>What meaning would life have other than that of the voyeur?

The word "voyeur" implies the spectating of something of which you are not a part. But we all are part of the cosmic drama. Our roles (and the roles of every atom) may be already written, but it's still our story.

It s 1 am here =) i ll follow up tomorrow with a better explanation of my point. I m new here and glab to have these conversations!

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder's video about free will (mentioned in the article) was called out by a French youtube channel for the same pitfalls that the article fell into. In short, the article's argument is as follow: 1 The world is Deterministic 2 I am part of the world 3 Deterministic = No free will 4 Hence, I have no free will.

Point 1 and 2 are basics for the deterministic view of the world but 3 is actually far stretch and therefore, 4 is a fallacy. There is a whole branch of philosophy (compatibilism) that argue quite well that you can have free will even in a deterministic world. I ll try to explain it tomorrow if some need the argument (too late for Tonight)

I too am still in shallow waters, which is why I'm engaging. It's hard to have these conversations at the bar, as most cannot follow the logic or reasoning.

The thesis for determinism is that all events are necessary. If it was necessary because that event was predetermined, then what choice was there in the matter? My "choice" may matter, simply because it HAS to matter, but it's still a hard pill to swallow to say that my actions are not my own.

Guys shut up, I’m trying to watch my movie here.

I dunno how deep you are in deterministic philosophy (I am myself still in shallow water) but a short answer may be that you can still make a choice even if the choice you made was pre-determined. And that choice matter because you made it.

>In light of such a doom, it is perhaps tempting to suggest that nothing matters. But this is incorrect for the same reasons it would be in a non-determined world. All our choices and actions still matter and still change our lives and our world exactly as before. The only difference is the realization that we could not have done otherwise.

I'm not sure I agree. If the universe is indeed determined, and all actions are necessary, then as you state, no one could have done otherwise. If so, would one not be more than a pre-programmed robot following a pre-determined path? What meaning would life have other than that of the voyeur? Furthermore, if all actions are necessary, then all events happen as they must. If I choose to not work, that was pre-determined. If I choose to work, that was pre-determined. That's not a choice, it's just what was to happen, and therefore, why should it matter at all what my perceived choice was?

Every system is a quantum system. There is no defining line that has to be crossed when quantum switches to classical physics. If the universe is deterministic, it is quantum deterministic.

This is a quote of mine

My brother is minoring in philosophy at BYU so we’ve had a couple of discussions about different things. He believes that everyone should adopt an altruistic mindset at all times because that is the only path to true happiness. Arguing that it isn’t necessary to think of yourself and by thinking of others you will have a joy and fulfillment that you can’t get elsewhere.

I disagree with that view point because there are negative consequences with that line of thinking and because fulfillment/joy can be achieved without that mindset. I think it isn’t necessary to frame your life through what value you provide others because society doesn’t need you to self sacrifice to survive. Most people want belonging and to be a valued member of a group so they will act for the good of the group by virtue of their place in it. By thinking of yourself as an actor in others lives you rob yourself of a more stable foundation. I think in order to be part of a group you must be an individual first.

I’m curious what others thoughts are on the topic.

In the case of satan his persona seems to be fixed to be evil. So I was asking if satan can do good deeds and would it make any sense to call him evil then.

As far I remember satan is most importantly an accuser not doing so much evil deeds. So he is being his own advocate huh?

Which sounds suspiciously consequentialist.

[deleted]

Both but the essence of the person is fluid and can be changed by any number of personal experiences. Deeds themself are or are not, they can’t be fluid. It’s either a good thing you’re doing or bad. Really it depends on the motive of the person.

Is it the deed or the essence of that person good? Becoming good refers to the latter. Right?

I don’t believe a person is involuntarily evil or good, what you do is what I would consider evil or good. A good person can do something evil and they’re less of a good person. Just like an evil person can become good.

It is persian ... I can read the Poem that is on picture I am Persian ...and it is not true this picture is not orginal

So if a person assumed to be evil and a person assumed to be good did the same deed would the deed itself be affected by the person doing it or would the deed in itself be good or bad, or morally right/wrong?

The fact that you pinpointed the words "destruction" and "theology", in a second answer to a short comment that featured them prominently, says otherwise. Reads more like you tried an easy jab and don't feel like owning to it if taken seriously.

This is great, thank you for this. I'll make sure to read what you recommended. Also, thank you /u/wolfe1jl for you help as well.

Lately there have been several threads about evil in ways that do not at all tease the whole conception. This is one of them. I was replying to the thread, not your personal reply.

I can't have a civil discussion with you if you keep attacking half-baked strawmen and not reading anything others say. I haven't even started making a point, I just provided some references as a conversation starter with a very succinct summary, and you already are trying to burn everything around you to the ground. There are inevitable generalisations in a Reddit comment of a few hundred characters. Have you considered they could be just that - simplifications for the sake of brevity - and not fallacies left open for you to play such a childish game of refutation?

if we all behaved according to immanuel kant, in the categorical imperative, this society would be a lot better. think about it. if we behaved only doing that what 95% of the human majority would do, we’d be in peace

Destruction of what? Pinatas? improbable societal orders? What? To destruct is a verb that requires a subject and an object.

It is so silly that theology can not take even rudimentary ethical critique. I guess that is why it is called belief. But even belief must be feasible on the level of following a coherent set of rules.

Yeah, you definitely read what I wrote.