it, not just to overcome desires but to cease them that is the blowing out of the candle to want to cease existing all together, not for some shitty other worldly reward but for the sake of ceasing look at all the aspects of this reality and realize they are all of the same, remove all barriers between yourself and that and realize it is all the same pathetic creature staving off boredom that is the self, it is the tyrant, the self righteous martyr, the beggar, the slit throat, the pious ascetic, the farmer it is all of them everything, it is the dog that eats its own shit it is the greedy man taxing it is all of it it is the dirt it is the trees it is a autumn fart it is the thinker it is the thought it is everything and nothing in this reality there cannot be a true will to be that and that is why one subjects themselves into flesh, because they don't want to be that, it is why we chain ourselves to beliefs and why we adopt concepts like they are something precious, we don't want to be everything we just want to be the "good" parts, when you accept that you're everything you want nothing to do with anything and relighting the candle doesn't remove that revelation it just gives you back the delusion but it is still there, all your senses all your concepts are of you there is nothing you are a thought floating in soup and trying to come to terms with the fact that they are the primordial matter that made this reality, no matter how great or small they are ALL it
>freewill does not exist, everything is a plastic presets of cognitive processes I read your claim here as a logical argument: the conclusion comes first, and the premise is after the comma. I ask you: by what reasoning does the premise admit the conclusion? What if I hold that everything is just predetermined cognitive processes AND free will exists WITHIN that predestination?
I don't reject anything you just said offhand, but all of it is nothing more than an opinion, and so is all of the spiritualist background behind it. Can you substantiate that opinion with empirical proof?
Julian Morales
This is how the Halo array would have created the cosmic wind that infected the galaxy
Bentley Harris
isn't life great? tanoshiiiiiiiiiiii lift yourself from your own feet and ill prove it to you inside the confines of this reality without giving you direct experience of it
everything in itself has a factor of influences (random genetic inheritance,activation,random life events that comes suddenly(accident,natural disaster,slow traffic with lots of pollution)) but even if you were to change your thought patterns (it still won't be a freewill (due to limited capability to change it biologically))
assuming that if you have freewill,what hold you from being able to remember,forgot,feels anything you want?
John Cruz
>lift yourself from your own feet and ill prove it to you inside the confines of this reality without giving you direct experience of it Can you provide *empirical* proof?
John Gomez
everything is made out of combination of little things these little things work in unison the unison of these little things (even the ones that you can't perceive) is kind of what that is in these terms you should get close to it did you make omelette yet or should i throw more eggs at the frying pan?
Nolan Martinez
you seem to be suggesting free will entails the ability to do as you please without your decisions being influenced. however, what if we define what you please to do as the sum of certain influences?
consider: under your model that proclaims we lack free will, our will is a man, and factors such as genetics, neurological processes, etc are chains that bind that man down.
but i suggest to you, perhaps the sum of those processes and those genetics and etc IS our will, and that will IS free, because the INFLUENCES are free. that is, i suggest to you, perhaps there are no chains, because the chains ARE the man.
>assuming that if you have freewill you're assuming much more than just that. you're assuming that "free will" refers to complete and absolute freedom from everything and freedom to do anything. there are many things that set limits on our freedoms, but within those limits we are free.
Angel Peterson
you keep suggesting there's something i don't understand about the claim that people are the same entity. you misunderstand, i grasp the claim just fine, i just don't accept it as absolute truth without hard empirical evidence. do i accept that everyone is part of the same system, yes. do i accept that perhaps that system itself is conscious, yes. however, i do not accept the claim that people are the same entity. they are plainly PART of the same entity, but they are not THE same entity. or maybe they are, and if they are, i need empirical proof.
Hunter Roberts
wagick stop being so lovable
Nathaniel Price
this user gets it. the only thing that determines our will is ourselves; we have no choice but to act as we would choose to act
Aaron Rogers
>but i suggest to you, perhaps the sum of those processes and those genetics and etc IS our will, and that will IS free, because the INFLUENCES are free. that is, i suggest to you, perhaps there are no chains, because the chains ARE the man.
that is a very absurd claims
and influences aren't free does your ancestor influences you? (yes) ,do you control what they do? (no) and the true definition of free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. therefore what you like or not doesn't matter,and the influence of the bio limitation matter
Xavier Sullivan
note that doing something as you like (TO) please yourself considered as necessity
Juan Watson
but what if the "influence of the bio limitation" IS YOU? what if we postulate that this influence IS the very MECHANISM of your choices?
consider, if a person is free to make a choice, but we consider a person as a machine, then there must be, somewhere in that machine, a "choice-maker."
how can you claim a person is prevented from making choices because their choice-maker is what makes the choices? the choice-maker is part of the person, is it not? so if it's the choice-maker making the choices, then it's the person making the choices.
correct,though i can influence my mechanism for some certain extent (assuming that we can control everything biologically related to us with technology) from this point on the only limitation is hidden information
Jeremiah Powell
I UNDERSTOOD YOUR POINT COMPLETELY ITS NOT THAT I DISAGREE. I KNOW THERE IS NO EVIL. A SIMPLE LOGICAL PUZZLE. GOD IS GOOD. HE WOULD NOT MAKE EVIL. THIS EARTH WAS MADE IN HIS IMAGE. IT IS PERFECT, TOO. HUMANS HAVE A GOOD HEART AND A GOOD SOUL. WE WERE ALL THE SAME AT BIRTH. THIS CAN'T BE DODGED OR RID, SO WE WOULD NOT MAKE IT. IT JUST ISNT ANYTHING. WE JUST THINK SO, FOR NO REASON! OTHER GODS? THERE IS ONE GOD. WE COULD ALL BE A PART OF GOD OR GOD, AS TOGETHER. TO THINK FREEWILL DOESNT EXIST... I AM SORRY YOU THINK THAT. IT IS NOT TRUE. I KNOW YOU. I KNOW YOU DONT THINK THAT.
TRY BASE SIMPLICITY. STOP SEEING REALITY AS THIS EVER ESCENT NONSENSE WHERE EVERY PART HAS AN EQUAL END. BALANCE ISNT A GIVEN. IT IS A CONCEPT. THINGS ARE IN UNBALANCE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE BALANCE OF IT, THE HARMONY OF IT. YOU ARE PRESERVED EVEN IN YOUR STATE OF SAYING YOU DONT HAVE FREE-WILL. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE..................? AND PLUS WE ARE IN THE PAST RN, IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, WELL THEN :)
>i can influence my mechanism for some certain extent but if you ARE your mechanism, then you have ABSOLUTE influence over your mechanism, because you must include any influence your mechanism has over you as influence you have over your mechanism, since they're one and the same.
Mason Thomas
>and the true definition of free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Necessity and fate aren't constraints upon your actions; necessity, fate and free will are ultimately just different ways of looking at what is essentially the same process. You can look at it in such a way that it appears free, or you can look at it in such a way that it appears unfree, but these are just labels applied to the process after the fact in order to highlight the aspects of it that one considers most meaningful.
>that is a very absurd claims NO, THAT CLAIM IS SOUND. ITS ACTUALLY A BASELINE PRINCIPLE ONE WOULD ALMOST BE GUARANTEED TO HIT ON A SPIRITUAL JOURNEY. ARE YOU SURE YOU JUST DONT SAY SHIT ISNT SOUND WHEN IT QUESTIONS YOUR LOGIC? >does your ancestor influences you? (yes) NO, THEY DONT. PERIOD. PERIOD. THEY ARE DEAD. YOU ARE NOT. >and the true definition of free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. NO, ITS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE IN THE MOMENT. DO YOU LOOK AT THINGS AS A LINE IN TIME OR ARE YOU ACTUALLY HERE IN THIS VERY MOMENT, HUH? CAN I SEE HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF AND HOW YOU ARE OUTSIDE YOUR OWN "REFLECTION" (SEE HOW I WORDED IT) OF REALITY? >therefore what you like or not doesn't matter,and the influence of the bio limitation matter THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE, ALTHOUGH YOU THINK IT DOES. THIS IS LIMITATION OF YOUR OWN BIO MATTER. CONSIDER THE SPIRITUAL REALM. STOP THINKING YOU KNOW. JESUS SAID THE LESS YOU KNOW THE BETTER. SOCRATES SAID THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING. HE MEANT THIS LITERALLY, NOT FIGURATIVELY.
AND, FURTHERMORE, I'M BLIND. IM BLIND. I DO NOT SEE. I DO NOT SEEK TO SEE. I AM AS I AM AND I HAVE FAITH I WILL KNOW WHAT I KNOW. ESSENTIALLY, BUT OF COURSE THIS SHOULD ALREADY BE UNDERSTOOD. ITS FUNNY TO SEE US HOP BACK AND FORTH OVER JUST A FEW 5-6 CONCEPTS THAT ULTIMATELY JUST REQUIRE ONE SPARK TO IGNITE THE WHOLE THING IN FLAMES AND GAIN A PERSPECTIVE FOR THOSE THAT ALREADY DO NOT HAVE IT.
it's quite obvious the point that i make is that (you can't(because of how unrealistic that is)
Nolan Brown
>*ignore empirical evidence*
Jaxon Hernandez
YOU DO -NOT- UNDERSTAND THE SELF YOU SELL YOURSELF, TELL YOURSELF, BELIEVE THAT THE SELF IS NOT FREE, ALMOST A PART OF YOU ENTIRELY, WHEN IT ALREADY IS. YOU WILL LIVE AND DIE HERE. IT WILL EXPERIENCE. IT WILL COMMUNICATE. IT WILL KNOW AND IT WILL HAVE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU DIDN'T, TO THE SELF, AND TO YOU THE SELF COULD BE IN THE SAME SITUATION. NOW, SAYING THAT, THE SELF -WOULD BE- FREE. IT WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO BE ANYTHING BUT THAT. IT WOULD DO AS IT PLEASES. IT WOULD NOT BE NEGATIVE NOR SEEK NEGATIVITY. IT WOULD ABIDE WITH WHAT IT KNOWS AND WHAT IT WANTS TO KNOW, WHAT IT DESIRES AND WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT KNOWS AS GOOD, AND SEEKS THEREOF, AND WHAT IT PERCEIVES AS NEGATIVE. SO ULTIMATELY IT WOULD GO AFTER GOOD AND ONLY GOOD AND BE FREE IN IT. TO THINK OTHERWISE IS YOUR DOWNFALL. TO PUT THINGS ON THIS SELF, TO ATTEST TO OTHERS, TO PERCEIVE IT AS DIFFERENT, DID NOT CHANGE IT, BUT IT CHANGED HOW YOU SAW. YOU ARE STILL THE SAME, YOU JUST THINK OTHERWISE. AND DESIRE IS JUST DESIRE. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN CREATE A LOGIC LOOP DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE. ITS EASY TO MAKE AN END, BUT AN END ALREADY WASN'T AT THE INCEPTION OF IT'S POINT, WASN'T IT? >you are a thought floating in soup and trying to come to terms with the fact that they are the primordial matter that made this reality, no matter how great or small they are ALL it AND I WANT NOTHING MORE. CONSIDER YOUR HUMILITY IN THE APPLICATION OF SUCH A THING.
POINT OUT WHAT EVIDENCE I IGNORED? THAT PEOPLE DO NEGATIVE THINGS? SO? THAT'S JUST PAIN, WHICH ISN'T REAL. IT'S JUST BEING HUMAN. TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF ATLAS (DOING ALL GOOD ONLY(WHICH OBVIOUSLY, WOULD NOT BE ROLLING THE BOULDER UP THE HILL, BUT LETS PRETEND)) AND YOU MIGHT FIND THAT ALL IS GOOD, BUT ABSOLVE YOURSELF FROM SUCH AND YOU MIGHT FIND THAT YOU MIGHT NEED TO PERFORM GOOD. SO, I GIVE TO YOU THAT SIMPLE LITTLE PUZZLE. WHERE IS NEGATIVITY IN THERE? IT LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST.
a materialist,a spiritualist, a pessimist walk into a bar...
Xavier Richardson
simply it can be described as feeling of unwell or inflicting harm to other and yes pain and negativity does exist you faggot
Cameron Rodriguez
>and yes pain and negativity does exist you faggot TO YOU BUT, AGAIN, THE SIMPLE LOGICAL PUZZLE. WHY WOULD GOD MAKE NEGATIVITY? HE WOULDN'T. WHY WOULD HUMANS WANT NEGATIVITY? WE WOULDN'T. THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T EXIST. >simply it can be described as feeling of unwell or inflicting harm to other DO YOU NOT HAVE FREEWILL? CAN YOU NOT CHOOSE TO END THESE FEELINGS? MAYBE YOU ARE PERCEIVING THAT YOU CAN'T, WHEN I KNOW YOU CAN. SO, IF YOU COULD, WOULDN'T YOU, SO THEREFORE, YOU ALREADY DID. SO IT NEVER DID EXIST, AND YOU ARE ALREADY ABSOLVED OF SUCH.
YOU DO REALIZE THIS IS LIKE... MY 10TH TIME DOING THIS RIGHT LOL? WHATEVER WILL BE... WILL BE! AND I HAVE FAITH THEREOF ANYWAYS! PS stop reading trends AND THINKING THEY MEAN ANYTHING BUT WHAT SOCIETY IS, AGAIN GAMERS, WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY
... GOD WOULDN'T WANT YOU TO CARE ABOUT HIM? CONSIDER THIS. GOD SAID HE WAS SO ALONE OR SOMETHING, THAT DARKNESS WAS HIS ONLY FRIEND. AND YOU KNOW WHAT GLITCHIE SAID? SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS THERE TOO, LETTING FIREFLIES LOOSE IN THE DARKNESS SO GOD HAD AT LEAST TWO FRIENDS.
ILU TOO BUT NOT ROMANTICALLY, THAT IS FOR MY BETROTHED. PLEASE DONT INVADE THAT RIGHT AND I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW IT ALREADY BUT ITS OKAY IF YOU DONT (BUT YOU DO) BUT UM THATS THAT
Wyatt Hughes
i wanna kiss u
Cameron Richardson
dude that's gay ew
Oliver Jackson
YOU'RE MOM plus you are just sad and want to feel connection because you feel a lack of such. try being nice in public. someone may start a conversation with you and it feels very nice to talk to someone randomly because its genuine and organic
you know what idc about telling you anything (your mind wouldn't change anyway)
Daniel Allen
SORRY I DIDNT SUCK YOUR DICK? LIKE, THIS IS YOU LITERALLY IN TWO WAYS BE NICE TO ME ABOUT MY STUPID BULLSHIT OR ILL THROW A FIT (I LITERALLY KNEW YOU WOULD THROW A FIT IF I WAVED YOU OFF ON YOUR OWN SAD SHIT THAT IS LITERALYL COOKIE CUTTER DRAMA WITH A RANDOM PERSON LIKE ARE YOU 10 YEARS OLD? SOMEONE AT RECESS WAS MAD AT YOU WTF ARE YOU EVEN THINKING, YOU ARE THIS SENSITIVE, REALLY BRO????????) AND TWO, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE RANDOMLY WAS MEAN TO YOU MEANS... EVERYONE IS RANDOM NO THE TRUTH IS YOU -ARENT- STANDING UP FOR WHAT YOU KNOW IS RIGHT YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARE GOOD" YOU WANT ME TO DO IT FOR YOU FUCK YOU FAGGOT KIKE I WONT DO IT FOR YOU YOU DO IT YOURSELF I WONT ALTER YOUR LIFE, YOU DESERVE YOUR OWN LIFE I WONT CHANGE YOU JUST TO MAKE YOU HAVE PLEASURE AND RELIEF, I WON'T RUIN -YOUR- EXPERIENCE I WONT TAKE AWAY FROM -YOUR- EXPERIENCE, YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSIONS YOURSELF MOFO INB4 I WAS MEAN I REALLY WASNT
THEN WHY BRING TO ME YOU EXPERIENCED IT FIRST HAND? JUST TO BE MY FRIEND BUT BRO IF YOU SAID THAT TO ME IRL LIKE SOMEONE WAS MEAN TO ME AT THE STORE YOU KNOW WHAT I WOULD SAY? SO? BECAUSE IM TELLING YOU IT DONT MATTER IM NOT ACTING LIKE IT MATTERS AND IM MAKING THE ROOM FOR YOU TO SHOW THAT IT DOESNT MATTER BY TURNING MY CHEEK
i was so happy to see wagick & post ITT and then i started scrolling FFS!!! i cant even read this tripe back to YT i'm stright up dissapointed
Your fortune: ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!
Owen Taylor
u got dunkton
Luis Lewis
the quality of the board got dunkton
Christopher Price
could you explain more specifically, what disappointed you about wagicks thread today?
Wyatt Collins
the guy is just straight up creepsville, he has no conception of normal human interaction
Jason Hall
i dont fucking come here for normal human interaction retard
Daniel Ramirez
but you thought they were good before this, right? so what changed your mind?
Jose Gutierrez
wagicks thread is fine, and wagick is super interesting and nice too i think people don't like the posters in the thread more than the thread itself
John Adams
this, duh. >TRIPE nashi is based, a few anons are contributing but other than that its all tripe
Ian James
i think wagick does hard drugs and is therefor a fucking idiot with guaranteed declining health and post quality along with it.
Daniel Perry
wow, imagine if we all just had to post anonymously and then we could just judge posts based on their content and not the stupid ass persona/name attached to it wow what a world, can't imagine such a thing
Mason Evans
im judging the posts based on the fact that these low quality fags never post a thing worth while even on accident i would not need to see a name attached to the majority of the posts ITT to be disapointed
Juan Williams
That presupposes good and evil as immutable concepts that can be universally defined. Good things are things that bring some form of pleasure, be it physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual, and preferably "pure" pleasures. "Perverted" or so called "carnal" pleasures are things that bring pleasure, but in some way cause more pain than pleasure, or that violates some value somehow. On the contrary, bad things cause pain in similar ways. In similar fashion, some pain is good that overall brings more pleasure somehow, such as work and certain forms of abstinence, like abstaining from certain foods or sex in certain conditions. *Reddit got me fucked bruh* Tl;dr Pure good is pleasure at it's purest state. Pure evil is pain in it's most concentrated state. Everything else is some mixture of the two.
imagine Yea Forums ; ) their choice, what does it have to do with anything didn't call it tripe or whatever. i liked the thread, just saying the others seem upset by it all
Kayden Long
pretentious pseudo philosophy thru & thru in here LOL
Ayden Carter
this, it would be fine if it where well informed opinions but this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Evan Myers
Freedom is to be owned, but not necessarily used.
Jonathan Cook
the drugs ruin them, and their posts.
Benjamin Bailey
YOU CAN SEE THE QUALITY OF THE POSTS REALLY DECLINE LATER IN THE NIGHT
Adam King
Shutup
Xavier Price
Yeah, I'll be honest, I ripped my post straight from a youtube vid. I mean to read more, but I don't lol I probably need a break from the internet...
