Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,173 Year: 5,430/9,624 Month: 455/323 Week: 95/204 Day: 11/26 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(6)
Message 214 of 1864 (789484)
08-15-2016 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Phat
04-15-2016 10:46 AM


Re: The Great Inscrutable
Phat writes:
...the fact that I live on a dust speck of a planet --made possible by a friendly distance Sun--among an estimated one hundred billion stars(suns)--in a galaxy among an estimated one hundred billion galaxies.
Interesting. It's this same idea that makes me think there is no God.
Yes, we're one-in-a-billion... but it seems to be that we exist on this planet simply because we can't exist anywhere else.
We live on a planet that is suffocating with life. And that life would continue to flourish without us, it definitely went on for many, many years without us before, anyway.
You see... if we happened to be on another planet in the one-in-a-billion... say, one that doesn't really support life (as most don't).
If we were on one of THOSE planets, and our life was supported REGARDLESS of the fact that it really probably shouldn't... THAT would make me think maybe someone was guiding or helping us.
But here? On Earth? Where life pretty much has to form?
It doesn't seem like a God is required. It just seems like it's something that happens to any planet that happens to be this distance from a sun.
Wake me up on Jupiter, and become aware that I'm surviving and thriving in a gravity that should be crushing my bones to dust every second I stay there... that seems like "someone else" seems to be intervening and helping me along.
Wake me up here, though? on Earth? Where there's so much life it's difficult to find a place on Earth where there's none?
That doesn't seem like someone's intervening to create us.
That seems like we just happen to be another mammal that didn't require anything special or external to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Phat, posted 04-15-2016 10:46 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 08-15-2016 3:14 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 330 of 1864 (811841)
06-12-2017 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by NoNukes
06-07-2017 4:06 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
NoNukes writes:
How can good and free will both exist without evil, or not good existing? I don't believe such a thing is even possible. The choices then are to create good and evil or to create robots without the potential for doing anything but what they are told to do. Given a choice of a universe to live in, I'd prefer the former.
I don't see how your choices flow from your premises.
Basically, why only the extremes?
Consider a world exactly the same as ours. Except one singular, heinous action simply doesn't exist. Let's pick... stealing children for the intention of putting them in human trafficking operations (sex slave type stuffs).
So, we have a world with just as many options as ours.
You can punch a man in the face.
You can rob a bank.
You can blackmail your neighbor.
You can even go steal a kid for the purposes of hurting the parents and making them suffer.
...just can't put that kid in the sex trade.
One evil removed.
Do we not still have free will?
Is your life changed at all?
Are many lives changed for the better?
What do you choose now? Do you choose the world we have, or the exactly-the-same-as-the-world-we-have-but-no-stolen-children-sex-slaves?
Why the extremes? "All or nothing" certainly is not the only option.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2017 4:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 8:39 PM Stile has replied
 Message 332 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 1:03 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 333 of 1864 (811897)
06-13-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by New Cat's Eye
06-12-2017 8:39 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
New Cat's Eye writes:
The question to me seems to become: How is man prevented from performing the one evil action? By restricting his will? Or not?
Does it matter?
Let's say it is 'by restricting his will' (I'm assuming you consider this to be a negative thing).
Even if free-will is reduced to create such a place... why does such a reduction matter?
Is such a reduction worth preventing the heinous action?
I think the obvious answer is 'yes.'
If you think the answer is 'no,' could you offer a reasonable defense in allowing the heinous action? What 'value' are we preserving in order to keep the heinous action?
If infinite - 1 is still infinite... and there are an infinite number of ways to freely choose to "do good"... then, is free will reduced by blocking some "bad" options?
If there is not an infinite amount of ways to do good, but "infinite as far as we're concerned" does this still count?
That is... let's say there are more good-options to choose to do than we could ever hope to choose to do within our life span. Therefore, the amount of good-options may not actually be "infinite" but they might as well be to us.
If such a situation is true, and we remove a few "bad" options... do we not still have "as-unlimited-as-before-free-will-to-do-good?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 8:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 10:26 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 334 of 1864 (811899)
06-13-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by NoNukes
06-13-2017 1:03 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
NoNukes writes:
1. When the earth was created, no actions existed at all. No humans existed. Given humans, how do we prevent them from creating actions just because they do not already exist absent by restricting their free will? Describe to me a world with independent mobile folks each having free will in which it is impossible for one folk to exploit another against their will.
I do not have a practical answer for such a question.
I merely intended to show the flaw in your original statement:
quote:
How can good and free will both exist without evil, or not good existing? I don't believe such a thing is even possible. The choices then are to create good and evil or to create robots without the potential for doing anything but what they are told to do. Given a choice of a universe to live in, I'd prefer the former.
I actually agree with the first two sentences. I do not understand how good can exist without evil. And I'm also not sure if it's possible.
However... there is a gap jumping from that idea to the only choices of "world as it is now" or "robots."
We could have "slightly less evil than now" and still not be "robots."
That was the only point I was trying to make.
2. Obviously, we could create a world without sex at all, so perhaps arguments about eliminating one particular evil are not really even germane. You need to make a case that all potential evil can be removed without removing free will.
I don't understand where you're coming from here.
If my point is to say it's possible for us to be "slightly less evil than now" and just not become "robots."..... Why would I need to make a case that all potential evil can be removed without removing free will? My point includes evil still existing. Just not all of it.
I don't believe such a thing is possible, but even if you can eliminate one particular bad act, that is not enough.
Not enough for what?
My point is that if we could "just eliminate one particular bad act" then we would be better off than now... and still not be "robots."
If that's my point, why would I need to eliminate more bad acts? That would seem to go beyond my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 1:03 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 2:25 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 336 of 1864 (811911)
06-13-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2017 10:26 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
New Cat's Eye writes:
An unrestricted will.
Can you explain what it is about an unrestricted will that's worth having for this heinous action to remain?
Please keep in mind that you still have an 'unrestricted will' for every other decision. Just not this single heinous action.
Take flying like superman as the example. I want to do that, but I can't. My will is free, but I am physically unable. No restriction of free will there.
I see the distinction. If I say "limiting the physical ability, but not the desire" would that end our conversation in agreement? If that's the case... let's not say that, as the alternative discussion seems more... interesting.
Now, and this is where my question comes in: an alternative would be to simply restrict my will from wanting to fly like superman - or eliminating the desire to perform the forbidden evil action from the human population.
Eliminating the desire.
Because if so, there would be countless forbidden actions that are even more evil than your example that we are simply not aware of. And then the question becomes: where do you draw the arbitrary line of restriction?
I think that is a dangerous and slippery slope to be going down, so my preference would be to leave the line at 'unrestricted'.
I'm not positive what you're trying to get to here. But I think it's along the lines of "if we prevent 1 evil, then why not 20? Why not 'all'? Who decides? When do we stop?
If that is your concern. I fully agree.
I just completely disagree that the solution is to "not do anything at all."
I would say the solution is do a few things and look for the line.
If it was only this 1 heinous action where the free will/desire was eliminated and nothing else... no slippery slope at all to consider, no "...and then" to come after. If that was it, would you agree to the limitation then?
Crying wolf about slippery slopes can stop a lot of advancement.
It's possible that electronic devices could lead to the destruction of all humans. Shall we stop making electronic devices because of that slippery slope?
When a line needs to be drawn, I have no problems taking action far, far away from the line (at the extremes) and then discussing where (even if) an actual line needs to be drawn. I think it could be a very interesting discussion, actually. But, perhaps it doesn't include the Trinity
Too, subtracting 1 evil action from an infinite number of them still leaves an infinite number of evil actions to perform, so how does your scenario even really help?
The point here is that it doesn't help at all "in reducing free will." However, it certainly does help to children who are in the sex trade.
Therefore: if something doesn't affect free will... and yet eliminates children being in the sex trade... why not do it?
I agree that the 'slippery slope' is a concern and something to consider before doing anything rash.
But I disagree that this specific proposal would be 'rash.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 10:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 11:34 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 338 of 1864 (811932)
06-13-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2017 11:34 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
It's the principle... because freedom.
I don't want my thoughts controlled.
Understood.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
If I say "limiting the physical ability, but not the desire" would that end our conversation in agreement?
Sort of, I'm curious how you'd envision that happening tho... And it could have ramifications for our free will, so I dunno.
Ha ha. I didn't think that far ahead. This was all just some thinking, nothing more. I was mostly just weirded out by the impression of "being a robot" because of the elimination of my desire for even a single, specific terrible action. I didn't think it was an either/or situation, and wanted to express the option of more of a gradient of some kind.
But 'limiting the physical ability' itself can be considered along the lines of what a police force or possibly government does. And then it's just specifics into 'how good' your policies and enforcement actually are.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Sure, but it seems impractical. We don't have any way of [eliminating an actual free-will desire] and speculating on why a god would or would not do it doesn't seem very productive.
Yeah. It may be that any discussion of 'free will' (in the non-physical sense) is moot in a practical sense because it's simply something we have no control over. But in the non-practical sense... I still think about it.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
Therefore: if something doesn't affect free will... and yet eliminates children being in the sex trade... why not do it?
I would speculate that it goes against a principle that is more important to uphold.
"Important" here seems to be a personal opinion.
You think it's more important. I don't.
I can't currently describe some method to judge which is 'better' in a practical/objective-ish way.
Especially since the scope of "what is actually affected" seems difficult to narrow.
A discussion for another day, in another thread, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 12:19 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 341 of 1864 (811941)
06-13-2017 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by NoNukes
06-13-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
NoNukes writes:
Apparently you agree, so perhaps we were just talking past one another.
Yeah, looks like.
I don't see how such a situation (completely evil-free world) could exist without limits on free will.
I think this would depend on exactly what 'free will' means.
But, since 'free will' also seems very difficult to nail down... it compounds the issue.
For a glimpse:
If "Free Will" means 'ability to hurt other people' then yeah... I don't think you can remove evil and have evil at the same time.
But:
If "Free Will" means something more like "ability to be the authority on choosing whatever you want from the available options..." Then it opens up a bit more of a discussion on what the "limits" actually are, and which ones may be acceptable or not (that seems off-topic here, though).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 2:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 931 of 1864 (903020)
11-30-2022 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 927 by candle2
11-30-2022 8:33 AM


Re: Simplistically Speaking
candle2 writes:
Nwr, you are the perfect example of what I was talking
about.

You call castrating young boys good; when in fact it is
pure evil.
Making such serious accusations when they are clearly not true cements your credibility into the "crazy" bucket.
You really shouldn't do such things, it's not right. But it's more likely you'll just try again on your next victim, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by candle2, posted 11-30-2022 8:33 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by candle2, posted 12-03-2022 11:27 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024