Post

Chapter 1: Good And Evil And Just How Real They Are

Activity in the universe can be boiled down to two different activity types. The mundane type is physics. Physics does it job transitioning energy within the four spacial dimensions of the universe. The other set of activities comes under life decisions. Different living organisms with varying levels of will power decide upon the direction, intensity, and content to employ their body and influence their surroundings. Life decision is actually the thing that is interesting because there is no real way to predict it.

Physical activities, while real, do not really balance out on the good and evil scale. While they don't have moral content on their own, they do set a medium that decides how much good and evil content is in life decision. If you know enough about physical being, you can predict exactly what it will do.

Life decision holds all of the good and evil in personal decisions. It is measurable as well. A decision that is more good than evil, opens up more options and freedom for life. A decision that is more evil than good, reduces the number of options for life. It is almost impossible to know just how much good and evil goes into any decision because of the complexity of the universe, but you can get a general idea if you think hard enough on it. It is also noteworthy that the physical universe reacts to life decisions and helps determine just how much freedom becomes available or is diminished by a decision.

Armed with this insight, we can start asking ourselves the difficult questions. Is it a good idea to kill and eat that cow? We know the level of awareness and options the cow has to a degree. We also know just how dynamic the people can be that will eat the cow. The evil of destroying the cow's options will tend to be much less than the freedom allowed the people who eat it. For this reason, eating the cow is probably a good idea so long as the people it feeds are more good than bad.

The idea of good and evil being relative norms is absurd upon understanding the true nature of good and evil. While a living being may be unaware of their actual freedom level, their actual freedom level is a real thing. Tying up a person who does more good than evil and tossing them in a hole is going to limit their freedom and create evil whether people perceive the action as good or evil or not. The problem that will choke most people is that a living being's intent influences how much good or evil goes into removing or adding freedom to them. If a person will destroy others that are more good than evil with their freedom, eliminating the freedom of the destroyer by destroying them will actually have a net good result by sparing the victims of the would be destroyer. This also comes into play with the cow. Feeding a cow to someone intent on ruining the freedom of others is an evil decision.

Now there will be those that say since good and evil have definitions that require insight into the future, they are academic and have no application. That is absurd as well. The situation is very manageable. If someone lacks information on intent, they can simply assume the living things will make good decisions instead of evil ones and try to maximize freedom for all since life tends to be self promoting if nothing else. When there is information on how freedom actually gets employed with a particular living being, a decision can be made on how dangerous for life that particular living being may be. If a dog or person consistently employs its freedom to kill others without nutritional need, it is safe to assume giving those living things more freedom will result in a loss of overall life freedom and is an evil choice. Even spending food on some living things can be evil since all food is life.

There may be those that will say this is totally unfair to rocks, but rocks don't make decisions at all. The biggest rub will come with the concept of consuming animals. Animals have the highest form of freedom compared to plants. People will err and say it is totally bad to consume any animal. This is false, but requires full analysis to understand. First, any animal must get energy from the sun to move and that will come through plants. Letting any animal live inherently limits the freedom of other animals. Said another way, the life of an animal is guaranteed to have an element of evil to it since it collects energy from life choices. Only a plant can have a life without evil since it collects more energy than it uses from physical actions, but even plants limit other plants on many occasions. Second, some animals get very destructive in their behaviors and it becomes remiss just to let them live knowing the damage to other life they will rend. Thirdly, any life is going to be food sooner or later for another life. Whether bacteria, or a scavenger, or a hunter eats something will shape the future and the freedoms that exist within it. These factors combine to drive whether consuming an animal is really a good idea or not.

Tombs are inherently evil as it turns out. Taking a dead body and preventing it from being of use to living beings limits life freedom. The materials, space, and labor that go into isolating the dead body are also a complete loss to life. Someone may counter propose that the memory preserved by the isolation of the corpse promotes freedom in such a way as to make it worth it, but any intelligent being would understand there are plenty of other media options that are less destructive and limiting to preserve memory.

So, in understanding the concept of life choice and how physics allows for options, it is possible to measure how much good and evil is in a given decision but unlikely for people to be able to measure it with high accuracy. This means the good and evil in actions transcends human perception and holds true in the real universe regardless of perception. Good actions will spread freedom, whether realized or not, while evil actions will reduce freedom. Freedom is based upon freedom for life as a whole. Individual freedom is only good if it promotes enough freedom for all life to justify the evil content of the individual freedom. Good and evil are never pure. The physical universe is too limited to allow a pure evil or pure good decision.
cpgnatly cpgnatly 41-45, M 15 Responses Oct 10, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

Good is not evil...and evil can not be good ..what is good and what makes it evil ..

Good and evil mix, just like light and dark mix. No place is completely dark across all spectrums and no place is completely evil. Good promotes life options while evil reduces them. I thought I was clear on that one in the chapter.

@Perk

You're absolutely right. Take God for instance. Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to shirk, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. As such, if god is evil then there must necessarily exist a maximally great, supreme God who is all powerful, all good and all loving; One who is the very paradigm of good.

So we don’t praise God for doing His duty. Rather He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc. It is because God is that way that these qualities count as virtues in the first place. Essentially, God is good the same way water is wet, diamonds are hard and stars are blazing hot. So if we think of God’s goodness in terms of His possessing certain virtues rather than fulfilling certain duties, we have a more exalted and more adequate concept of God and, by extension, of true goodness.

That's not how a syllogism works. (2) doesn't follow from (1) because it's a premise, not a conclusion. Moreover, you're arguing with yourself since you affirm the reality of (2) in your essay. Did you not read what you wrote?

Without a definition of God or evil. You really didn\'t say much at all. I think I have my terms defined how I\'m using them.

My apologies, I presumed you understood the meaning of such terms:

Evil - \"Profound immorality, wickedness and depravity.\"

God - \"The maximally great, supreme being responsible for the creation of all reality.\"

Any other questions?

To prove evil you have to believe in choice. At that point you have to face what I wrote and display that I\'m invalid in the face of choice if we are to go anywhere with any of this.

You base your concept of God on creation. Your God is smaller than mine and we are talking two different beings. My God is a source of infinite energy and knowledge. My God has no beginning nor end and as such has had reality in being the whole time without creation or end.

So, are you going to lay forth a position or keep quoting old or dead men I\'ve made a new discovery past? I see you trying to chop on my position, failing, and never taking a position of your own. I don\'t really care that those men are more intelligent than me. What I\'m interested in is if you can debunk the theory or not and so far all I see you doing is clinging to some cultural relativism guess you\'ve made that I\'m pretty sure is dead wrong now.

I. Are you hard of reading? What do you think a \"maximally great, supreme being\" means? He is all the things you describe and much, much more.

II. The fatal flaw to your speculation is that you arbitrarily ground it on freedom. On the other hand, I show that the ontology of objective moral values and duties can only be God.

In effect, I\'m inviting you to expand your epistemology such that you too can arrive at a legitimate view of reality.

I. If the being is that powerful you can kiss the concepts of creation and destruction goodbye.
II. Arbitrarily grounded on freedom? I submit you have not looked at where we are. I looked at where we are and what life does is the main interest. Physics, though fascinating, only does what it\'s told. If God set up this universe, then it will certainly reflect what God wants and it\'s obvious God expected bad things to happen.

My view of reality is fine. You have yet to show me yours or help mine in the least.

I. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

II. You misapprehend how free will works. To borrow from the brainchild of Harry Frankfurt, \"so long as a person’s choice is causally undetermined, it is a free choice even if he is unable to choose the opposite of that choice.

Imagine a man with electrodes secretly implanted in his brain who is presented with the choice of doing A or B. The electrodes are inactive so long as the man chooses A; but if he were going to choose B, then the electrodes would switch on and force him to choose A. If the electrodes fire, causing him to choose A, his choice of A is clearly not a free choice. But suppose that the man really wants to do A and chooses of his own volition. In that case his choosing A is entirely free, even though the man is literally unable to choose B, since the electrodes do not function at all and so have no effect on his choice of A. What makes his choice free is the absence of any causally determining factors of his choosing A.

In other words, a limitation in the range of choices is not the same as having no choice at all. If A, B, and C are good choices, and D, E, and F are evil choices, one’s inability to choose D, E, or F does not negate the fact that he can choose A, B, or C.”

When you go to an Italian restaurant, they may only serve 12 out of 150 possible Italian dishes. The fact that you cannot choose 138 of those dishes does not negate the fact that you can choose any one of the 12 options before you. Likewise, God’s expectation that man act morally does not mean man lacks freedom of will. Hence, God is justified in expecting mankind to do good and punishing those who abuse their limited free will to be evil.

You bore me. Bye bye.

I smell your fear, lol :D

*Yawn*

If you can\'t see and admit how much you\'ve already conceded then there\'s no point in wasting more of my time. Adios!

I thought you\'d never catch the hint.

8 More Responses

“Good and evil has no passport; it speaks in different tongues, wears many skins, and exists everywhere, even in the SAME PERSON”― A.H. Amin

The scary part is confusing evil and good. I believe it is a battle that will keep going as long as humans exist.

Thank you very much for this post. I enjoyed reading it a lot.

I\'m glad it was worth something. Thank you for checking it out.

How are your opinions on the definitions of "good" and "evil" anymore valid than anyone else's?

You don\'t see how I relate to reality and dismiss opinion? Oh well. Call back when your reading comprehension improves.

You say, \"you don\'t see how I [...]\" and that\'s the issue. (Bracket mine) Your treatise is riddled with assumptions, opinion and preconceptions. So my question is entirely valid, your puerile ad hom, notwithstanding.

Concordantly, again I put to you, what makes your opinions on the definitions of \"good\" and \"evil\" anymore valid than anyone else\'s?

For example, how do you prove your definitions are objectively true and all others objectively false?

I\'m not proving other opinions true or false. I\'m examining the real nature of good and evil past perception. I\'m looking at it from the angle of reality rather than perception and asking, \"Are the qualities real?\" The only way this observation breaks down totally is if choice is not real. If choice isn\'t real, we are wasting our time anyway.

Please focus. You keep saying \"I\" when the question pertains to objective truth.

From all the available parameters, you choose to quantify the measure of good or evil of an act based on freedom. Why? What makes such a selection objectively true? In other words, how is this anything more than your opinions?

Because what a person can actually do is determined by the rules of reality. The only thing interesting that can happen in the universe is choice. If we had no choice but to be here, what does it matter anyway? That renders us both biological computers. It\'s a case of reality. If I have no choice I have no opinion. I\'m just doing what I was going to do anyway. In fact, your faith in opinion supports my assertion that choice is likely just as real as any physics.

You misapprehend. I have very little faith in opinion, hence my interrogatories.

For instance, since, regardless of efforts to the contrary, all life ends, a case could be made that maximizing one\'s pleasure should be the absolute parameter by which all actions should be measured against.

As one such famous adherent of this philosophy once expressed, \"The greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog?

Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’?

In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”\" -Ted Bundy

Since this equally compelling opinion conflicts with yours, how would you show it to be objectively false and yours objectively true?

Here is the deal. I cover this in Chapter 2, but why not here as well. If the universe is finite, you will only live one life. Evil is your best choice. If the universe is infinite, you will have to live many lives and you will find the evil you get away with in this life is the evil that cuts down your next 10,000 lives. It\'s a fair guess. Pick one. Good luck.

You say, \"we are too finite to ever know if the universe is infinite and worse yet, we are too finite to even see if this universe has a border to prove it’s finite.\"

Since you\'re including yourself in this, you don\'t even know if the universe is finite or infinite making the opinions you express here in Chapter One completely otiose.

You\'re not a very good guru are you, he he heh ehe :)

I just take my guess with infinite is all. I don\'t make any bones about it. However, you knowingly cling to a finite universe and openly choose evil. In your act of choice you prove the universe is infinite and guess wrong. Good luck.

Let me clarify a few misconceptions. First, I have not chosen evil over good and, second, I have no need to guess. The difference between good and evil is very clear to me because I know how both come to be defined as such.

Then why not share that? If you have a good definition, let\'s hear it and stop wasting time with whatever this is and make this a real conversation.

Was just waiting for you to ask, is all :)

Consider the following:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
(5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

In other words, as Dostoevsky once mused, \"If there is no God, everything is permitted.\"

That\'s a contradiction and falls apart immediately. 2 does not follow from 1, nor is 2 proven. It\'s very simple. If God doesn\'t exist, this is a finite system and we have no choice but to die. Certainly there is no good or evil in a finite system. Finite systems don\'t have choice and will end.

10 More Responses

Scientists say that everything revolves around photons. The stars we see in the night sky could've been dead for generations. If you travel past the speed of light then stop n zoom in on earth you could see dinosaurs roaming around. This is how light/ photosynthesis travels. Mind boggling right?

Not that mind boggling. The thing is, if you travel at the speed of light you are light and you won\'t accelerate past that. The real question is are the infinite number of our universes in existence so that we actually had choices when we thought we did or is it just this one with only fate to put us where we are.

@Cp

When was M-Theory confirmed to be veridical? This is news to me!

Ooh I\'m not touching on that subject, not with a ten foot pole.
*zips mouth

There is a man who killed another man, a rapist. Another man assists the killer to escape from punishment or retribution. Based on these acts alone, and according to what you are saying, how do they rank from evil to good?

We know the rapist is bad but have no idea why the killer killed the rapist or the other man assisted the killer so it's impossible to know. There is not enough information to figure much out. If the killer was killing the rapist to stop more rape he is probably the most noble, the helper second most noble, and the rapist a social problem.

Interesting.

Everything has the capacity for both good and evil. In many cases, one must choose between the lesser of two evils, thereby making one choice "good" or when choosing the greater of two goods, one acceptable choice is in relation thereto evil. One might argue that by insisting that there are two acceptable choices, so neither is evil, but according to your theory, surely one choice must offer more freedoms, thereby chosing the option that allows less freedom means one acceptable choice is then evil.

You may kill a cow to feed good people. A bad person may also consume that food. The bad person may then use the energy derived from that food to kill the good people. On the other hand, you may kill a cow, and then stand in judgment of which individuals should be allowed to consume the energy. The good people could become complacent, and with a need fulfilled, their desire to be productive would diminish, thusly they would become "weak" of spirit, however the evil person who was denied food might then grower stronger in spirit, more crafty, more creative, effort expended to obtain necessities resulting in increased capacity for evil. Likewise, you may kill a cow, and the act of feeding an evil person might then result in a conscience previously dormant.

Based upon this perspective, are ones actions then considered "good" or "evil" based upon the result of those actions, or the intent behind those actions to be considered? Which is "good" and which is "evil". One who knows, but does not, or one who knows not, but does?

In order to determine "good" and "evil" by means of the freedom which is allowed or denied, implies that one must assess which freedom has the greater value. If it is true that each action has an equal and equitable reaction, then by allowing one freedom you are denying another freedom. How can one be good? We can perceive one as being "good" based upon immediate results, but no action can be indepent of itself.

People will not always know just how much good and evil is in an action. Reality decides that. People have to guess. If you are working to guess well, you are good. If you are looking to guess poorly, you are evil.

Let your conscience be your guide?

People know what they guess. They also know what they pass to their children. Results will tell over time though. Reality will set in as choices expand or narrow and that is the real tell, not the guesses.

but people can only see the results of their actions, they will never know the result had they chosen an alternative action. And this cannot be judged by watching what others have done in the same instance... think of a coin toss...

That is why people have to focus on what they do know. Reality will only know the true potential. People have to go after the potential they know of.

And what if the only thing you know is that you know not? I am not saying I dont make decisions, or that I dont think I am smart... but at my age, I feel less confident than I felt at 18, and less passionate about my decisions... But less passion, and less confidence do not mean that I am not as smart, or not even in a better position to act than I was at 18... just makes me a little less likely to act in haste.

That's just wisdom. Sometimes wisdom gives us better perspective on how good or evil we are doing than intelligence. As you pointed out, the absolute truth is buried in the complexity of reality. It takes a lot of perception and knowledge properly applied to make accurate guesses.

But a guess is still just a guess. I have enjoyed the banter...but simply put, you start with I know Good and Evil are real conditions. To be very honest, in classifying something as "good" or "evil" you limit it as being just that. A thing can be good in one instance, and evil in another. As in the death of a cow, to the person receiving the benefit of nutrition, it is a good thing... to the cow, not so good, to the cows witnessing it, probably not so good... the the chicken who was the alternative choice, pretty good, and so on, etc. ad infinitum. The thing, the death of the cow, does not change. It is not good and it is not evil. It is death. So as they say in my neck of the woods, it is what it is..

No, you are being too quantized. The universe is not quantized like that. There is good and evil in every action. That does not negate the good and evil as you propose. It means there is a blend and people have the ability to tell which way the blend tends towards. How green does a light have to be before you know it is green enough to go? It doesn't matter so long as you can tell the general hue of what is going on.

A traffic signal generally contains only three shades, red, green and yellow. Its the yellow light that causes the problems. Red means stop... Green means go, yellow means whatever you want it to mean? Just as in life... to say that an action is either black, or white indicates that gray areas are obsolete, but in reality, black and white are just lighter or darker shades of gray. Is it okay to steal? No. Stealing is bad. So say a man has a farm, and on his farm he has an accident (after he plants his crops, but prior to harvest). Because of his accident he is not able to work. Because he has been unable to work, he has failed to make the payments due on his mortgage. The bank then forecloses on the property the man has been paying on for years. Its is sold for pennies on the dollar to a wealthy investor who then inherits the crop as a by product. The wealthy investor then sells the property, at 5xs the price he paid for it. The farmer on the other hand is still disabled, and now also homeless is without means to provide for his family who is slowly starving to death while the crop he planted in the fields he used to own is rotting on the vine. Said farmer sneaks onto the land to harvest the crop he previously planted and is prosecuted for trespassing. Is trespassing right? Is prosecuting a man for trying to feed his family right? Is it right to not pay your bills? Is it right to take the most money from the people in the least position to pay it? Which is the real evil?

Sometimes it's a good thing to steal. Legal actions can be wrong and illegal actions right. Les Miserables plays on this theme hard.

is it fair to the new land owner who rightfully purchased the land with a promise to pay, but who has not yet paid? is it fair to the person who paid and paid, and labored over the crop? so who is evil? Is it the bank who expected the money it was owed? is it the investor who earns his living buying and selling things? is it the starving man, or the man who wants to start a new life?

It's far more complex than that. People who participate in an evil society lose their goodness whether they are aware of it or not. Reality determines the right and wrong so perception failing to see what evil it is performing does not remove the condition. Life and the reality of life is the defining terms. Starving someone is invariably evil. Good would feed or execute. Torture and rape are sure marks of strong evil.

I am not disagreeing that is way more complex than that, in fact, I am insisting same. People who participate in a good society have an equal capacity for evil, it is only the degree that changes. To insist that an evil society produces only evil or a good society produces only good detracts from the concept of free will. If a person has never felt hunger, they cannot truly understand nor empathize with the actions of a starving man... a better example would be a child who is raised in an abusive home. Generally speaking said child will go to one extreme or the other in their own adult life. Some abused children will only be abusive to their children, but other abused children will go to the other extreme and will refrain from punishing their children. I offer as an example the concept of honor among theives. The very essence of their lives is dishonorable, and yet their is a self-imposed code of conduct. Your theory that examples set in society predetermine the actions of that society, cannot explain how a poor man who has never been given a break, who has known little else but discrimination, hunger and pain, can have greater compassion towards others than a man who has been afforded every comfort, who has easily obtained more food, shelter, clothing than he could possibly use. Should the softer life create a gentler soul, and the harder life create less conscience?

I try to make it a clear point in this presentation that good and evil are always blended in nature. I don't understand why them being separate keeps coming up. We are mutually agreeing.

Thats what I said a few posts back is it that you start by saying that good and evil are conditions that exist...when in actuality, they are not really set conditions at all, but actually conditional.

Reality determines the real options. They are not conditional. There are real options with every action with a blend of good and evil in them.

14 More Responses

Very interesting, I have thought of this before but I completely disagree. Freedom doesn't necessarily equate whether an act is either good or evil.Let's take creation of freewill as an example and the creation of 'evil/ Satan'.



If a person/ a god is giving a person the option of killing a man for the sake of freedom,, is that act a form of good will?

Yes. Good controls the self while evil controls others. Good people have to have the option of murder but not use it to be good. If you don't have the option of murder without using it, then you are a slave and not a good person by your own volition.

But the problem is that "control" is an illusion.
Okay, here... When God forbid Adam and eve from eating the forbidden fruit, was that an act of good will? Consider thought control & reverse psychology in the equation. 'God' pleaded for them to be ignorant, an act which in itself is evil because he forbids them but tempted them at the same time by giving the knowledge of the 'fruit'.

Same thing for the serpent, Lucifer and judas. as of course the choices/ freewill are a part of him ergo his own doing.

'Evil' if it even exists should exist with freewill. Good and evil is relative and when someone acts in a form of kindness, there is always a possibility that some people would consider that evil.

Part of him - I mean part of god

Any thoughts?

Well, let's not confuse man written legend with fact for starters. Adam and Eve are symbols, not actual people and the fact that their children run into people outside the family demonstrates this. Innocent people can do nothing. They lack spirit. God intended for the fruit to be eaten and access to evil be granted. The universe is a wellspring of infinite information that includes the good moves with the bad ones. Control is not an illusion. Stating control is an illusion is the grave mistake made by Nihilist. All you have to do is move your hand to see you can will your hand to places without having to know all the intricate details that go into the control. For anything to get done that is not mere physics, a choice has to be made. That choice must have options between bad choices that hold more evil than good and good choices that have more good than evil in them. Lacking the knowledge of good and evil means you don't have choice because your decisions will be random products of your body rather than willful choices of your spirit. God must grant access to evil for any living being to be able to make a choice or we are simple slaves to physics and our spirits don't exist.

Your statement to relative is completely false by all of my experiments. Perception does not determine reality. Perception is a subset of reality. If you make a mistake or someone else makes a mistake that will not change what is good or bad.

I just use Adam and eve as mere archetypes. I am not a christian, If you know what i mean.
I admit my statement with "control" was very weak, I will not address that for now.
Perception is a subset of reality, but ever thought of the idea that reality might be a sum of our consciousness. Good and evil is relative according to the society judging it.

Your experiments are your own, it is true in a great deal but to further state that 'your experiment' state real facts that cannot be corrected is somewhat faulty

Not in the least. Perception makes errors. Perception can make a judgement call on how good or evil an action is but reality has the true information on how options are truly affected. In this sense, though perception is a subset of reality, how well that perception matches the facts determines its accuracy, not the person employing perception.

Bear in mind, the fact that perception is real means that how it matches to the real data makes the accuracy of perception a real value.

Perception makes errors, but science is done through perceptions. The idea thatphysics can be trusted in that aspect is in my opinion faulty. Practical but faulty. Do you believe that this morality based system will continue to exist without consciousness judging it?

Just because perception is always in error does not cause truth to not exist. There is no cause for scientists to just give up modelling the truth because they can't pinpoint it. The truth can always be trusted. The truth does not require proper perception to exist. The sun could start burning helium and blow us away and good and evil will still exist. If the sun burns us up it will be because our evil prevents us from escaping the sun.

i didn't say it is "always". its erroneous but it can still point to facts. I believe that everything that has existed withing us truth/lies speaks the "truth" of our being.
I had the impression that you divide science/physics with the "realities" created with perception.

On morality, my views are different. I believe that you will only see the real character of a man when you give him 'power'. To test ones kindness, put him where there is more evil. To test one's capability for evil is to put him where you can find 'holiness', to see if he will still be 'evil' where there is no reason to be one.

I am curious, how do you think "good and evil" will exist without consciousness? no living creature and sentience existing?

If you wipe out all life, all you have is physics and nothing happens. This is the case of pure evil where no choices exist at all. This is why evil's end goal is to wipe out all life. It's basically the end of the universe.

What? It feels like you've reduced it to that simple logic of more freedom=good, while no freedom = evil.

There are deep flaws in that argument that I cannot point out succinctly atm. 1 example is that the choices we have are always limited, and its predictable. Let's say a salesman who is both good in intuition and logic efficiently 'convinced' or hypnotized people to buy his product. Does the idea of knowing how to emphatically control others' options means that he is evil?

When I say no consciousness existing, I wasn't referring to the act of obliterating all life form. Hypothetically speaking all you have is objective reality. And it happened naturally

Deep flaws? You'd have to explain what deep flaw is there. Your example illustrates that good and evil are not in pure form in the universe but this does not pose a flaw in my argument. There is no place of pure darkness or pure light in the universe but the two are still very real.

Nothing happens naturally but physics. Where life goes is always forged in choice on the medium of physics to play it out.

I don't believe that good and evil are always pure. I think the world is just a paradox. We are just 'human'. Flawed beings to begin with.

I think we are just energies, slaves on its own laws and our genes. call it physics if you like, its a shame that I hadn't studied that area, it would have been my thing. Still my beliefs won't change. I think if you would get down to it and break morality with numbers. It would leave you into another paradox wherein all that will be left for you to continue is to assume with your own preference which is guided by perception.

I don't reduce life to the physics of "rocks" as you do. It would mean there is no choice and I just don't believe we are stuck in determinism.

"I don't reduce life to the physics of "rocks" as you do."

And I thought you were the one doing that.lol
I think the world acts on its own ways that man wouldn't be able to comprehend, that is why the illusion of choice is created.

There is no illusion of choice. Choice is real. If there was no choice that would be pure evil. Just because we have finite minds, it does not preclude an infinite universe. Creation is only true if the universe is finite with an end. If the universe is finite, then we probably are deterministic and have no choice and nothing is happening at all. If the universe is infinite, then all of our choices exist and this is only one junction of an infinite number of junctions arrived at by different choice considerations.

Yes, but the thing is your beliefs are not necessarily a 'fact' either. I do understand what you are saying. IMO I think the world is big enough for every possibility to exist in a correlating manner.

Let's say someone gives you a gift
Or punches you in the face. How would you react? These are obvious situations that make a person's reaction very predictable. But the logic can be applied as well in different situations. I think people are all very alike, with some things added to each one to bring diversity.

We all think alike, that is why myths and archetypes work. Sorry, I feel like my arguments at the moment is incoherent. I have to repatch this up.

No one thinks alike and the reactions to a gift or a punch are extremely predicated on situation and choices. My personal awareness is a fact as is your personal awareness. It's also a fact that if the universe is finite, there is no God nor is there choice. A choice only exists if the various paths for the choice exist.

I mean the logic of dissecting the reactions and emotions are the same. Take psychology, micro expressions, myths as few examples. It is in fact possible to understand everyone as a whole as if no one is different, but that does not mean you can't accept individuality. We are just pieces of a greater whole.

How do you define the word 'God'?

For me God is an infinite supply of energy coupled with infinite knowledge.

I do know my choice engine and my body are separate from personal experiences. The body does have physics in it that will limit choices just like the choices of others. Everyone is different and it is guaranteed. Our memories are all different guaranteed and that alone will make us different. Add the different body physics due to DNA variations and the different circumstances and choices and you have more than any person will ever count. We cannot even pull up all of our own memories. In an infinite universe, it is very probable that one choice engine goes through all of the finite life patterns. In fact, God would have to be that choice engine to understand all mistakes by living them.

It is true that genes/ character traits and memories and experiences will be different from person to person but my point was more about the similarities rather than differences. Personalities sure have different facets to it but if you look at the greater whole. You might see patterns a lot easier, not in a condescending manner.

What happens when one dies?

What about the thought of time being predicated? As if it exists as a fine line but is still capable of being a paradox on its own...

If there is only one timeline, there is no choice and evil reigns. When one dies, their body does not allow their choice engine to run anymore. The choice engine must find another body to run. We are similar in that we all have a choice engine and we must deal with the finite states of our bodies.

I'm sorry about this but I can hardly explain my point of view of time ATM but I think our views would be the same.

When one life form dies it transform into another form of energy. That's what I think

Yes, the universe is change, not beginnings and endings. I think the finite aspects we attribute to it are the illusion and they are products of our finite brains trying to model an infinite thing (basically an error in perception).

Have you come up with the idea that finite and infinite are exactly the same and that their difference is solely because of perception?

If you do and you can describe it succinctly and cogently, then don't hold back.

Actually, that is in my next chapter that I have yet to complete. Infinite and finite are two very different things with two very different results.

A finite universe has fate, destiny, no choice, no justice, and no God. It's an evil thing with no choice and the spirit is an illusion that disappears when the universe is at its end. It's a universe with edges. It's a place with a beginning and an end.

An infinite universe has choice. There is no fate, but justice happens over time. God exists and there is no beginning or end. Finite being is an illusion as the changes over time are always in existence.

Hmmm... I guess this is the time I should be regretting the fact that I have hampered myself. It would have been interesting to be able to counter that... Including your point in morality more efficiently.

Do you admit the fact that the universe is big enough for every truth to exist?
Do you think you are more special than a pig, dog etc? Why?
Isn't selflessness is the mantra of valuing yourself but not valuing yourself more than others?

I will admit that the universe is made of truth. The universe holds no paradox. Every paradox I have encountered has always been a mistake of perception. We are not more special than a pig or a dog, we just have more spiritual direction than them. Why? We have more options. We can do things that pigs and dogs will never be able to do and these spiritual options make it worth a man eating a pig or dog to keep going in the universe.
We agree on the mantra and it's validity. Indications are that it is one of two laws that are the building blocks of the universe.

Its seem that your use of the word "freedom" is equal to my use of the word "awareness/consciousness". I also believe that it is possible to consider its worth by numbers. I agree with your point with perception though I wonder where does your beliefs take you as you seem to look down at "perceptions" and it feels a little dogmatic.

Are pigs different from rocks? Arent all of existence just a form of energy?

Pigs are very different than rocks. Rocks have extremely low spirit. Pigs have a lot of choices compared to a rock. I tend to ride perception hard because current philosophy makes the gross error of assuming perception defines reality when in fact it only limits and grants choices to the wielder of the perception.

Spirit/ soul/ energy or consciousness?

"Because current philosophy makes the gross error of assuming perception defines reality......."

You say perceptions are limiting, but isn't the limitations of logic One its strengths? You seem to have your beliefs carved in stone which is very admirable. But what if its your finite mind saying that?

In a sense even your laws and philosophy can be considered as an assumption. Possibly even a gross assumption.

BTW I agree with most of your points on that.

And to say there is no paradox (well Its depends on perspectives) in reality. It sounds like you made dogmas inside your own philosophy

There is the body or physics or our being, and there is the spirit or choice engine of our being. Our spirits know far more than our bodies and brains so consciousness tends to be a misused term as it tends to have a physics aspect in how much the spirit slaves it's awareness to the limits of the body it drives.

I have watched my finite mind work without my spirit in it and my spirit has placed that memory in my finite mind creating what appears a false sense of knowing the unknowable in me. What I came to realize is that our spirits agree to make mistakes in the universe using the illusion of finiteness so that the infinite being of the universe can know about it all in fine detail.

My only assumption is that the universe is infinite. If the universe is finite, then I'm completely wrong and you are better off practicing evil.

Which paradox would you like to destroy today? I'm up for uncovering the myth of the paradox.

Is that a supernatural occurrence? I can say the same. My only assumption is that the world is made with so many things that infinite and finite does not matter.

I can say that the word evil is misused with freedom. IMHO, your philosophy feels dogmatic and behind its complexities it ironically feels like it shapes the world as finite and predetermined.

Infinite and finite are of intense importance and do not coexist. If the universe is one or the other there are profound differences to what each can be.

Freedom is the opportunity to choose between good or evil and generally results in a mix of the two in real life. You can call my philosophy dogmatic if you must, but no one but me is a proponent of it in this corner of the universe. There is nothing predetermined in my philosophy beyond what the consequences of choice bring.

I know of the importance of its distinction but according to you, you are already talking about something that you can never understand yet you claim to limit its definitive meaning based on your finite mind and propose it with such convictions as if it can never be corrected.

It means that you imprisoned the "word" infinite to "something" that is in your finite imagination.

No, I have imprisoned nothing. I have admitted openly my guess is the universe is infinite. I have also openly admitted if the universe is not infinite, your best strategy is evil. If the universe is infinite, your best strategy choice is good.

A guess? Is that how you perceived the world then?

Ah how would you define evil again, without going over the topic of freedom?

Finite minds must guess. This is the art of intuition. Deductive reasoning is already known to fail to go as far in knowledge as we can.
Evil is the reduction of life while good is the promotion of life.

Logic, inductive and deductive reasoning was born from intuition, its the art of observing and studying things that most people think they already understand.

Intuition is already known to fail, just as everything that exists in the world.

If intuition fails, then the guess was incorrect. There is still learning.

True, but if you really consider the fact that it is possible for your intuition to fail then why say that some of my statements are wrong, in a declarative (could be dogmatic way). What gave you the right to think your intuition may be superior to others in a way to the point of being 'dogmatic'.

In the end your intuition is based on your perception, but why do you declaratively say the perception/intuition/logic of others are "wrong", where in fact there are "limitless/limited" possibilities. One is that you are the wrong one.

When reality gives hard evidence it is reasonable to know how accurate the perception of another may be.

Accurate? When in fact you dismissed something that is just presented to you before hearing it? Perception can be erroneous, we agreed on that, but what if you dismissed 'intuitions/perceptions' that seemed worthless because of mimesis?

No answer? Should I continue?

Oh, I have to deal with other things at times. I'm not going to just drop a good discussion.
What have I dismissed?

An idea. You vehemently say things like "your statement is completely false", "its also a fact that if the universe is finite, there is no God, there is no God nor there is a choice. A choice only exists......" You get the point.

It seems you painted the universe by laws in which you wish to understand and put the God topic as indeed predictable and as finite as your imagination..

Refer to my previous statement, it has more meanings hidden in it. (I am starting to get lazy or losing interest on succinctness ATM)

These are only logical deductions from inductive guesses. If the universe is finite, God, as I defined Her cannot exist because She is an infinite being. Since the universe is all real things, the universe must be infinite to contain God in as much as I have an understanding of God. Choice can only exist if the choices all exist. If the other choices don't exist, then in reality I was just following my fate. I have not rejected any ideas. I am merely building the ideas logically from inductive guesses.

"These are only logical deductions from inductive guesses."

True, but you are already contradicting yourself. These laws and inductive guesses are limited only to "your" (and to people who you might agree with, beliefs that are "accurate") "perception and limited imagination". You are already willing to deny other ideas, by what you may see unfit for your image of the world. You refined a razor which seems to "deconstruct and shun" things that" seemed wrong for "your reality".

"When reality gives hard evidence it is reasonable to know how accurate the perception of another may be." Keep in mind that these judgement are very dependent on your perception (intuition/logic).

What does accurate mean? What if the perspective you are looking from, to gaze at reality is an "evil" illusion?


Let's take this into this direction, Let's say you have to power to create this "perceptions" as a reality. Where do you think this "imagination" will take you?

When one insignificant fool, threatens your justice system and you perceive it as a an act for evils since the destruction of this system will/ could inflict an undesirable effect for society (which is evil); A terrorist, Would you break its neck to protect what it is "seen" as good?

I've already tried to dream away my death and it's a false premise. That is Nihilism and it is wrong. It only works in my dreams. I have dreamed your world and felt it to be false. Evil will limit life and be easy to smell. Please, wake up if you wish to make a point.

i have seen it both.

Let's take this into this direction, Let's say you have to power to create this "perceptions" as a reality. Where do you think this "imagination" will take you?

When one "insignificant fool", threatens your justice system and you perceive it as a an act for evils since the destruction of this system will/ could inflict an undesirable effect for society (which is evil); A terrorist, Would you break his neck to protect what it is "seen" as good in your perspective?

It's a hypothetical question. just like the rest before

So when you don't like an idea, you'll dismissed it first and call it nihilism, terrorism based on what you "currently" understand which is also based on limited perception? keep in mind that there are always people who will disagree with you, to cut them down before understanding their perspectives is similar to metaphorically "killing" them.

that is just my opinion...

Maybe. I'm just privileged having that Nihilistic power in my dreams. I know reality must yield to the choices of all. Whenever one tries to claim I'm part of their dream, I can only laugh at their mistake.

choices of all? there is no All if you "deny" something.

"I can only laugh at their mistake." this may be an error of an egoist.

I believe the "All" you mention is this. I don't think the world is determined by the "facts" of your statement. if what you said is true, It only means that everything is finite in a sense that they follow the laws of what one man thinks.

I believe that the world is made of all perspectives to come on its own reality. whether objective reality exist, is somewhat irrelevant for me. Since we as a race are estranged from each others illusions and polarities. We become more confused the more we strive for our own "individuality".

I believe we all have stories to share and everyone has their own perspectives tied down to the reality you seek of. Each perspective matters as it points out to the truth. Even someone who you might think as a lesser man, lesser perspective. they may teach you something that cannot be found on your finite train of thought.

And if you want to seek truth there is no room for biased judgement.
Unless you admit that humans are just a walking paradox to begin with.

No one is lesser. Reality reigns whether people participate or not. The denial of one person means nothing. The current now is determined by how the choices of all intersect with reality. There is no individuality. That is too finite for the universe. Reality determines where we sit on the spectrum. Just because none of us know the spectrum doesn't mean some are good and some aren't in the balance of life.

Lesser in your perspective, A good example is when you try to shut down "Nihilists".

I don't have facts in this statement (maybe i do) but it is hidden in the way you argue that there is such a thing as a "lesser perspective".

There is less accurate perspective as determined by the mismatch between the perspective and reality. No one perspective can fathom reality so it's a bit academic. Nihilists are off because they maintain perspective is reality when it's a small part of it. To deny reality is to choke on arrogance.

We agree about the errors and limitations of 1 perspective.
Nihilism, Christian, Deism, Pantheism, Agnosticism etc... you judge people as if its all the same. stereotyping is one basic reason why perception fails. Keep in mind that these words barely skims the surface and does not portray the whole story or their soul.

So why do you shut down someone based on such a limited classification?

sorry that statement can be misconstrued... we are still on the topic where you judge Nihilists by stereo typing them

what I find most disagreeable is that when people state an impossibility of drawing a conclusion and yet draws a conclusion where it doesn't get any better than what they have concluded for themselves.

Reality decides things. Perception is only our attempt to size up reality. If my accuracy is off, I look for real evidence to fix it.

real evidence is stated from where? if your perception did fail, where did it fail and when will you notice? where do you start again, if given the power to change the world/ or people around you, how would you seek to fix what you have damaged by your wrong perception?

Obviously good will try to fix what it can whether it is from perception problems or intent problems. The fact is, if perception is off, it is not the determination of good or evil. The reality of your argument is that you are agreeing perception is off and then trying to claim good and evil aren't real because of that since perception of them are opinions. Fact is, if I walk in on a man raping, torturing, and murdering a woman, it will be blatantly obvious great evil is occurring despite what his grossly inaccurate perception is telling him. That is hard real evidence and only fools and extremely evil people argue against it. The fact some people argue against it is enough for me to toss out relative opinion philosophy, and go with the fact good and evil are real and measurable qualities based on the actual life opportunity granted or denied.

that situation of course calls for the obvious fact that it is "evil". But life isn't that simple to begin with and other dependent factors would obscure the perceptions of who would judge it.

Reality's judgement is always dead on. Perceptions are just attempts to know it.

Maybe.. what if you are hallucinating or have schizophrenia? if the masses judged the same as the obvious reality or evidence then it is then true?

but if reality is true and perception is just one way to understand the parts of its context. when one tries to perceive the reality of what the other is saying. every time one speaks his mind to another the context changes and when this someone repeats it again then mimesis occurs again and again.

and who would judge the situation? the first to witness? the victim? or an official judge?

maybe something else is happening and you thought he was torturing or murdering a victim? another factor...

if perception is always faulty then that would mean the witness' perception could possibly be wrong at that point...

if there is a reality then our sensing for it is never free of perception, then that makes a subset of reality which could be what we all perceive

and create or materialize

None of that makes me question the stance of actual good or evil.

its not the stance of good and evil that you should be worried about.
its more about the self-righteousness when one thinks he is always on the right path because he trusts his own perceptions to the point that he scorns others that he might disagree with, and while referencing others' perception to fit what he understands from it. (nihilism for instance)

Why worry over improved accuracy? Should I feel bad for calling the Earth a globe when they think it's flat? Really? Did you just see your argument vaporize?

no, if what I said is true than the reality you speak of and the subset of reality that all agree with is/ has become different through time. good and bad are entirely relative and our reality was never accurate to begin with.

Reality not accurate? Now you just make me laugh. You don't believe in accuracy. I wonder what makes you decide to even speak. How do you trust your own words?

I mean the reality you create for yourself may not be accurate, just like the possibility that you misunderstood what I just meant.

I trust my own words just as I trust what is presented before me.

We don't create reality. We choose and reality gives us feedback on our choices. Our choices influence reality, but everyone's choices have to blend to get the feedback from reality on how it responded to our choices.

partly true, what makes our disagreement here is your persistence how you define your words, unwilling to understand what the other means beyond the words he is using.

your previous analogy missed the point on good vs evil, but it would explain a few things wherein ones thoughts is limited to what the world tells him and called evidence and reality, unless he was proven wrong by the same people he has scorned. does this sound laughable? when one's imagination is thought to think himself wise yet what he believesalso limits his understanding and his own interpretation of the world. A dogma which is stemmed by ignorance.

You're just calling me names now. Do you have any positions or evidence?

you have to forgive me for the ad hominems, I thought we've gotten passed that as I didn't follow conventional logic to begin with. That doesn't necessarily mean its meaningless. it just needs refining to be cogent and succinct to be completely logical. This is the art of intuition. ;)

what is conventional, logical for most is that we should follow natural lws or what is told to us by science or the things that already have been discovered by world. Like all things science is corruptible just like the media.

Trusting everything that has been fed to you by society and the masses and "denying" an idea because of it does not sound well for the others is somehow not right. You say you had the privilege to walk the same path of nihilism but not being subdued by its idea, but what about conventional logic?

you have your conclusion set upon stone using 2 dimensional laws and theories, of course it would seem much more impossible to decipher the world

I have looked at reality. I have noticed people calling bad things good and good things bad. It did not make sense. I thought about the physics of life and realized a nature of life and natural law. I interfaced the two and realized that life option is what made the good and bad in life. I realized cold physics only does things useful if life has options to use it and that good was promoting those options and evil was removing those options. I realized neither good nor evil come in pure form. These are real things whether we have to make an intuitive guess to grasp as much of the real as we can or we gain technology to actually know the true measure. Perception errs, but reality does not. It is okay to argue against perception, but reality must stay the course to make an observation real. Until two Nihilist meet, one intent on killing the other that is intent on living and you can come up how the one kills the other without killing the other, Nihilism is dead. The paradox is error of perception and that is just the cold hard truth no matter how flawed someone wants to claim my perception.

what exactly do you mean about "nihilism is dead"?
if two nihilists like that ever meet then there are many possible outcomes.

Let's say reality is always dead on, Are you able to hold your own perceptions lower than the other?

I know that all perceptions, including my own, are a subset of reality and are always less than fully accurate. Some perceptions will be more accurate than others. Nihilism is false because it assumes perception is fully accurate and bends reality to it. Nihilism maintains perception is always accurate and reality is always off and bendable to perception.

If nihilism does that then I would agree with you, but to maintain that every nihilist is like that, or anyone that would sound like a nihilist to your incomplete hypothesis would be an error of your perception. That would be a fact if the world itself is as infinite according to your definition. As something that is constant.

An infinite entity that contains all options is constant. Change is an illusion for the finite members of the entity. Because all choices exist, nothing changes as the finite perspectives wend their way through the mesh.

could be, but that's more probable when you box everything to what and how is something currently understood.

If the universe is infinite the probability of now is one (100% for people who talk percentage). It's the finite believers that have a lot of tricky explanation required for the here and now.

The finite believers are just parts and faces for the infinite. Who could say, which is what, All forms of thoughts and theories represent the greater whole no matter how ridiculous it seems for its opposite.

I just find a finite universe extremely unlikely.

I could say it all ends to one person's judgement, at the mercy of his own perceptions, Because values and importance all exists in the lesser realm, we operate in.

Saying it won't make it so. Reality decides. We can only guess.

Reality decides? Does that coincide with fate, karma? Or the finite beings that enforce it's laws?

Fate only exists if the universe is finite. Karma doesn't work. Finite beings cannot enforce laws on an infinite system.

So how does reality decide?

Reality takes all the decisions made, combines them, and returns the results within the framework of physics.

So its natural laws then? Perhaps it's not improved accuracy, it's rather the correction from the other branches and laws that your physics may have deemed irrelevant.

No one owns physics. Physics is the will of the universe. Physics is the natural law. By natural law our perception is always less than completely accurate. Do not confuse reality with perception. Owning laws is falling right into that trap and it's simply not valid to say perception determines reality.

What I meant "your physics" is just personally your own understanding of it and how it differs to the "physics" you are referring to. And the other laws include everything including that of Physics.

Then What is "Reality"?

Reality is where all the energy is actually positioned in space. Scientists have already discovered we have no way of knowing absolute reality.

It seem you've given all your faith in that last statement. Science is known to disprove itself. Philosophy is a rebellion in which we look at reality in different ways, but may well end up in the same place.

Have you discarded the possibility that everything may be an illusion?

The only illusion we suffer is the illusion of finite. You think the pain of those rape victims in Cleveland is an illusion? I reject arrogance and you don't. I don't even understand why you scroll to the bottom of this instead of PMing me.

I thought we were now talking about reality.

About the pm, you are right, that one eluded me

We are talking about reality. We are talking about the pain people encounter not assessing it properly. We are talking about the real time lost with too much scrolling. This is all real. Anyway, I have to sleep. Reality insists my brain take a break from my soul. Goodnight.

107 More Responses

by your theory most actions made in leadership roles in a democratic society can be judged as evil (i concur on this, most are there to constrict freedom of the many to make the few more free to do what they want), in a way the only way by your hypothesis that pure good or evil can occur is by pure chaos. This is much easier by the ideal of pure evil, as something not needing to eat goes in a straight line killing everything in its path and destroying all life it sees, where pure good going in the same straight line would have to increase the freedom of everything it sees even if they don't want the freedom. This presents quite a dilemma but you most likely already thought it thru to that point.

Rules are only required in a society to deal with the limits of physics. Behavioral rules are only present if evil is present. It does not mean the leaders are necessarily the evil ones. Pure good or pure evil are impossible to find. Pure evil has no life choices at all. It would be the universe with no life and we already know pure evil does in fact not exist since we choose. Pure good would be all life and no physics. In the infinite sense, pure good may already exist. However, pure good requires infinite knowledge of mistakes and some kind of facsimile of finite thinking is required to know this. My current guess is that we are those pieces of knowledge.

You are mistaken. Christ Jesus was pure good which is why he is the greatest man who ever lived.

What happens when two differing strata of good and evil conflict? Let say in your analogy about the cow...

"The evil of destroying the cow's options will tend to be much less than the freedom allowed the people who eat it. For this reason, eating the cow is probably a good idea so long as the people it feeds are more good than bad."

You have another level or strata of good and evil. The spiritual and personal aspect of humans has great impact on our survival and continued evolution because of the positive creative energy is channels into our thought matrix and consciousness. Mythology is the point where the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Those energies fuel our evolution and nihilistic views reduce our overall pool of creativity which would eventually lead to extinction. In the Hindu and Indian cultures the cow is sacred, the culture allows the cow to become an "anchor" for specific archetypal energies to remain fixed into their collective consciousness. Energies which are archetypal in nature and have real effects on the human being (though the belief itself is illusory).

So who is right then, which is the great good as far as choices go... should a Hindu sacrifice an ideal that is greater than himself and serves the collective as an anchor for a higher strata of consciousness by killing the cow to save just himself or his family?

What is the greater good? There is no answer... Our personal beliefs and our personal choice of our own personal path determine what is good for us. Correct?

The same type of logic could be applied to your analogy on the tomb, which is more important the evolution of consciousness for a metacognitive species or the placement of its physical body after that consciousness that defines the species no longer resides in its physical form?

The Hindu would be better off if they could maintain their perception of the archetypal energies without having to sacrifice the nutritional opportunities of the cow. The universe makes this true in that the sun will be consuming the Earth in about 4 billion years when it starts to burn helium. Humans are the most likely life to escape the fire to another planet. Cows will only make this journey if they are carried by the humans. Reality decides what is best for us. If we err, sooner or later nature will catch up to our errors and we will lose options.

Reality/God doesn't judge us, we judge ourselves by our choices. But if the universe is truly infinite then judgment may not even exist in a objective sense. But I see what your saying, psychics and reality which we cannot quantify determine the parameters of how we are judged. Since we cannot know the future and cannot quantify reality all we can do is follow our hearts and allow our true nature to unfold. That nature either being logical or creative or both depending on how we as a race evolve. In the end all we can do is be ourselves an hope god loves us.

If we are going to bring God into this, it will require definitions. When I say God I refer to a presence of infinite knowledge and energy. Given that is what God is, for me, God has complete knowledge of all mistakes and knows a mistake can only occur in the event of finite knowledge. The only way to know all mistakes is to have them lived out by finite perceptions and to basically be those perceptions. In this sense, I have to go with the assumption of pantheism. My current guess is we are fractured pieces of the whole designed to know the intimate details of not knowing everything.

Yes God is Reality and Reality is God. I have been called a pantheist at times because of that view.

Then we both are fairly sure God loves us all. The infinite does not wish to render itself finite by disowning a piece of knowledge.

Very good. Carry on then Sir. As you were. (bows)

3 More Responses

This is quite an interesting hypothesis. I admit to reading a few sentences more than once in order to keep track of what you were saying. Your mind is strong and rather intelligent. This story led me to thinking about the feeding of prisoners who according to society are evil doers. Then I thought that the fact that their freedom is limited makes up for the fact that we feed them. Anyway I just thought I'd mention that in passing. Thanks for the "food for thought."

Imprisonment is pointless. How long should I cage a mosquito before it stops sucking blood?

What is your alternative to imprisonment ?

A person can repent by restoring what they damaged and then helping the victims with some kind of restitution. If their destructive desires have been demonstrated to be so awful that they cannot restore what they damaged, remove them from control of their bodies to prevent future damage. Generally, a snap of the neck can do this quickly and painlessly with little to no mess.

Would you be willing to have the job of "neck snapper" ?

To preserve the future? Yes. Don't ask me to snap a neck for revenge, though. Would you like to see my military membership history to vouch for the fact I am willing to kill for the right reasons?

Whose future do do speak of ? The human race, the planet or the universe ?

The future of life. Yes, all three.

Does this mean that you would be willing to snap the necks of people who pollute the planet ?

Depends on the level of damage they do as explained above.

I am interested to know who would be in charge of making these judgements on a universal scale ?

My guess would be it would require hard observation and that benefit of the doubt would have to be granted.

OMG! this sounds crazy too me!!

@ aWomanExperiencedSomewhat.

Lol. Yes well, not to worry, cpnatly and I are not about to go running around snapping necks. We were just chatting, discussing and thinking. I do not consider myself angelic and pure enough to kill another person for doing wrong. In fact according to certain things written in the bible not even angels are immune to the folly of man. It's just a bit of food for thought and I like that kind of food.:-)

Yea I like it too. It just momentarily surprised me where you went with these thoughts :) .. and then I thought to myself, that if cpgnatly was running for president, and I could vote in American elections, I definantly wouldnt vote for him :)

Of course not. Most people support rape.

ha! could you possibly come up with a worse comeback. Anyway this is your story and your opinions so I will butt out now.

13 More Responses

Loved this story. "Letting any animal live inherently limits the freedom of other animals" -- so true house cats are the perfect example. The roam their neighborhoods killing birds :( I love cats and want them to have a long happy healthy life (more freedom) but that creates evil (they limit the choices of birds).

Very insightful, thank you for sharing.

It's clear to me that you think that you're smarter than you actually are. Spare us.

I smell your fear. I think it's you that is flinging the doo here. Do let me know if you come up with anything constructive.

Not fear, not flinging poo. Just sick of know it alls and people who think too highly of themselves. I would have never commented had you not decided to judge me.

I didn't judge you. I saw your comments and judged them since you decided to judge me. My observations don't determine my intelligence here. This is what I see. If I'm seeing it wrong, I'm happy to adjust my perceptions. I've done it many times in the past. I do smell your fear. That is real. I'm sorry this causes you fear. I'm not sure why it does. I found this observation to be good news.

Well said.

1 More Response