Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

[ding]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

 

[Blues Man]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

Neither good nor evil exists outside of the mind of man

Good exists. Evil doesn’t.

Do hot and cold exist outside the mind of man?

What about light and darkness?

There is no physical quantification of good or evil.

When there is a thermometer that can measure the evil in the air let me know.

Does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

Yes and they can be quantified

When you can measure "evil" let me know.

WHat would one unit of evil be called do you think?

Maybe we should call it a Satan or a Lucifer.

So tell me how many Lucifers must be present in the air for a murder to be committed?

So cold does not exist. Only heat exists. Darkness does not exist. Only light exists.'

Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.

Evil doesn't exist either. Evil is the absence of good.

Unfairness doesn't exist. Unfairness is the absence of fairness.

G-d said evil exists,
you weren't consulted.

Creation is not bound by the limits of dulaistic human logic.

The epitome of human corruption - when man willfully denies his evil potential.

Everything God created is good.

And yet G-d calls man's heart evil.

Who are you to argue?

God said everything he created is good. It's the first thing you were told.

Man has a choice to do good or not do good. The problem comes when he doesn't do good and fails to admit it and learn from his mistakes.

Which is contradicted by modern neuroscience.

Show me how modern neuroscience contradicts that man doesn't rationalize doing wrong as right?

There is no absolute right and wrong.

Both are merely value judgements. Those value judgements have become part of many cultures because they prove to make survival easier not because there is some metaphysical thing called good or evil

Just pain and pleasure. If you can get away with pleasure without the pain that would be great, right?

So there would be nothing wrong with harming others for your gain, right?

These are your logical conclusions.

I never said just pain and pleasure. People who choose to live together in a cooperative society have to agree on what behaviors are allowed and disallowed in their society.

A society can certainly believe sacrificing people on the altar of some god is perfectly acceptable. I'll even go so far as to say that if any of us were raised in such a society that we too would believe it to be acceptable.

If all there are are opinions then the only thing that is real is pain and pleasure.

No there are as many things as there are opinions.

There are those who believe mortification of the flesh to be a necessary component of worship.

So to them pain is the means they derive pleasure in serving their god.

And to you the only thing that exists in actuality is your pain and pleasure. Do whatever doesn't give you pain and whatever gives you pleasure. Screw everyone else. There is no moral authority. It is whatever you can take for your pleasure.

I do not believe I have the right to harm another person in any way.

In fact I stopped eating meat because I don't want to be responsible for the large scale suffering of animals.

That is my choice, my judgement, not some overriding absolute moral code becase such a thing does not exist outside of what is agreed upon by the members of a society

Sounds like you are making a moral argument to me.

What's wrong with being like an animal?

I'm not. That is my personal choice. i have no moral or any other justification for forcing you to believe as I do.

Exactly, which is why you can't argue I would be wrong to take from you using force.

Whereas, I can make that argument against you. I have authority on my side. You have no authority on your side.

I can make my own judgements of what I deem right and wrong there is no absolute standard just the subjective ones.

Authority is just another agreed upon societal contract the Authority we agree upon in our society is not the authority agreed upon in others. Therefore there is no absolute standard

Logic, which like truth, is absolute, and says otherwise.

Logic is absolute?
I think one of the main aspects of logic was always to expose its human limits.

Show a mathematician 2+2=4
and he will find the way to defy the "equation".

So much for logic.

Absolutely. Logic is absolute. Feel free to believe otherwise.

with no men there would be no logic.

If there was an alien species with an entirely different brain chemisty, their logic would not be the same as ours because they think and reason differently.

But tell me where did logic exist before there were humans? If we discovered it we must have found it somewhere.

 

[Blues Man]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

No it's not.

And men created evil just like men created the gods humanity has worshiped throughout our history.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So you are saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it it doesn't make a sound.

I've never been in that camp.

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

 

[zaangalewa]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

 

[Blues Man]

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

No. Man discovered them. Logic established them. They exist for logical reasons. They can’t be whatever you want them to be.

Man created them.

and yes standards can be whatever the people of the society say they are.

Not without suffering the consequences of normalization of deviance they can't. And it is that failure which reveals that the standard can't be whatever one wants them to be. And since they can't be whatever we want them to be they are independent of man.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Fairness like everything we are discussing is a product of the minds of men.

Some people think it's fair play to cheat at cards or in a business dealing because cheating is part of the game in their view.
Some people think fairness is the equitable outcome in any situation but we know that not all outcomes are equitable

We can reason because our brain physiology makes it possible. The idea of fairness is nothing but a reasoned ideal.

When people were living in nomadic tribes all that mattered was the survival of their tribe. There was no hesitation to kill a stranger and no punishment within the tribe. There was no taboo on stealing the food or the kill of another tribe.

So you must think at that point in our history we had not "discovered" fairness or morals. But the truth is the standards of morality and fairness were different for those people than they are for us today.

Our societal standards came to be as we as people realized that to live in larger, stationary societies that the morals of the nomadic tribes was not conducive to a large cooperative society as as that was realized codes of conduct were agreed upon either directly or tacitly.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So you are saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it it doesn't make a sound.

I've never been in that camp.

Where did I say that?

We know the physical properties of the tree, the wood in the tree and what happens when a tree falls because we have witnessed enough trees falling to know what happens.

A tree is a physical thing. Morals are not, standards are not so they are whatever we as a people decide they are.

 

[ding]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist; only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions. The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations." Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence. Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

.After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible. His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

 

[Blues Man]

So this is where I will say what I posted before has been confirmed 100% and that Rylah's pride exceeds his love for God. May God have mercy on your soul, Rylah.

You're a real piece of shit for how you have behaved here in this discussion.

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1256/0739_Bk.pdf

So you don't live by the standards of your bible.

Judge not ......

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So you are saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it it doesn't make a sound.

I've never been in that camp.

Where did I say that?

We know the physical properties of the tree, the wood in the tree and what happens when a tree falls because we have witnessed enough trees falling to know what happens.

A tree is a physical thing. Morals are not, standards are not so they are whatever we as a people decide they are.

Maybe this will help explain it.

"...A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.

Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.



It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[Blues Man]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Then you know now, what I expect from you.

You think I care about your expectations?

I don't.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

 

[ding]

So this is where I will say what I posted before has been confirmed 100% and that Rylah's pride exceeds his love for God. May God have mercy on your soul, Rylah.

You're a real piece of shit for how you have behaved here in this discussion.

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1256/0739_Bk.pdf

So you don't live by the standards of your bible.

Judge not ......

Right. Not always. I never claimed to be a saint.

Are you perfect? Because I'm not. I just have a notion I should be making progress.

 

[rylah]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

Try a rational approach.

 

[ding]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".