Will Torbald

What's wrong with a little destruction?

This video sums it up rather succintly. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TXZv9DDCBYw"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It doesn't matter if it's subjective. Nobody would voluntarily exchange something that "feels" like a loss.

The most successful adults manage to maintain the senses you mention, and transform them into their work. It's hard, but the alternative does sound as grim as you point it out.

You jump, break the window, and then ask the owner "Would you have done the same to save your life?".

Preferences are not actions, though. A preference for saxophone music is just a feeling. Playing saxophone is an action which however you want to see it doesn't have anti bad power, thus can't be good.

I guess I got caught up in the moment. Thanks for snapping me out.

When talking about cosmology, philosophical terms like substance have no meaning. There is the technical scientific jargon for matter and particles which have no bearing on what you may refer to as substance. Calling God the cause for the universe has no logical way of giving you Jesus or Heaven or anything.

I didn't say illusion, I said nothing. All the energy in the universe adds up to zero after taking into account the positive and the negative energies. We are all one giant blank check.

It's a term I came up with on the spot, just a bit of humor. I guess it would just be applied principles of non contradiction.

He's doing "not bad" as far as I see it. If his music had the power to prevent the bad, or to stop it, that would be interesting. Music does have value with the N state as it is beautiful, fun, and inspiring. In a way, it can inspire others to do the good when it is virtuous, but by itself it is only an N action. For example, I would say that a food stand is also an N action simply because food is part of the natural/normal/neutral way of living. But selling food or eating food doesn't stop the bad in its tracks. In this sense the N does have value, it's just not anti-evil value.

You choose pluralism because you are unwilling to commit to one true universal standard of ethics. With a valid, solid, provable set of universal ethics - universal as in they apply to every case regardless of your personal feelings - you don't need other half baked theories.

Epistemological Pyromancy: The Art of Pointing Out Self Exploding Arguments

But you are assuming we are 'something' to begin with. What if I told you that we come from nothing and we are actually just nothing playing with itself? And no, other religions still do that. I come from a religion completely unrelated to christianity and they still taught that. But what created god???

I chuckled a bit when I read it was Godzilla, in a good way. I thought you were going to talk about some historical figure or something similar. There's an interesting psychology to be inferred from being inspired by a giant radioactive monster. For one, Godzilla is a rampaging monster with no inhibitions. I would ask if you allow yourself space and time to let off anything in your mind you want to burst without restraint? Godzilla has his beam he shoots from his mouth. Shouting, maybe? I used to do that when I was younger. Just have some time to just wail out anger at nothing in particular. Growing up my media inspirations were Power Rangers and videogames like Legend of Zelda which were more on the heroic side fighting monsters instead.

Still relativist.

Your comment on nothing signals you didn't really understand his nothingness. He does touch the subject of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, but the nothing of no space and no time is not what you call the rarefied quantum foam. It is literally and physically nothing. That's what is being contended to be the origin of the universe. Yes, Darwinian evolution also created love. Love is a function of brains which were created by means of evolution. Love doesn't exist in any tangible form outside of brains. It would be really cool if you read your kids and loved ones about evolution, yes. Other religions also teach of gods creating men in their essence, it's not original to christianity.

#BanChildish

Capitalism is psychopathic because it doesn't force people to surrender their money for people with less money, which is the most moral thing to do.

Creativity comes from Darwinian evolution by natural selection of genes that produce brains capable of creativity. Jumping from an eternal origin of time to a personal god who spoke to ancient and ignorant tribes and miracles is the jiffy in the argument with theists. You can't say "the universe must have had an origin therefore bible is true". Leave the origin of the universe to physicists since they actually know more than you know about the universe. If you want to know some science about cosmology read and watch Laurence Krauss on The Universe From Nothing.

What makes something good, well, good? How does an action acquire the characteristic of being good? The establishment is "because it is not immoral according to universality" however I'm not too sure about that. It would be like saying that everything that is not a fish is a bird. But there are frogs and snakes and ardvarks too out there, so what is it? I'm going to propose the case that a neutral state is necessary to have a clear unambiguous distinction between what's good and bad. Making moral theories without a neutral state is akin to doing mathematics without the number zero. The proposal is to add a zero to the ethical equation, basically. It looks like this: -1 <<< N >>> +1 Where "bad" is -1, the "good" is +1, and N represents the "Natural/Normal/Neutral/Not-bad State of Affairs when there is no breaking of universal ethics". N state for short. The N state is what could be called peace, or justice, or happiness, etc. It is said rather easily that if you are not bad, you must automatically be good. Using the analogy of numbers, it's like saying that if you are not a negative number, you must be a positive number. Or if you are not an electron, you must be a proton. Or if you are not black, you must be white. But that's not how it works in the world. You can be a neutron, you can be a zero, you can be a color of the spectrum. So what's good, then? The good is not the "not bad". Instead, the good is the "anti bad". (-1) + (+1) = 0 or N For good to be good, it must cancel the bad. For bad to be bad, it must cancel the N. (-1) + N = (-1) For something to be N, it can't alter the value of the good or the bad. For example, playing the saxophone isn't going to stop anyone from committing murder or theft or anything like that. It's just an N thing to do. Is the saxophone player bad for not going out at night dressed as a bat to stop crime? No. Is he good, then? Not good either. Is being N wrong, then? I don't think so. It simply is inconsequential to affect the bad, nor advance the good. Why the N state clears ambiguations: If there's a crime, and there are two people nearby - one rushing to stop it, and the saxophone player notices it and flees from the scene - both would be good without the N state. Fleeing from crime, and rushing to stop crime would both be "not bad" and have the same value without the N state. Since fleeing and rushing are actions of opposite direction, this can't be true. Having a positive action for the good also signals a path for what ought to be done, rather than just having a set of rules for what not. The good then is the set of proactive and reactive measures to stop the bad from attacking the N state. To defend it, to restore it after it has been unbalanced, and to prevent further intrusions of the bad. Anyway, these are just the thoughts I've had recently. What do you think?

I think limiting your question just to welfare handouts obscures the larger question of "Is using anything made with taxes immoral?" because you're just asking for a special case in welfare handouts while ignoring everything else done with tax money. Like using a road. Would you tell people standing on the street that they are immoral for using a tax payed road? Or the post office, or a library?

It's not brave to say "there might be cookies in the empty cookie jar" just because you want to save face.

Part 1_ on words: Fair enough. Completely useless in practice. Part 2_ on that: Are you certain that uncertainty is better than certainty?

If you agree that words don't have meaning then you are contradicting yourself by using words to explain your ideas. Try dancing, I think bees have a great solution for that. On the actual question, my point is that since each human action is always consistent in its reactions, using paraconsistent logic is wrong. If human actions were inconsistent, say, only 50% of the time a murder is a murder and the other 50% it's a fondue party, then using contradicting and weird "logic" would make sense. Until we live in a universe where stealing equals gifting and taking at the same time, regular old non contradicting logic is enough.