God always has a plan

HUGO STIGLITZ said:
God and evil have no meaning to the universe. They are properties that only have subjective meaning only to human beings (although there are probably parallels amongst the animal kingdom). Good and evil are not physical forces.

Acts of good are obviously far more common than acts of evil, and acts of good do not in any way, shape, or form require acts of evil. A world in which acts of good and evil were "balanced" would simply descend into anarchy. Humanity would not have survived as long as it has.
Click to expand...
You only tend to think acts of good are far more common, because it is a tendency to dwell on that which is good rather than bad. And because of this you are more likely to focus on good when you see it. Evil (or bad, which ever you prefer) is often far more subtle.

Further, the idea of balance is nothing more than en extension of the idea that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You're trying to hard to apply said formula to a deity and subsequently deny said deity. It's not that grand or complex.

For example, if I were to punch you in the nose several things would happen. I would derive joy from this, therefore the act has good. You however would derive pain, thus the act is also bad. Already we have balance, but we haven't had the reaction. What that reaction would be, I cannot say. You might punch me back, causing me pain (bad) and you feeling as though you've gotten even. Or you might just take the punch, and a later encounter, say I needed to borrow money, would result in me not getting what I wanted (bad) and you relishing in denying me a need (good).
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You only tend to think acts of good are far more common, because it is a tendency to dwell on that which is good rather than bad. And because of this you are more likely to focus on good when you see it. Evil (or bad, which ever you prefer) is often far more subtle.
Click to expand...

It's probably because I don't see most things that other people see as "evil" as evil. Like masturbation.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
For example, if I were to punch you in the nose several things would happen. I would derive joy from this, therefore the act has good. You however would derive pain, thus the act is also bad. Already we have balance, but we haven't had the reaction. What that reaction would be, I cannot say. You might punch me back, causing me pain (bad) and you feeling as though you've gotten even. Or you might just take the punch, and a later encounter, say I needed to borrow money, would result in me not getting what I wanted (bad) and you relishing in denying me a need (good).
Click to expand...

Human moralistic systems have a tendency towards tit-for-tat behavior. It's not a physical law, though. Just a behavior.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
It's probably because I don't see most things that other people see as "evil" as evil. Like masturbation.
Click to expand...
You're not going to get anywhere in this argument if you keep applying a religious subtext to it. Again evil (bad) is very subtle. And to be fair, so is good.
 
did i honestly just see in this thread the assertion that evil and good are objective properties that we deal with and that they co exist with each other perfectly balanced?
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Yes, you did. Is this surprising to you?
Click to expand...

Me + Grind (we are legion) honestly cannot comprehend how you think like that.

Here's another argument:

Good and evil are not forces. They are not physical properties in the world. They are subjective. There will be a different amount of good and evil in the world depending on who you ask (everything will be evil if you ask someone like SM, very little will be evil if you ask me). Therefore, it's silly to say that they are balanced. Why couldn't there be no evil in the world? If you erased everyones capability of doing evil, or erased everyones capability of comprehending evil, there would be no evil. Same for good.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
Me + Grind (we are legion) honestly cannot comprehend how you think like that.

Here's another argument:

Good and evil are not forces. They are not physical properties in the world. They are subjective. There will be a different amount of good and evil in the world depending on who you ask (everything will be evil if you ask someone like SM, very little will be evil if you ask me). Therefore, it's silly to say that they are balanced. Why couldn't there be no evil in the world? If you erased everyones capability of doing evil, or erased everyones capability of comprehending evil, there would be no evil. Same for good.
Click to expand...
I'm too tired to properly articulate my response. I'll have it tomorrow.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
Me + Grind (we are legion) honestly cannot comprehend how you think like that.

Here's another argument:

Good and evil are not forces. They are not physical properties in the world. They are subjective. There will be a different amount of good and evil in the world depending on who you ask (everything will be evil if you ask someone like SM, very little will be evil if you ask me). Therefore, it's silly to say that they are balanced. Why couldn't there be no evil in the world? If you erased everyones capability of doing evil, or erased everyones capability of comprehending evil, there would be no evil. Same for good.
Click to expand...
Here is my response, as promised.

First, Grind, I was wrong about agreeing with what you said. I was tired and confused the meaning of OBJECTIVE with SUBJECTIVE. So, in essence, no you didn't see good and evil being proclaimed as objective terms. They're entirely subjective, which why I came up with this theory in the first place. Every act carries with it both good and bad, depending on the outlook of those involved. The larger the action, the more that are involved, therefore, the larger the reaction would be as well. And the longer a single action continues, the longer it will take for said reaction. I'll admit that it's nearly impossible for us as human beings to quantify such things, so naturally it's hard to understand how and when the balance that I speak of is achieved.

Is that satisfactory? In short, all my theory is is nothing more than application of laws of physics and science to everything, including human emotion and actions. These tie in with my personal beliefs in god, which is that math and science are the language with which we would understand more about god and god came to be.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Is that satisfactory? In short, all my theory is is nothing more than application of laws of physics and science to everything, including human emotion and actions.
Click to expand...

No you aren't. The laws of physics effect human emotions when a baseball hits you in a face. The simple law that applies to forces does not have anything to do with the much more complicated things that have to do with human emotions.

Humans simply have a tit-for-tat mechanism; they will go out of their way to punish someone at no benefit to themselves. This is good group behavior in a place where there's a lot of anarchy, although in the modern world it isn't really completely necessary anymore.

Interestingly, a lot of other animals, like chimps, don't have this type of behavior and don't give a fuck if you screw them over or not; they have no concept of fairness, and they do what is strictly game-theory beneficial to the individual. Humans will screw themselves over for the group.
 
Of course, the tit-for-tat mechanism often gets overwhelmed. Genghis Khan killed millions and raped enough women to be the ancestor of 1% of the global population. In return, he got the largest empire the world has ever known. Good and evil aren't balanced by natural law, there's just a tendency to balance evil acts with "evil" acts to discourage further evil acts, and a tendency to pay people back when they do you a good turn. That's good tribal behavior.
 
it should have been obvious such things were personal beliefs from the very beginning imo

it's like saying "i am an elephant" and then you guys going "uh no grind you don't have a trunk, or a tail, you are not 2000 pounds or an animal." "and me going, OHHHHH ok, I guess it's just a personal belief then"
 
3XO3NDO said:
it should have been obvious such things were personal beliefs from the very beginning imo

it's like saying "i am an elephant" and then you guys going "uh no grind you don't have a trunk, or a tail, you are not 2000 pounds or an animal." "and me going, OHHHHH ok, I guess it's just a personal belief then"
Click to expand...
It was obvious to me that I was extrapolating my personal beliefs for the beginning. And I'm pretty sure it was obvious to you two, unless your dutch rutter fucks your heads up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top