On the contrary, it is completely irrelevant. The misunderstanding is all yours.
To "change the future" the phrase refers to "the probability we count out/expect to happen if no thing changes".
No. "Change " does not mean "robability expected when assuming stasis".
Also currently it is impossible to prove that the thing we call "future" does not exist already.
Wrong. "Future" and "resent" are mutually exclusive by definition. Already existing would pertain to the present. Therefore, it is proven.
But I have to call your attention, this doesn't matter, as this question is not related to Humanity.
It relates to what R1a2z3e4 and 19912 believe "the god" to be capable of, which relates to the premise that humanity has a divine purpose which it betrays. Why are you contesting already settled points? In particular, why bring it up if you believe it to be unrelated to the topic?
No. Do not argue with me on this. It is plainly evident.
As you wish sir but still it is not.
You don't know that.
I still don't know that but according to what our honorable teachers and parents says I have given that statement.
Wrong. state â feeling
I was taking it as feeling and I am still taking it as a felling.
The response you gave had no context. Therefore, it had no meaning. Therefore it was not rational.
I still don't understand therefore please explain.
No. I am telling you that the future does not change. To change something is to make it different from what it was before. The future was not anything "before". It didn't exist "before". For the future, "before" means the present and the past.
Can you change your mind before you make any decisions? No. Can you change your clothes before putting any on? No. Can you change directions before you start moving? No. Can you change a statement before you make it? No. Can you change the future before it happens? No.
I will definetly clear my point but before this I would like to ask you this question :-
You want to say that future is fixed, pre-planed or pre-predicted?
Please answer the question in "Yes" or "No".
Do you believe that God created the universe and everything that was originally in it?
Do you believe that God could create perfect humans if He wanted to?
1. Yes, but I again say that we don't know that god is in existence or not.
2. Not "could" because he have created perfect humans.
pardon me if i'm a bit out of subject, but why in the freaking hell do we need God to define humanity? isn't good and bad concepts of humanity are defined by humans, rather than gods. since we made morals and ethics and the ones enforcing it IS us not gods ( by definition, it meant that if you do, say rape 10 girls, the ones punishing you in earth is Humans). also, what relevance does god has in humanity in the first place? by reading their arguments, i deduced that both R1a2z3e4 and 19912 thinks that people with no humanity are the ones NOT following the rules of religion, rather than the ones NOT following the rules of society. by that definition, then all of atheists ARE not human, since they " have very little humanity on them that it is negligible", which is not logical
Wrong. "Future" and "resent" are mutually exclusive by definition. Already existing would pertain to the present. Therefore, it is proven.
i think what he meant that the future is very probabilistic, which meant what you do now affected the future. to tell you what i think they meant, let's say that i quit school now. my future will be more bleak and dark than if i chose to not quit school now. a second example to the matter : suppose that i have the choice to either continue typing this comment till6 o'clock, watch TV till 6 o'clock, or study for my exam which started next week till 6 o'clock. my "future 6 hours" will vary depending on what i chose now. maybe a bit irrelevant, but I'm just saying as a way to stop both sides of the argument from keep throwing hot arguments. so in a way, i think they are right to some extent, but so are you Fish.
Arguing over the contents of the bible has nothing to do with Humanity in this present time. so can all of you please stop arguing over what does this or that part of the bible says about what humans should do or if sacrifices is necessary or whatevs?
I still don't know that but according to what our honorable teachers and parents says I have given that statement.
Parents and teachers say it, therefore God wants it. Seems legit.
I was taking it as feeling and I am still taking it as a felling.
Why do you insist on equating "resent condition"/state with whatever you mean by "feeling"?
I still don't understand therefore please explain.
MageGrayWolf said: "There are those who think that god who gave us the Earth will soon give us another one so it's okay if we don't make this Earth last for the future." You said: "This clearly indicates they have no humanity left in them." FishPreferred said: "No, actually, it doesn't. It suggests only that they believe their actions are not ultimately detrimental to the Earth." You said: "This also comes in "Humanity"."
They can't have "no humanity" and still fall under the category of "Humanity". Those positions are mutually exclusive, unless you're conflating definitions. Please define humanity to clear this up.
You want to say that future is fixed, pre-planed or pre-predicted? Please answer the question in "Yes" or "No".
You can't give multiple options and then ask "yes" or "no".
2. Not "could" because he have created perfect humans.
You want to say that future is fixed, pre-planed or pre-predicted? Please answer the question in "Yes" or "No".
the entire question in itself is flawed, therefore it's not worth answering
Not "could" because he have created perfect humans.
Wrong, since if he HAD created perfect humans, then why do we need norms, ethics and rules in the first place? or are you saying that all humans are perfect in a way that they have no weakness whatsoever?
I still don't know that but according to what our honorable teachers and parents says I have given that statement.
That does nothing to support your argument. please explain their logical reasoning as to why they said so and why they conform to your beliefs. don't forget as to explain why they don't negate your beliefs in this matter.
i deduced that both R1a2z3e4 and 19912 thinks that people with no humanity are the ones NOT following the rules of religion, rather than the ones NOT following the rules of society
NOT following the rules or Religion (terrorism etc.), NOT following the rules of Society (raping etc.), NOT following the rules of the Nature (cutting trees etc.). You can say almost everything is NOT. Humanity is other thing and believe in God is other thing.
You can't give multiple options and then ask "yes" or "no".
Okay.
Please define perfect.
I understand no one is perfect but here I mean we are more intelligent from other creatures made by the god on Earth. And here I am not saying that other creatures are not intelligent please don't make it a matter of argument.
Why do you insist on equating "resent condition"/state with whatever you mean by "feeling"?
and
They can't have "no humanity" and still fall under the category of "Humanity". Those positions are mutually exclusive, unless you're conflating definitions. Please define humanity to clear this up.
Humanity means the quality of being kind or establishing brotherhood with other people, animals, Nature etc. The emotion of feeling sad when seeing a person, animal or any other creature from suffering. The sadness which comes from the heart. The feeling which cannot be expressed by words but only by experience, that is humanity.
I realise there's a language barrier here that can make the discussion difficult to follow. But those of you who are fluent speakers of English need to do two things: 1) Give charitable readings of your opponents. I mean this in a very robust sense. If something they say seems contradictory, try to put it into terms that aren't. Try to make sense of a particular question (I'll give an example below) instead of outright attacking it. Otherwise, the dialectic goes nowhere and it's no fun for anyone. 2) When giving responses, try to put things into simpler terms. Otherwise you run the risk of being misinterpreted or just not understood altogether. The ability to put things into accessible language is an important skill.
Now this is a good example of a charitable interpretation.
You want to say that future is fixed, pre-planed or pre-predicted? Please answer the question in "Yes" or "No".
This person is clearly (to me, at least) asking whether you think that the future is fixed/determined. In other words, are you a fatalist about the future? This seems to be a relevant question since, if fatalism is true, there is no point in changing out present behaviour to affect a different outcome at some later time.
Another interesting point:
Wrong. "Future" and "resent" are mutually exclusive by definition. Already existing would pertain to the present. Therefore, it is proven.
Intuitively, this seems right. But it's difficult to say what we mean by 'exists' when it comes to time. The view here - that only the present is real - is but one of three popular views regarding the ontology of time. The three are:
Presentism: The view that only the present is real (the past and future may be 'real' on this view, but in a different sort of way - whatever that means). 'Growing block': The past and present are both real, but not the future. Thus the real is a sort of growing block (and thus the name of the view). Eternalism: The past, present, and future are all real in the same sense. Fatalists adopt this view, so the above quote about what part of time exists actually begs the question against the fatalism position. (see D.C. Williams, "The Myth of Passage" and Richard Taylor's numerous articles on fatalism for arguments for this view).
The question of God's existence and His properties becomes a real issue at this point about whether we even can 'change the future'.
NOT following the rules or Religion (terrorism etc.), NOT following the rules of Society (raping etc.), NOT following the rules of the Nature (cutting trees etc.). You can say almost everything is NOT. Humanity is other thing and believe in God is other thing.
may i ask in what way this response really relates to my last opinion? i just can't see in what why does it relates
and?
he wants you to explain the reason as to why you take such stance. so can you please answer him? I'm curious as to how you would reply to the question.
Humanity means the quality of being kind or establishing brotherhood with other people, animals, Nature etc. The emotion of feeling sad when seeing a person, animal or any other creature from suffering. The sadness which comes from the heart. The feeling which cannot be expressed by words but only by experience, that is humanity.
you forgot the subject of those "qualities" which define humanity. without a subject, which is humans, you can say that just about any animal (especially mammals) has humanity. also your definition does nothing to enlighten me about as to why in this part......
MageGrayWolf said: "There are those who think that god who gave us the Earth will soon give us another one so it's okay if we don't make this Earth last for the future." You said: "This clearly indicates they have no humanity left in them." FishPreferred said: "No, actually, it doesn't. It suggests only that they believe their actions are not ultimately detrimental to the Earth." You said: "This also comes in "Humanity"."
you said that you weren't at fault of self-negating argument. so please enlighten me?
may i ask in what way this response really relates to my last opinion? i just can't see in what why does it relates
I was just clarifying your point.
and?
I think you have made a little misunderstanding sir. My one answer gives the answer of his two questions.
you forgot the subject of those "qualities" which define humanity. without a subject, which is humans, you can say that just about any animal (especially mammals) has humanity. also your definition does nothing to enlighten me about as to why in this part......
Its a matter of common sense because "humanity" word is only for humans therefore the word "Humanity" is derived from the word "Humans".
That does nothing to support your argument. please explain their logical reasoning as to why they said so and why they conform to your beliefs. don't forget as to explain why they don't negate your beliefs in this matter.
As sir EmperorPalpatine said "Parents and teachers say it, therefore God wants it. Seems legit and also because this is written in some religious books. And I think that the God have send us on the Earth to do good works.
you said that you weren't at fault of self-negating argument. so please enlighten me?
Its a matter of common sense because "humanity" word is only for humans therefore the word "Humanity" is derived from the word "Humans".
Little correction in your argument: "The word Humanity is derived from the word Human, therefore it is only for humans".
In my opinion, the only way the word humanity is restricted to humans is when you say "humanity" as in "the totality of all humans" (which is another use of this word). But when saying humanity as in "being humane", it is an attribute qualifying someones acts, and as I see it animals can also act humanely. This implies that humans can act humanely or not without losing the attribute of being human. Being humane is not a necessity for being human.
As sir EmperorPalpatine said "Parents and teachers say it, therefore God wants it. Seems legit
Playing devils advocate, what is an example of this?
I was just pointing out that since I think being humane is based on acts, not on origin, other animals also have the possibility of being humane, not only us.
Of course, there are actual examples. Usually among social animals, which makes sense. But even a predator can be humane, in the context of the accusations against some humans that were made here. A predator will of course kill its prey, but it usually does not torture it.
I still don't understand therefore please explain.
But...I just did.
You want to say that future is fixed, pre-planed or pre-predicted?
Yes, no, and no; in that order.
To use Moegreche's interpretation, I do not believe that every action has the same outcome. I am saying that the outcome is not changed by the action that is taken, because the action is what makes the outcome in the first place.
1. Yes, but I again say that we don't know that god is in existence or not. 2. Not "could" because he have created perfect humans
Okay, so according to your belief: God created the universe and everything in it according to His plan. God is all-knowing. God created perfect humans to do His bidding.
Therefore, God knowingly orchestrated all of the corruption and cruelty in the world. Humans are doing exactly what He wants them to.
Humanity means the quality of being kind or establishing brotherhood with other people, animals, Nature etc. The emotion of feeling sad when seeing a person, animal or any other creature from suffering. The sadness which comes from the heart. The feeling which cannot be expressed by words but only by experience, that is humanity.
That is the definition of "Humaneness", which is something very different but looks almost like the same word. Humanity and humaneness have the same root, but they are not the same.
Playing devils advocate, what is an example of this?
I've seen video footage of wild horses, in which an adult euthanizes a crippled newborn.
As sir EmperorPalpatine said "Parents and teachers say it, therefore God wants it. Seems legit
That was sarcasm. That's not how logic works. Parents and teachers can be wrong. I've had a teacher say that the sky was blue because it reflects off the ocean.
and also because this is written in some religious books.
There are religious books in which deities desire sacrifices or other disturbing things. Which ones are you following?
I am very sorry I don't understand.
You said: "This clearly indicates they have no humanity left in them." You said: "This also comes in "Humanity"." You've defined humanity as essentially "being kind and showing empathy" If they have none, how does "This also comes in "Humanity""?
Its a matter of common sense because "humanity" word is only for humans therefore the word "Humanity" is derived from the word "Humans".
You've defined it beyond that scope. You're conflating definitions. Equivocation. Switch-referencing.
I think you have made a little misunderstanding sir. My one answer gives the answer of his two questions.
still don't get the gist about the reason as to why you take such stance. don't run away from the question
and also because this is written in some religious books. And I think that the God have send us on the Earth to do good works.
you said SOME religious books don't you? then some books are conflicting with your supposed religious beliefs about god wants it right? and where is your argument as to why God sent us to earth to do "Great Things"? if god (Christian god) really sent us to earth to do great works, then why do you think there are multiple religions with multiple gods? (What i meant is why the world doesn't consist of only 1 unifying religion, but multiple religion with multiple gods and each with different beliefs. if God really sent us to do great works then why doesn't he just create a world inhabited by devout Christians? after all, He IS all powerful right ?).
Parents and teachers say it, therefore God wants it.
for a millionth time, please dig their rational explanation as to why they take such stance. humans can be wrong, you said it yourself that "i understand that no god is perfect", so why do you just assume that they are right about that? what if they are wrong?
I am very sorry I don't understand.
ok then let me explain it very slowly:
MageGrayWolf said: "There are those who think that god who gave us the Earth will soon give us another one so it's okay if we don't make this Earth last for the future." You said: "This clearly indicates they have no humanity left in them."
when Wolf says that, you say that they have no humanity in them.and then mysteriously and magically.....................
FishPreferred said: "No, actually, it doesn't. It suggests only that they believe their actions are not ultimately detrimental to the Earth." You said: "This also comes in "Humanity"."
BAM!!!!! the person that doesn't has humanity in the previous comment have humanity now. this is your self negating argument as both your 1st and 2nd comment cancel out each other. your definition doesn't clarify that point either, as you said that humanity is the quality to being kind to other person,animals etc. As the person in question doesn't have those quality, then he doesn't have any humanity. so why does that person comes in humanity ? answer that
