So why is everything on here just a link to a blog post or an article? If you aren't sharing a blog link you have to post it under this thread? That's pretty dumb. This needs to be amended

Yeah, that's true. It's definitely a roadblock to this idea that I find fascinating. I just have trouble removing the "maximally great" aspect of God because of the ontological argument is so compelling to me. Thank you for your input.

Even if there is no conscious observer within the universe there could still be consciousness without, your supernatural first cause or God.

The following assumes pantheism is true.

Imagine, if God is present in all things could the symphony of life actually be an opportunity for God to judge and reconstitute itself? The idea of hell can be understood as being apart from the presence of God, like the whole of God cast you, a piece of God, out. I find this very interesting. I guess a maximally great being can't be maximally great if it needs to be reconstituted or changed, though, right?

Individualism vs collectivism is the political spectrum. What you prefer is somewhere along the gradient from one extreme (anarchy) to the other (communism). Liberalism is critiqued by Marxism and I guess anarchy. So, yeah, you could espouse being an individual bandit also.

This is what I get from a google definition search:

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Anyways i don't want to spend much time arguing about this. There is plenty of that in this thread already lol

Buddy there are NO individual human rights under communism. There were NO individual human rights in the Soviet Union. Are you kidding me? How are you going to completely ignore the red terror, the holomodor, or the gulags where innocent people were used for slave labour, starved to death and replaced with another innocent person.

You're the personification of complete nativity and ignorance. What a bloody fool.

"Seizing the means of production" = violating someone else's individual human rights. You're my proof.

Edit: one of you guys.. the Soviet Union was in fact what communism looks like. You can trace the root of the evil in the Soviet Union to the evil conception of communism as a straight line. Communism is necessarily coercive and oppressive. You can't force everyone to want to participate in your communist experiment, some folks believe in individual human rights. You're wrong. Quit drinking the kool-aid.

Then it isn't communism. You're attempting to paint communism as if it were liberalism where everyone gets to live the lives they want but that's not communism. You don't get individual human rights under communism because what matters is the "greater good" and not the good of the individual or their interests. "What you do" as a communist is exactly what I've already mentioned, which is exactly what communists have been doing for about a century now.

Remember again that in a liberal-democracy nothing is forbidding the communist from getting together with their communist friends and forming a commune. The good guys are obvious.

Liberals are ideologically opposed to communism. Any communist system would see resistance from the liberals trapped inside. So what do you do with the liberals that refuse to cooperate within the oppressive communist system? What do you do about those pesky humans that believe in individual human rights and freedom? Exactly as I've said and it's already been demonstrated plenty of times. (The communists start chanting "one of us. One Of Us. ONE OF US!" as they surgically remove your your soul and your humanity from your body).

There's a straight line from the idea of communism to the oppression, coercion and murder required to actually run it. Communism is incredibly evil.

When did I say anything about "competing in a Marxist society?"

What do you do with people who don't want to cooperate (i.e., liberals)? You have to reeducate them, throw them in the gulag or eliminate them. Liberal societies tolerate communists (just form a commune), communist societies are intolerant of liberals.

Too many marxists here on Reddit - which is surprising knowing what we know about the communists states of the 20th century.

Capitalism is voluntary exchange between free individuals. I'm pretty sure he was referring to how this was also the case between tribes of humans 10s of thousands of years ago also.

Coercion is not Cooperation. You can cooperate in a liberal society under capitalism, Marxism isn't cooperation it's necessarily coercive and oppressive - just ask what yourself what you do with people that don't feel like "cooperating."

What rules, like antitrust laws? In Canada there's a competition act.

She wasn't born a princess and if she behaved like that she likely would remain "not a princess."

Did you get hit with the extra import charge? UPS has started charging the receiver a hidden fee if the parcel crosses the border. Basically they wait until the parcel is in their possession to hit you with a new fee. I think it's pretty dishonest, criminal even, what about you?

I believe I get what you're saying but I don't believe the argument is circular. Your criticism seems to be that you believe the argument isn't sound because it's a consequence of predetermination, not that the argument isn't valid per se. What I see in the argument is "everything is predetermined, I'm a thing, I'm predetermined," which by itself seems logical.

I think your objection is epistemological, you're questioning how you can know a thing is predetermined if your idea about that thing is the consequence of predetermination, am I correct?

>If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

>This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove:

Point of departure: The universe is governed by the principle of causality.

P2 The principle of causality suggests all phenomenon/events are the consequence, and predetermined by, other [causal] phenomenon/events.

P3 People are phenomenon of the universe

C Therefore people's actions and behaviour are also governed by the principle of causality.

I don't see how this argument begs the question. I think it's just concluding something besides what you think it does, that human action is predetermined not that the universe is.

Hey,

Are you familiar with Descartes and his meditations on first philosophy? So do you remember where he goes into how people come to know things they've never had access to, like perfect beauty? So do you remember his argument about not being able to know a thing from the negation of that thing?

If you're familiar with this argument can you break down why you can't come to know a thing from the absence of that thing? I remember understanding this when I first read the book but now that I'm thinking about it years later I don't seem to have the argument lined up in my mind. Can you help? I did a quick Google search and I don't see any exact references and explanations of this line I find interesting.

Thanks in advance.

God is supposed to be the first cause so it should always be transcendent, or it isn't God, but I imagine it's also of this world since it's supposed to be omnipresent.

Explain why the argument doesn't work if it's immanent. Is the idea that if God is all things of reality then God is also in all evil things? I've considered this before. Is this what you mean?

If a cow was simply grazing a field a leaving dung piles then there would be a net loss of resources, no? They're just eating the grass, stealing half of it's nutrients and pooping half of it back. You need to kill the cow to get 100% again, right?

I'm just curious

What the hell, when the did I insult you? I simply criticized your [pattern of] objection. If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right? I really don't think you believe that. I think you actually agree with me but don't want to play along. I don't think you actually disagree with me but are rather in a bad way and don't want to play along with the discussion. While I'm trying to explore this idea you're trying to explore ways you can pick at my responses to you. I think my assessment was correct. You may disagree.

What I've gotten so far is:

X - asks a few questions

Y - You demand: "Give me more"

X - gives you more

Y - "it wasn't good enough!"

X - "OK.."

Y - *Well i don't like your answer"

X - "But isn't it basically the answer?"

Y - "Wrong!"

X - "You're wrong!"

Y - "DON'T YOU LOB PETTY INSULTS AT ME!" D:<

Either they're special and you can't eat a human or eating humans is okay = "false dichotomy." Okay, I can see you're not particularly keen on having a dialogue, you're just being toxic at this point.

Isn't that all it boils down to or is eating a human being ok?

Uh huh..