The Negation of the Self is the Actualization of the Self.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can one deny quarks? No. Can they deny quarks are the sole foundation? Considering it is a probabilistic argument, it would not be wise to say they are the sole foundation.

I am not implying quarks are the sole foundation.
There is no absolute sole foundation.

Actually it is not a question of rhetoric, if we are composed of quarks and we are observing quarks then by default the quarks are looping back on themselves. Physics does not like this because they believe it negates progress (when it really doesn't if the loop expands or contracts) and it necessitates universal forms not limited to physics alone.

The looping nature of empirical phenomenon leads to inherent consistency in forms where the question comes: which came first form or matter? Under relativity we are left with the necessity form is not limited to matter but emliricists are angered by an pure reason to being because it gives a sense of incompletion to there beliefs.

The looping is not in a circle but a spiral like the Yin-Yang complementarity and hermeneutics.
Note the Buddhist's "Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form."

If there is no absolute then:
1) There is no absolute definition of evil, as you argue.
2) "No absolute" comtradicts itself as it must be an absolute statement if it is to be truth.
3) To negate a positive (absolute) requires a positive to exist.

Yes, there is no absolute definition of evil and it does not matter all at.
What matters and is critical point here is empirical evil.
What we need to address are the real terrible evil and violent acts of genocides, mass murders, mass rapes, child sexual abuse, tortures, crimes, etc.

If it negates itself into a further definitive statement, and so on and so forth, the continuum of the relativistic definitions is an absolute.

It may seem like an absolute, but it is at most a relative absolute, like absolute temperature. These are not the absolutely absolute which we are zooming into.

What is of concern with the absolutely absolute is its rhetoric and deception into the idea of a 'real' absolutely absolute God which inspires SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible real evil and violent acts which are empirically evident.

A) A spiral still necessitates a linear movement from a point 0 towards a point 0, and in these respects goes back to the "lines as circle" thread. This is considering the loop, if observed from the side, eventually results in a line as a quantum frequency.

B) The premise of the spiral movement (the origin curve) moves in a circular manner through the foundation point. The same occurs with the interior point. The spiral is the circularity of points in points. This will have to be explained further.

C) If viewing the spiral amidst any of specified number of cycles, regardless of one's place in the continuum, the spiral maintains the same proportionality and a spiral of "x" length in position "a" will be the same if "x" length in position "b,c,d," or any other position.

D) THE arguments can be expanded further but provide foundations for constants.

This looping cycle is premised in circularity.

The point, line and circle exist through eachother as 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 and are inseparable. They are the foundations for all reason and consciousness and reflect through the various belief systems that relegate divinity as triadic and one. (I will have to post sources for this argument)

I am unable to follow your points above and I cannot sense anything critical to the point that could lead to real evil acts that is of great concern to humanity.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am not implying quarks are the sole foundation.
There is no absolute sole foundation.

The looping is not in a circle but a spiral like the Yin-Yang complementarity and hermeneutics.
Note the Buddhist's "Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form."

If there is no absolute then:
1) There is no absolute definition of evil, as you argue.
2) "No absolute" comtradicts itself as it must be an absolute statement if it is to be truth.
3) To negate a positive (absolute) requires a positive to exist.

Yes, there is no absolute definition of evil and it does not matter all at.
What matters and is critical point here is empirical evil.
What we need to address are the real terrible evil and violent acts of genocides, mass murders, mass rapes, child sexual abuse, tortures, crimes, etc.

Actually these acts are simultaneously justified through empiricism as atheisism also promotes these acts.

If it negates itself into a further definitive statement, and so on and so forth, the continuum of the relativistic definitions is an absolute.

It may seem like an absolute, but it is at most a relative absolute, like absolute temperature. These are not the absolutely absolute which we are zooming into.

All continuum are absolute as morality as a way of being is premise strictly in continuum (eternal life, etc.)



What is of concern with the absolutely absolute is its rhetoric and deception into the idea of a 'real' absolutely absolute God which inspires SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible real evil and violent acts which are empirically evident.

There is no empirical argument for evil without reverting to some sense outside the standard 5 considering murder and rape occur in the animal world under some conditions.

A) A spiral still necessitates a linear movement from a point 0 towards a point 0, and in these respects goes back to the "lines as circle" thread. This is considering the loop, if observed from the side, eventually results in a line as a quantum frequency.

B) The premise of the spiral movement (the origin curve) moves in a circular manner through the foundation point. The same occurs with the interior point. The spiral is the circularity of points in points. This will have to be explained further.

C) If viewing the spiral amidst any of specified number of cycles, regardless of one's place in the continuum, the spiral maintains the same proportionality and a spiral of "x" length in position "a" will be the same if "x" length in position "b,c,d," or any other position.

D) THE arguments can be expanded further but provide foundations for constants.

This looping cycle is premised in circularity.

The point, line and circle exist through eachother as 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 and are inseparable. They are the foundations for all reason and consciousness and reflect through the various belief systems that relegate divinity as triadic and one. (I will have to post sources for this argument)

I am unable to follow your points above and I cannot sense anything critical to the point that could lead to real evil acts that is of great concern to humanity.

There are constants in perceivable relativistic change. There is no scientific base for what evil is or is not without reverting to subjective human nature. If evil is argued as strictly absence of structure, inversion of unity into multiplicity, etc then it would have a rational standard...but currently it does not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are constants in perceivable relativistic change. There is no scientific base for what evil is or is not without reverting to subjective human nature. If evil is argued as strictly absence of structure, inversion of unity into multiplicity, etc then it would have a rational standard...but currently it does not.

Yes there are 'constants' in perceivable relativistic change but these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but rather are relative constants at a meta-level.

Re 'evil' I am not talking about any ontological evil from the theological Satan or the devil.

Note there are loads of constants within the various Sciences but I am arguing these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but are merely relative constants invented by humans. These are not constants for bats or other animals but only for humans and that is only for certain groups of humans, i.e. scientists and those who agree with them.

At present there is no standard for 'what is evil' but I believe it is very possible to establish an acceptable definition on what is evil.

• We need the concept of evil.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

[Eodnhoj7]

There are constants in perceivable relativistic change. There is no scientific base for what evil is or is not without reverting to subjective human nature. If evil is argued as strictly absence of structure, inversion of unity into multiplicity, etc then it would have a rational standard...but currently it does not.

Yes there are 'constants' in perceivable relativistic change but these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but rather are relative constants at a meta-level.

Re 'evil' I am not talking about any ontological evil from the theological Satan or the devil.

Note there are loads of constants within the various Sciences but I am arguing these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but are merely relative constants invented by humans. These are not constants for bats or other animals but only for humans and that is only for certain groups of humans, i.e. scientists and those who agree with them.

At present there is no standard for 'what is evil' but I believe it is very possible to establish an acceptable definition on what is evil.

• We need the concept of evil.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Evil is absence of being conducive to a form of seperation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are constants in perceivable relativistic change. There is no scientific base for what evil is or is not without reverting to subjective human nature. If evil is argued as strictly absence of structure, inversion of unity into multiplicity, etc then it would have a rational standard...but currently it does not.

Yes there are 'constants' in perceivable relativistic change but these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but rather are relative constants at a meta-level.

Re 'evil' I am not talking about any ontological evil from the theological Satan or the devil.

Note there are loads of constants within the various Sciences but I am arguing these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but are merely relative constants invented by humans. These are not constants for bats or other animals but only for humans and that is only for certain groups of humans, i.e. scientists and those who agree with them.

At present there is no standard for 'what is evil' but I believe it is very possible to establish an acceptable definition on what is evil.

• We need the concept of evil.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Evil is absence of being conducive to a form of seperation.

What is that???
Give evidences and empirical-rational justifications for your claim?

My approach to 'what is evil' is like certain scientists who had observed things are always falling down when not supported by anything. From such empirical evidences the Theory of Gravity is abstracted.

My claims of 'evil' start with empirical evidences of human acts and thoughts [from genocides 99/100 to petty crimes -5/100 ] that are detrimental to the individual and humanity and I believe we can abstract an "empirical essence" [not ontological] of these acts and classify them into a category and empirical concept which can be labelled as 'evil.'

Do you have any dispute on this approach and concept of evil.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes there are 'constants' in perceivable relativistic change but these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but rather are relative constants at a meta-level.

Re 'evil' I am not talking about any ontological evil from the theological Satan or the devil.

Note there are loads of constants within the various Sciences but I am arguing these constants are not absolutely-absolute constants but are merely relative constants invented by humans. These are not constants for bats or other animals but only for humans and that is only for certain groups of humans, i.e. scientists and those who agree with them.

At present there is no standard for 'what is evil' but I believe it is very possible to establish an acceptable definition on what is evil.

• We need the concept of evil.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Evil is absence of being conducive to a form of seperation.

What is that???
Give evidences and empirical-rational justifications for your claim?

My approach to 'what is evil' is like certain scientists who had observed things are always falling down when not supported by anything. From such empirical evidences the Theory of Gravity is abstracted.

My claims of 'evil' start with empirical evidences of human acts and thoughts [from genocides 99/100 to petty crimes -5/100 ] that are detrimental to the individual and humanity and I believe we can abstract an "empirical essence" [not ontological] of these acts and classify them into a category and empirical concept which can be labelled as 'evil.'

Do you have any dispute on this approach and concept of evil.

And what is genocide and petty crimes but a form of separation between not just groups and individuals but any form of structure and unity? The absence of structure, leads to an absence of order, hence being. All immoral acts result in a deficiency in being, hence life.

For example murder is a separation of the individual and there physical or mental health causing an absence of existence.

The same applies for theft, where the person is separated from there property, effectively not just causing harm to the person by separating there physical resources from the but it also effectively separates the individual from acting as directive agents to what they are responsible for and in doing so negates there nature as stewards of creation.

Adultery separated one spouse from another and causes a separation in the identities of the individual as sexuality is a transfer of various degree of the self, but a degree of separation in the relationship which affects the partnership of the individuals in working towards a structured and balanced life.

Empirical essence is a contradiction as it relies upon abstraction considering this "essence" would have to be observed through the senses. And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Evil is absence of being conducive to a form of seperation.

What is that???
Give evidences and empirical-rational justifications for your claim?

My approach to 'what is evil' is like certain scientists who had observed things are always falling down when not supported by anything. From such empirical evidences the Theory of Gravity is abstracted.

My claims of 'evil' start with empirical evidences of human acts and thoughts [from genocides 99/100 to petty crimes -5/100 ] that are detrimental to the individual and humanity and I believe we can abstract an "empirical essence" [not ontological] of these acts and classify them into a category and empirical concept which can be labelled as 'evil.'

Do you have any dispute on this approach and concept of evil.

And what is genocide and petty crimes but a form of separation between not just groups and individuals but any form of structure and unity? The absence of structure, leads to an absence of order, hence being. All immoral acts result in a deficiency in being, hence life.

For example murder is a separation of the individual and there physical or mental health causing an absence of existence.

The same applies for theft, where the person is separated from there property, effectively not just causing harm to the person by separating there physical resources from the but it also effectively separates the individual from acting as directive agents to what they are responsible for and in doing so negates there nature as stewards of creation.

Adultery separated one spouse from another and causes a separation in the identities of the individual as sexuality is a transfer of various degree of the self, but a degree of separation in the relationship which affects the partnership of the individuals in working towards a structured and balanced life.

Empirical essence is a contradiction as it relies upon abstraction considering this "essence" would have to be observed through the senses. And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Your 'separation' is going nowhere. Things are inherently separated in the most general sense. There is the sense of non-duality but that is a different issue in in this case.
Duality which is prevalent in reality is in a sense 'separation' between two things.

Note it is critical we separate 'good' from 'evil'.
Surely you don't want a highly potential murderer [evil] to be a part of your neigborhood or in your house. It is obvious a normal person would want to separate the murder from themselves, preferable locked up somewhere far away [subject to rehabilitation where necessary and available.

That people are murder are empirically evident.
Those who has the potential to murder are also based on empirical evidence. Such potential is inherent in all humans and active in SOME.
Note;

Psychopathic Child" AP Psychology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDVaiwzU8yc
isturbing footage of a psychopathic child cut from the 1990 documentary Child of Rage. Technically, the child is not officially a psychopath. She shows psychopathic tendencies, but this is due to her mistreatment at the hands of her parents. She actually suffers from an attachment disorder - a disorder that comes about when children such as Beth face abuse early in life.

One problem is your points are off base from reality.

And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Whatever abstracted theory of gravity from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
What is critical is, such theories has tremendous benefits [net positive] to humanity.

Similarly, whatever abstracted theory of evil from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
If you do not believe in my theory of evil [empirical & rational based], as test, just go to a city-square in Afghanistan and draw cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

What is critical with the identification of empirical essence is we can reduce all acts of evil to one root cause [the empirical essence]. Then we zoom into this root cause to manage it and thus prevent all* evil acts from manifesting.
* if not all, then most, especially the serious ones.

I am optimistic this is possible in the future given the current trend exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note humanity has completed the Humane Genome Project [once thought impossible] and now moving on to the Humane Connectome Project [re brain mapping].

Note whatever you propose, justify how is that translatable to benefit humanity net positively?

[Eodnhoj7]

What is that???
Give evidences and empirical-rational justifications for your claim?

My approach to 'what is evil' is like certain scientists who had observed things are always falling down when not supported by anything. From such empirical evidences the Theory of Gravity is abstracted.

My claims of 'evil' start with empirical evidences of human acts and thoughts [from genocides 99/100 to petty crimes -5/100 ] that are detrimental to the individual and humanity and I believe we can abstract an "empirical essence" [not ontological] of these acts and classify them into a category and empirical concept which can be labelled as 'evil.'

Do you have any dispute on this approach and concept of evil.

And what is genocide and petty crimes but a form of separation between not just groups and individuals but any form of structure and unity? The absence of structure, leads to an absence of order, hence being. All immoral acts result in a deficiency in being, hence life.

For example murder is a separation of the individual and there physical or mental health causing an absence of existence.

The same applies for theft, where the person is separated from there property, effectively not just causing harm to the person by separating there physical resources from the but it also effectively separates the individual from acting as directive agents to what they are responsible for and in doing so negates there nature as stewards of creation.

Adultery separated one spouse from another and causes a separation in the identities of the individual as sexuality is a transfer of various degree of the self, but a degree of separation in the relationship which affects the partnership of the individuals in working towards a structured and balanced life.

Empirical essence is a contradiction as it relies upon abstraction considering this "essence" would have to be observed through the senses. And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Your 'separation' is going nowhere. Things are inherently separated in the most general sense. There is the sense of non-duality but that is a different issue in in this case.
Duality which is prevalent in reality is in a sense 'separation' between two things.

All dualism is an approximation of unity, considering seperation cannot be proven through continual movement ad-fininitum. One cause may apparently be seperate from another, but the cause directed towards an effect is strictly cause existing through itself as effect, hence cause and effect are unified.



Note it is critical we separate 'good' from 'evil'.
Surely you don't want a highly potential murderer [evil] to be a part of your neigborhood or in your house. It is obvious a normal person would want to separate the murder from themselves, preferable locked up somewhere far away [subject to rehabilitation where necessary and available.

Evil is an absence of Good through gradation. One may not want a murderer in the house, but a person who commits murder one time versuses a man who has a continual repitition of it in his character are seperate issues. Also the issue of why the man commited murder is involved, as while he may be guilty, circumstances are what led to it at the same time. Alot of factors are involved but what makes a person a murderer or non-murder is strictly habit.



That people are murder are empirically evident.
Those who has the potential to murder are also based on empirical evidence. Such potential is inherent in all humans and active in SOME.
Note;


Killing is empirically evident, murder is not empirically evident without an unjust cause. One can kill and not be a murderer. Also one can not kill someone physically but kill another spirit which also constitutes murder.

Psychopathic Child" AP Psychology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDVaiwzU8yc
isturbing footage of a psychopathic child cut from the 1990 documentary Child of Rage. Technically, the child is not officially a psychopath. She shows psychopathic tendencies, but this is due to her mistreatment at the hands of her parents. She actually suffers from an attachment disorder - a disorder that comes about when children such as Beth face abuse early in life.

One problem is your points are off base from reality.

And what reality is that specifically considering noone agrees what constitutes reality? To argue everything is relative, then argue probabalism is the best means of determining truth (when this in itself is probable) is unreal as no logic can be "empirically" sensed in this statement, nor can it be sensed abstractly.

And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Whatever abstracted theory of gravity from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
What is critical is, such theories has tremendous benefits [net positive] to humanity.

And what is theory but a conjecture with religion also being a conjecture. What defines one conjecture from another? Gravity is an interpretation of empirical evidence.



Similarly, whatever abstracted theory of evil from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
If you do not believe in my theory of evil [empirical & rational based], as test, just go to a city-square in Afghanistan and draw cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

Actually for them to kill me would be just, relatively speaking, considering that is what extremist stances require...assuming everything is relative according to you.


What is critical with the identification of empirical essence is we can reduce all acts of evil to one root cause [the empirical essence]. Then we zoom into this root cause to manage it and thus prevent all* evil acts from manifesting.
* if not all, then most, especially the serious ones.

The root cause of evil is ignorance

I am optimistic this is possible in the future given the current trend exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note humanity has completed the Humane Genome Project [once thought impossible] and now moving on to the Humane Connectome Project [re brain mapping].

Note whatever you propose, justify how is that translatable to benefit humanity net positively?

With an increase in knowledge comes an increase in ignorance as the complexity leads to confusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what is genocide and petty crimes but a form of separation between not just groups and individuals but any form of structure and unity? The absence of structure, leads to an absence of order, hence being. All immoral acts result in a deficiency in being, hence life.

For example murder is a separation of the individual and there physical or mental health causing an absence of existence.

The same applies for theft, where the person is separated from there property, effectively not just causing harm to the person by separating there physical resources from the but it also effectively separates the individual from acting as directive agents to what they are responsible for and in doing so negates there nature as stewards of creation.

Adultery separated one spouse from another and causes a separation in the identities of the individual as sexuality is a transfer of various degree of the self, but a degree of separation in the relationship which affects the partnership of the individuals in working towards a structured and balanced life.

Empirical essence is a contradiction as it relies upon abstraction considering this "essence" would have to be observed through the senses. And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Your 'separation' is going nowhere. Things are inherently separated in the most general sense. There is the sense of non-duality but that is a different issue in in this case.
Duality which is prevalent in reality is in a sense 'separation' between two things.

All dualism is an approximation of unity, considering seperation cannot be proven through continual movement ad-fininitum. One cause may apparently be seperate from another, but the cause directed towards an effect is strictly cause existing through itself as effect, hence cause and effect are unified.


Note it is critical we separate 'good' from 'evil'.
Surely you don't want a highly potential murderer [evil] to be a part of your neigborhood or in your house. It is obvious a normal person would want to separate the murder from themselves, preferable locked up somewhere far away [subject to rehabilitation where necessary and available.

Evil is an absence of Good through gradation. One may not want a murderer in the house, but a person who commits murder one time versuses a man who has a continual repitition of it in his character are seperate issues. Also the issue of why the man commited murder is involved, as while he may be guilty, circumstances are what led to it at the same time. Alot of factors are involved but what makes a person a murderer or non-murder is strictly habit.

You have a serious problem here where you keep conflating perspectives.
You need to keep a topic to the perspective discussed and if you want to switch to another perspective, then you must say so or at least agreed.

I understand there is no such thing as black or white in one sense rather there is only gradation in a continuum shades of grey.
In the above case, when I say 'evil' must be separated from 'good', gradation is irrelevant in this sense.

When we say something like 'the ebola virus' must be separated from the individual[s], there is no room for gradation. You cannot afford to keep even one ebola virus in the body of the individual.

Thus it similar when I stated 'a potential murderer' [evil person] must be separated from good people. I believe it is common sense and definitely philosophical sense to agree with such a point if you are normal person. Instead you break out into all sorts of talks and out of point.

That people are murder are empirically evident.
Those who has the potential to murder are also based on empirical evidence. Such potential is inherent in all humans and active in SOME.
Note;
Killing is empirically evident, murder is not empirically evident without an unjust cause. One can kill and not be a murderer. Also one can not kill someone physically but kill another spirit which also constitutes murder.

There you go again in changing perspective.

My point which I will make more obvious is this;
if you know a person is a potential murderer [convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison, would you want to keep him in your house?
Yes or No?
Don't change the context to something else, blah, blah, blah..

One problem is your points are off base from reality.

And what reality is that specifically considering noone agrees what constitutes reality? To argue everything is relative, then argue probabalism is the best means of determining truth (when this in itself is probable) is unreal as no logic can be "empirically" sensed in this statement, nor can it be sensed abstractly.

There you go again.
When I state "reality" it is the default conventional reality.
If you want to discuss other perspectives, then say so, but you must address my intended perspective first.

The rest of your responses is the same, i.e. you keep moving the goalpost and not answering the question specific to the context discussed.

And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Whatever abstracted theory of gravity from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
What is critical is, such theories has tremendous benefits [net positive] to humanity.

And what is theory but a conjecture with religion also being a conjecture. What defines one conjecture from another? Gravity is an interpretation of empirical evidence.



Similarly, whatever abstracted theory of evil from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
If you do not believe in my theory of evil [empirical & rational based], as test, just go to a city-square in Afghanistan and draw cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

Actually for them to kill me would be just, relatively speaking, considering that is what extremist stances require...assuming everything is relative according to you.


What is critical with the identification of empirical essence is we can reduce all acts of evil to one root cause [the empirical essence]. Then we zoom into this root cause to manage it and thus prevent all* evil acts from manifesting.
* if not all, then most, especially the serious ones.

The root cause of evil is ignorance

I am optimistic this is possible in the future given the current trend exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note humanity has completed the Humane Genome Project [once thought impossible] and now moving on to the Humane Connectome Project [re brain mapping].

Note whatever you propose, justify how is that translatable to benefit humanity net positively?

With an increase in knowledge comes an increase in ignorance as the complexity leads to confusion.

[TimeSeeker]

And what is genocide and petty crimes but a form of separation between not just groups and individuals but any form of structure and unity? The absence of structure, leads to an absence of order, hence being. All immoral acts result in a deficiency in being, hence life.

For example murder is a separation of the individual and there physical or mental health causing an absence of existence.

The same applies for theft, where the person is separated from there property, effectively not just causing harm to the person by separating there physical resources from the but it also effectively separates the individual from acting as directive agents to what they are responsible for and in doing so negates there nature as stewards of creation.

Adultery separated one spouse from another and causes a separation in the identities of the individual as sexuality is a transfer of various degree of the self, but a degree of separation in the relationship which affects the partnership of the individuals in working towards a structured and balanced life.

Empirical essence is a contradiction as it relies upon abstraction considering this "essence" would have to be observed through the senses. And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Your 'separation' is going nowhere. Things are inherently separated in the most general sense. There is the sense of non-duality but that is a different issue in in this case.
Duality which is prevalent in reality is in a sense 'separation' between two things.

All dualism is an approximation of unity, considering seperation cannot be proven through continual movement ad-fininitum. One cause may apparently be seperate from another, but the cause directed towards an effect is strictly cause existing through itself as effect, hence cause and effect are unified.


Note it is critical we separate 'good' from 'evil'.
Surely you don't want a highly potential murderer [evil] to be a part of your neigborhood or in your house. It is obvious a normal person would want to separate the murder from themselves, preferable locked up somewhere far away [subject to rehabilitation where necessary and available.

Evil is an absence of Good through gradation. One may not want a murderer in the house, but a person who commits murder one time versuses a man who has a continual repitition of it in his character are seperate issues. Also the issue of why the man commited murder is involved, as while he may be guilty, circumstances are what led to it at the same time. Alot of factors are involved but what makes a person a murderer or non-murder is strictly habit.

You have a serious problem here where you keep conflating perspectives.
You need to keep a topic to the perspective discussed and if you want to switch to another perspective, then you must say so or at least agreed.

I understand there is no such thing as black or white in one sense rather there is only gradation in a continuum shades of grey.
In the above case, when I say 'evil' must be separated from 'good', gradation is irrelevant in this sense.

When we say something like 'the ebola virus' must be separated from the individual[s], there is no room for gradation. You cannot afford to keep even one ebola virus in the body of the individual.

Thus it similar when I stated 'a potential murderer' [evil person] must be separated from good people. I believe it is common sense and definitely philosophical sense to agree with such a point if you are normal person. Instead you break out into all sorts of talks and out of point.

That people are murder are empirically evident.
Those who has the potential to murder are also based on empirical evidence. Such potential is inherent in all humans and active in SOME.
Note;
Killing is empirically evident, murder is not empirically evident without an unjust cause. One can kill and not be a murderer. Also one can not kill someone physically but kill another spirit which also constitutes murder.

There you go again in changing perspective.

My point which I will make more obvious is this;
if you know a person is a potential murderer [convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison, would you want to keep him in your house?
Yes or No?
Don't change the context to something else, blah, blah, blah..

One problem is your points are off base from reality.

And what reality is that specifically considering noone agrees what constitutes reality? To argue everything is relative, then argue probabalism is the best means of determining truth (when this in itself is probable) is unreal as no logic can be "empirically" sensed in this statement, nor can it be sensed abstractly.

There you go again.
When I state "reality" it is the default conventional reality.
If you want to discuss other perspectives, then say so, but you must address my intended perspective first.

The rest of your responses is the same, i.e. you keep moving the goalpost and not answering the question specific to the context discussed.

And for the record the empirical status of gravity is theory, it is an abstraction.

Whatever abstracted theory of gravity from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
What is critical is, such theories has tremendous benefits [net positive] to humanity.

And what is theory but a conjecture with religion also being a conjecture. What defines one conjecture from another? Gravity is an interpretation of empirical evidence.



Similarly, whatever abstracted theory of evil from empirical evidences they can be verified by empirical-rational testing.
If you do not believe in my theory of evil [empirical & rational based], as test, just go to a city-square in Afghanistan and draw cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

Actually for them to kill me would be just, relatively speaking, considering that is what extremist stances require...assuming everything is relative according to you.


What is critical with the identification of empirical essence is we can reduce all acts of evil to one root cause [the empirical essence]. Then we zoom into this root cause to manage it and thus prevent all* evil acts from manifesting.
* if not all, then most, especially the serious ones.

The root cause of evil is ignorance

I am optimistic this is possible in the future given the current trend exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note humanity has completed the Humane Genome Project [once thought impossible] and now moving on to the Humane Connectome Project [re brain mapping].

Note whatever you propose, justify how is that translatable to benefit humanity net positively?

With an increase in knowledge comes an increase in ignorance as the complexity leads to confusion.

So a potential murderer is an ‘evil person’?
How do you get around the problem of induction here to identify who is a ‘potential murder’?

You think there is an ‘evil’ gene?

This kind of thinking leads straight to eugenics!

Even if we label evil as ‘ignorance’ - how do you empirically measure that?

How do you propose we reduce ignorance? What do you propose that needs to change?

YOU keep ignoring scale and complexity and the limits of the human mind.

Final conundrum: how do YOU empirically measure “nett positives” and “nett negatives” for humanity? That is how do you validate your own hypothesis to make sure you haven’t overlooked any negative 2nd, 3rd or Nth order side effects of your intervention?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So a potential murderer is an ‘evil person’?
How do you get around the problem of induction here to identify who is a ‘potential murder’?

You think there is an ‘evil’ gene?

This kind of thinking leads straight to eugenics!

Even if we label evil as ‘ignorance’ - how do you empirically measure that?

How do you propose we reduce ignorance? What do you propose that needs to change?

YOU keep ignoring scale and complexity and the limits of the human mind.

Final conundrum: how do YOU empirically measure “nett positives” and “nett negatives” for humanity? That is how do you validate your own hypothesis to make sure you haven’t overlooked any negative 2nd, 3rd or Nth order side effects of your intervention?

Note I am aware of narrow views like yours would appear, that is why I mentioned and qualified in the following statement;

My point which I will make more obvious is this;
if you know a person is a potential murderer [convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison, would you want to keep him in your house?
Yes or No?
viewtopic.php?p=380663#p380663

Note,
"...convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison"
Besides confirmed evidences, there are other ways of estimating the probability of someone who is likely to be a psychopath based on theta wave patterns and other features.

I did not mention nor imply genes.

Note this stats,

Isn't the above [even after some refinement] net-negative to humanity which is a problem that humanity need to resolve?

Besides the obvious, there will be marginal situations of either net-negative or net-positive. On these we will need to apply the continuous improvement principles to arrive at acceptable results. If there is no consensus, we can suspend judgment and work on it further.

[TimeSeeker]

So a potential murderer is an ‘evil person’?
How do you get around the problem of induction here to identify who is a ‘potential murder’?

You think there is an ‘evil’ gene?

This kind of thinking leads straight to eugenics!

Even if we label evil as ‘ignorance’ - how do you empirically measure that?

How do you propose we reduce ignorance? What do you propose that needs to change?

YOU keep ignoring scale and complexity and the limits of the human mind.

Final conundrum: how do YOU empirically measure “nett positives” and “nett negatives” for humanity? That is how do you validate your own hypothesis to make sure you haven’t overlooked any negative 2nd, 3rd or Nth order side effects of your intervention?

Note I am aware of narrow views like yours would appear, that is why I mentioned and qualified in the following statement;

My point which I will make more obvious is this;
if you know a person is a potential murderer [convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison, would you want to keep him in your house?
Yes or No?
viewtopic.php?p=380663#p380663

Note,
"...convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison"
Besides confirmed evidences, there are other ways of estimating the probability of someone who is likely to be a psychopath based on theta wave patterns and other features.

I did not mention nor imply genes.

Note this stats,

Isn't the above [even after some refinement] net-negative to humanity which is a problem that humanity need to resolve?

Besides the obvious, there will be marginal situations of either net-negative or net-positive. On these we will need to apply the continuous improvement principles to arrive at acceptable results. If there is no consensus, we can suspend judgment and work on it further.

It isn’t a marginal situation. You are 3 orders of magnitude out simply by comparing terrorism to malaria.
Correlation is not causation.

In a thread (now long lost) I showed you that 33000 is a tiny correlation factor in a cohort of over 1.5 BILLION Muslims!

Which is evidence for you failing to consider scale/proportion.
1 million people die from malaria EVERY YEAR!

3000 people die from malaria EVERY DAY!
That is 100000 in a MONTH!

Against 33000 terrorist attacks in 18 YEARS!!!

And yet you accuse me of “small minddedness”.
Consider recalibration: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death

And so somebody (me!) has to ask the question: is you painting 1.5 BILLION (22% of Earth’s population) people with the brush of 33000 (0.004% of Earth’s population) a net win or net harm for humanity or does it breed an “us vs them” attitude towards Muslims?

Secondly: somebody convicted by a court of law for murder isn’t a ‘potential murderer’ they are a ‘convicted murderer’.
And if somebody is convicted for an unrelated crime (fraud or theft) has no bearing on their ‘potential murderousness’ whether they have escaped from prison or not.

Not to mention that it is a reductio as absurdism. Because nobody KNOWINGLY hires escaped convicts! Murderous or otherwise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So a potential murderer is an ‘evil person’?
How do you get around the problem of induction here to identify who is a ‘potential murder’?

You think there is an ‘evil’ gene?

This kind of thinking leads straight to eugenics!

Even if we label evil as ‘ignorance’ - how do you empirically measure that?

How do you propose we reduce ignorance? What do you propose that needs to change?

YOU keep ignoring scale and complexity and the limits of the human mind.

Final conundrum: how do YOU empirically measure “nett positives” and “nett negatives” for humanity? That is how do you validate your own hypothesis to make sure you haven’t overlooked any negative 2nd, 3rd or Nth order side effects of your intervention?

Note I am aware of narrow views like yours would appear, that is why I mentioned and qualified in the following statement;

My point which I will make more obvious is this;
if you know a person is a potential murderer [convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison, would you want to keep him in your house?
Yes or No?
viewtopic.php?p=380663#p380663

Note,
"...convicted by a court of law] who had escaped from prison"
Besides confirmed evidences, there are other ways of estimating the probability of someone who is likely to be a psychopath based on theta wave patterns and other features.

I did not mention nor imply genes.

Note this stats,

Isn't the above [even after some refinement] net-negative to humanity which is a problem that humanity need to resolve?

Besides the obvious, there will be marginal situations of either net-negative or net-positive. On these we will need to apply the continuous improvement principles to arrive at acceptable results. If there is no consensus, we can suspend judgment and work on it further.

It isn’t a marginal situation. You are 3 orders of magnitude out simply by comparing terrorism to malaria.
Correlation is not causation.

Where did I compare terrorism to malaria?
I often get counters from dumb people who often compare those statistics to fatal road accidents, drugs, drug-related-crimes, diseases, etc.
In addition where have I mentioned Islamic-related terrorism [an obvious negative] as a marginal situation.
You are making up straw-man again.

I suggest you reread this OP,
Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?
viewtopic.php?p=378722#p378722

In a thread (now long lost) I showed you that 33000 is a tiny correlation factor in a cohort of over 1.5 BILLION Muslims!

Btw, 33,000 attacks with fatalities imply there could be >150,000 deaths.

I believed [based on your un_empathic views] you are a confirmed psychopath.
Morally, even if one human is killed with premeditation, that is a negative to humanity not in terms of numbers but in terms of moral principles. As such even with one premeditated killing, humanity must take it seriously and find out the root cause to prevent a gradual trend towards more premeditated killings.

Are you implying 6 millions Jews killed by Hitler/Nazism in comparison to 2.5 billion people on Earth then [1940-50] is not a net-negative [morally] evil act? So to you, since that 0.24% is so insignificant, we should not have bothered about it or may close an eye to killing another 50 million human being by other humans?

Which is evidence for you failing to consider scale/proportion.
1 million people die from malaria EVERY YEAR!

3000 people die from malaria EVERY DAY!
That is 100000 in a MONTH!

Against 33000 terrorist attacks in 18 YEARS!!!

And yet you accuse me of “small minddedness”.
Consider recalibration: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death

Yes, I reaffirm you are narrow-minded [I did not say “small minddedness”] in this case due to your lack of empathy for other human beings.

Note the difference,
-mosquitoes do not bite people with the intention to kill them with malaria,
-Islamic terrorists [human beings] kill non-believers [human beings] with intention as a divine duty obligated by a God [illusory].

Regardless of the numbers, both cases are negative and nett-negative to humanity in terms of diseases and morality respectively.

And so somebody (me!) has to ask the question: is you painting 1.5 BILLION (22% of Earth’s population) people with the brush of 33000 (0.004% of Earth’s population) a net win or net harm for humanity or does it breed an “us vs them” attitude towards Muslims?

Straw man again.
I have not explained the concept of net-positive and net-negative which involve many perspectives, e.g. morality as one of them as mentioned above.

Secondly: somebody convicted by a court of law for murder isn’t a ‘potential murderer’ they are a ‘convicted murderer’.
And if somebody is convicted for an unrelated crime (fraud or theft) has no bearing on their ‘potential murderousness’ whether they have escaped from prison or not.

Rhetoric and straw man again.

A 'convicted murderer' is evidence of potential to murder.

• Potential = having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
  -Google Dictionary

Not to mention that it is a reductio as absurdism. Because nobody KNOWINGLY hires escaped convicts! Murderous or otherwise.

Rhetoric and straw_man again. Who is talking about 'hires' it could be an invitation for whatever reasons.
The topic started with the argument of "separation" [various perspectives] and there must be separation of 'good' from 'evil.' I argued in terms of morality, murder = evil. If one do not believe in my view of dualistic separation, then one can agree to live with a convicted murder.

I have mentioned your views [as evident above] are too shallow and narrow-minded as the reason why I would prefer not to waste time responding to your posts.

Principle of Charity??

• Note this thread
  Do chimpanzees believe in God?
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25323
  
  A narrow-minded person would attack the obvious in that OP but one has to apply the Principle of Charity [as I had done]
  viewtopic.php?p=379769#p379769
  to think outside the box in that particular case.

In your case, all you want is to blindly attack whatever I have posted.
I have been in this business for a long time and have taken serious steps to deepen and widen my knowledge base sufficiently. It would be very rare for you to catch me out of answers in any topics* I participated.
* except in topics I openly admit I am incompetent.

[TimeSeeker]

Where did I compare terrorism to malaria?
I often get counters from dumb people who often compare those statistics to fatal road accidents, drugs, drug-related-crimes, diseases, etc.
In addition where have I mentioned Islamic-related terrorism [an obvious negative] as a marginal situation.
You are making up straw-man again.

You didn't. I did. I drew a parallel argument so that I can point out your small-mindedness. Its not a strawman. You lack proportionality.

I suggest you reread this OP,
Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?
viewtopic.php?p=378722#p378722

Yes. I know you have rationalized it very well.

Btw, 33,000 attacks with fatalities imply there could be >150,000 deaths.

That's malaria's death toll for 6 WEEKS.

I believed [based on your un_empathic views] you are a confirmed psychopath.

Ad hominem. You empathise with the 10000 victims of terrorism every year but not the MILLIONS of victims of malaria, or cancer, or heart disease, or any of the other TOP CAUSES OF DEATH ( http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death ).

You empathise with 150000 so as to allow yourself to IGNORE the death of MILLIONS!

I am not the psychopath here. You just suffer from "selective empathy".

Morally, even if one human is killed with premeditation,

Special pleading. Why does the premeditation matter?

that is a negative to humanity not in terms of numbers but in terms of moral principles.

This is ideological bullshit. The moral principles are means to an end. The end is SAVING HUMAN LIVES.
If you focus on "upholding the moral principles" instead of the RESULT they produce - you are religious and your religion is harmful!

Ironic. Since you fight religious evil, eh ?

As such even with one premeditated killing, humanity must take it seriously and find out the root cause to prevent a gradual trend towards more premeditated killings.

Does such an upward trend exist?

Are you implying 6 millions Jews killed by Hitler/Nazism in comparison to 2.5 billion people on Earth then [1940-50] is not a net-negative [morally] evil act? So to you, since that 0.24% is so insignificant, we should not have bothered about it or may close an eye to killing another 50 million human being by other humans?

Strawman after strawman after strawman.

Yes, I reaffirm you are narrow-minded [I did not say “small minddedness”] in this case due to your lack of empathy for other human beings.

Strawman.

Note the difference,
-mosquitoes do not bite people with the intention to kill them with malaria,

That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard another human make!

Do YOU, the INDIVIDUAL prefer death from malaria, or death by terrorism? If you have any such preference - please justify it!
My goal is NOT DYING. I am not terribly concerned with the CAUSE of my death. ALL causes of death are EQUALLY BAD!
Because there is no "MORE DEAD" or "LESS DEAD".

-Islamic terrorists [human beings] kill non-believers [human beings] with intention as a divine duty obligated by a God [illusory].

Why do you focus on intent?

Regardless of the numbers, both cases are negative and nett-negative to humanity in terms of diseases and morality respectively.

If you think 150000 deaths and 10 million deaths are equally bad, then I don't know how to fix you.

Straw man again.
I have not explained the concept of net-positive and net-negative which involve many perspectives, e.g. morality as one of them as mentioned above.

Yes. Morality. Ideology. Same difference.

The topic started with the argument of "separation" [various perspectives] and there must be separation of 'good' from 'evil.' I argued in terms of morality, murder = evil. If one do not believe in my view of dualistic separation, then one can agree to live with a convicted murder.

That is your first mistake. HUMAN DEATH = evil. The CAUSE of death does not matter. And so you've built a strawman.
I don't agree to live with a convicted murderer any more than I agree to live in a house with mosquitos which carry malaria.

I have mentioned your views [as evident above] are too shallow and narrow-minded as the reason why I would prefer not to waste time responding to your posts.

Look in the mirror, kid. Your 'empathy' is blinding you to the real problems of society! You are a poster child for Paul Bloom's argument against empathy ( https://youtu.be/S1zZ_eKSAAI )

Principle of Charity??

I can't offer the principle of charity when what you preach is IMMORAL! What you preach is HARMFUL RELIGION.

It's a trolley problem! You preach to save 10 people wile letting 100 die from PREVENTABLE DISEASES!

Your ACTIONS are a NETT NEGATIVE of 90 HUMAN LIVES!!!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Principle of Charity??

I can't offer the principle of charity when what you preach is IMMORAL! What you preach is HARMFUL TO HUMANS.

It's a trolley problem! You preach to save 10 people wile letting 100 die from PREVENTABLE DISEASES!

Your ACTIONS are a NETT NEGATIVE of 90 HUMAN LIVES!!!

That I preached the acceptance of people being killed by mosquitoes?
This is really stupid.