Notices

View Poll Results: Should evil be eradicated ?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 60.00%
  • No

    1 20.00%
  • Don't know

    1 20.00%
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Good and Evil in Self-creation

  1. #1  
    Guest
    sorry, but this can't work. Good/evil, contrary to popular view, is far too subjective to be handled in this manner. The only people who will answer you with a yes/no will probably be religious ones (that says something, doesn't it?).

    Besides, if you define "evil" as malicious intent in any form, how can you be sure giving someone a hug doesn't have malicious intent? Or the act of love, or anything else. Technically, everything can be viewed as evil. Or good. Drawing lines between the two is the evolutionary survival trait. It's so we have something to fight, rather than not knowing who the enemy is.

    and I'm not sure how it's a survival method for the weak against the strong. Unless you define evil as "will resort to anything"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Post-Science
    Thank you for trying to clarify this point. Here good/evil is the popular view. Or, if you wish, use ethical/unethical. Or, use [resort to acceptable standard/resort to anything (e.g. terrorism)]. Again, thank you for your clarification.
    Hmm...well in that case, I'm not sure if it *COULD* be removed. Even if it "should" be removed.

    But on that subject, there is always a balance of good/evil when viewed along those lines. Removal of evil, would resort to the problem of too much good (thus unbalancing things). Overpopulation would increase dramatically, the worlds economy would collapse, etc.

    Yet...wouldn't those results fall into the category of "evil?" O.o perhaps you could explain.

    P.S: I realize I was a bit arrogant in saying "sorry, this can't work" (or so it sounds in my mind). Apologies. :P


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The Key Point: Proof of creationism. 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Post-Science
    According to post-science (my teachers), the key point here is to prove technically that we are created with design. Post-science solves the problem of completely autoamted software (Pat. No. 5,485,601) which identifies DNA as its prime example. With this software foundation, we will be able to create completely automated entities and even ourselves. If we can create living thing, it only stands to reason that we are also created. It is unlikely that with enormous complexity in design to create some function which is bad.
    *sigh* it saddens me that teachers are this illogical. Allow me to point out one fatal flaw in their reasoning:

    Just because it can be "created," doesn't mean it can't have evolved. Limiting ones viewpoint to "oh well since it's complex we HAVE to have been created!" doesn't really aid in anything. Basically, all it proves is that we have the technology to create things. I do believe someone here has a quote which says something like "highly advanced technology is akin to magic."

    Basically, if one has a firm grasp of how LONG it has taken to evolve, there is no problem with it. Think about it, how much could your brain learn (ignoring limitations on memory) in a few billion years? Or just a million?

    The numbers in question can't be taken lightly, nor should they be comprehended improperly (which they usually are). Since our life spans, and those of civilization, are so short it's a rarity when someone actually comprehends it fully. But try this exercise: Ponder the number "million" for a while, learn the depth of it, and how long a time that actually is. If you can't really comprehend it already anyway. But I'm getting too far off topic...

    The practical application of this conclusion is to equate evil to weakness and to spend time to strengthen the weak, not to eradicate evil. Certainly the founders of post-science (Dr. Ta-You Wu, Dr. T. L. Kunii, Prof. C. V. Ramamoorthy, and Dr. Hugh Ching) can provide more detailed answer. Personally, I believe that this conclusion is central to the struggle between the West and Middle East; "weakness" should replace "evil." Here, I am trying to get the world involved in this discussion, but our world needs to move immediately from the current Age of Science (2000), jump over the Age of Social Science(2500?), and into the Age of Life Science(3000?), where the viewpoint is completely different from that of science or social science. Thank you for giving me a chance to express what I really trying to get to, namely, peace.[CYL]
    What can I say? Improper views on philosophical terms lead to improper results. All of this testing is fine, but how can it be accurate if the premise is wrong?

    I really can't argue on an invalid premise. :/

    P.S: Unless I misunderstood, as well, they are going about it the wrong way and using entirely different environments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Good is doing what your conscience says and bad is doing the opposite. We all have the same conscience, exactly all of us.

    Drawing close to god helps us to undersatnd and obide by our conscince.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    We have a conscience from god. God is science. Science is all things, nothing is not science.

    That may seem difficult but once you accept that all you see and the fact that you see is because of god, then you are beginning to learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Good and Evil in Self-creation 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Does anyone find some substance in "Post-Science's" post? I am still trying. For example, I am mystified by his "the life science of self creation." How can something create itself? Things cannot even MAKE themselves much less "create" themselves.

    Also, he claims Post-science is "knowledge beyond science." He somehow failed to show us how we could accumulate knowldege without science. Are we to dream it up, "create" it, or can we double-talk it into existence?

    All his disertation deals with words that have multiple meanings so that it can appear to make some sense but yet say nothing that anyone can pin down and find useful in the real world.

    I hate double-talk!

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    'Evil' is a relative term, there is NO fixed boundary between evil and good.

    One could consider the slaughter of animals for food as 'evil' or even using insecticide to keep a garden 'looking nice'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    'Evil' is a relative term, there is NO fixed boundary between evil and good.

    One could consider the slaughter of animals for food as 'evil' or even using insecticide to keep a garden 'looking nice'.
    megabrain, the fact the poll is as it is currently (saying evil should be eradicated), proves me need better education. Philosophy for one. -.-
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •