Doomsday salvation

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

We humans are the ones who have defined what "peace" is, if we were to destroy the human race then there would be no peace because there would be no one there who would be able to define what the current state of the earth is.

On the contrary. If the human race didn't exist, then there would be no one to plot the destruction of the human race, for example.

The whole idea of karma, is that it only affects things that are concous of it. Animals and things are innocent to karma, but we arn't.

If we destroy ourselves, then noone is going to come back around and do something to us in revenge, because we'll all be gone.

Think about how serene everything would be without anyone worrying about anything, or feeling any pain.

Yes, but the hypothetical was if an individual or individuals destory the human race for peace, would it be a good idea. Given the circumstances, there are people.

My point is if we destory out selves, it wouldn't matter because no one would be there who would be able to fathom the idea of "peace".

Aha! So now we have reached an impass:
1.Life causes suffering.
2.To destroy life would end the suffering.
3.To destroy life would also destroy everythign with the ability to appreciate the cessation of suffering.
4.It wouldn't matter weather there was peace or not, because nobody would be there to appreciate it.

But I propose this:
1.There is needless suffering.
2.There is less peace, serenity, and happyness, than there is suffering.
3.To destroy all life, and end suffering, would outweigh all the happyness through the appreciation of peace, and prosperity.

Moreover, I propose this:
1.A person is not looking at flowers right now.
2. That person thinks ALL types of flowers are beautifull.
3.There is a flower that this person is not looking at, noone else is, and is perfectly intact and healthy. Neither this person, nor anyone else, has ever seen, heard, or known of the flower's existence.
4.Because noone is looking at the flower and noone can remember it and appreciate it's memory, ithis person has no way of knowing the flower existed; they can't appreciate it.
5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic.
6.However this person thinks that all types flowers are beautifull.
7.This flower must indeed be a type of flower, and there is nothing wrong with it' it's intact. Therefore she must think this flower is beautifull.
8.However, since the doesn't know about the flower, she can't appreciate that it's beautifull, because she can't think about it.
9.There is a flower that noone alive is thinking about, or sensing with any of the five sences, but is still considered beautifull.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

1. A person is not looking at flowers right now.
2. That person thinks ALL types of flowers are beautifull.
3. There is a flower that this person is not looking at, no one else is, Neither this person, nor anyone else, has ever seen, heard, or known of the flower's existence.

Then the flower, in the minds of people is non-existant.
The flower it self exists but as long as no one has ever seen it, heard of it, and there are no records of it, they are unable to fathom its specific form, that makes it virtually non-existant in the humans reality.

4. Because no one is looking at the flower and no one can remember it and appreciate its memory, ithis person has no way of knowing the flower existed; they can't appreciate it.

5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic.

The aesthetic quality has nothing to do with appreciation of the flower, besides... it doesn't exist.

6.However this person thinks that all types flowers are beautifull.
7.This flower must indeed be a type of flower, and there is nothing wrong with it' it's intact. Therefore she must think this flower is beautifull.
8.However, since the doesn't know about the flower, she can't appreciate that it's beautifull, because she can't think about it.

She can appreciate flowers and I am sure if that flower was sensing and could read minds it would be very much delighted to hear that it is appreciated, but in under realistic the circumstances she does not directly appreciate that flower because she does not aknowledge the existance of it.  

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

1. A person is not looking at flowers right now.
2. That person thinks ALL types of flowers are beautifull.
3. There is a flower that this person is not looking at, no one else is, Neither this person, nor anyone else, has ever seen, heard, or known of the flower's existence.

Then the flower, in the minds of people is non-existant.
The flower it self exists but as long as no one has ever seen it, heard of it, and there are no records of it, they are unable to fathom its specific form, that makes it virtually non-existant in the humans reality.

4. Because no one is looking at the flower and no one can remember it and appreciate its memory, ithis person has no way of knowing the flower existed; they can't appreciate it.

5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic.

The aesthetic quality has nothing to do with appreciation of the flower, besides... it doesn't exist.

6.However this person thinks that all types flowers are beautifull.
7.This flower must indeed be a type of flower, and there is nothing wrong with it' it's intact. Therefore she must think this flower is beautifull.
8.However, since the doesn't know about the flower, she can't appreciate that it's beautifull, because she can't think about it.

She can appreciate flowers and I am sure if that flower was sensing and could read minds it would be very much delighted to hear that it is appreciated, but in under realistic the circumstances she does not directly appreciate that flower because she does not aknowledge the existance of it.

Actually you are wrong.

You missed a key statement in what they said, "They can't fathom it's form." They acutally do reguard that type of flower as beautiful, so it is classified that way.

As for, "5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic." That's like saying.

1.Two pluss two is four.
2.Therefore, starvation isn't horrible by your logic.

You made no connection between the wto ideas, you just assumed that they meant the same thing.

And if you reread my statement, I acutally speicified that even though noone appreciated it, it was still considered beautifull through classification.  

[Zarfione]

Quote:

3.To destroy all life, and end suffering, would outweigh all the happyness through the appreciation of peace, and prosperity.

To destroy life,are you aware that you will cease to exist?And if you don't exist,is there a possibility to enjoy the end of suffering?That's pathetic to think that not living and without sacrifice/suffering is the better option than living.If you want something,would you not strive to acquire it?If you love someone,would you not suffer for her/him?Besides,what is the purpose of our lives if we would just obliterate it?Life is an obstacle race,without obstacles,you price is lesser value than of which has many obstacles.You don't have control of other people,they can make you suffer but that cannot mean you destroy them.Which therefore leads us to this,life is not something we control.

If you would die now,would you take interest in your death?And you are displaying that you are being to apathetic for others,for they strive to live.  

[27x]

Zarfione

Quote:

3.To destroy all life, and end suffering, would outweigh all the happyness through the appreciation of peace, and prosperity.

To destroy life,are you aware that you will cease to exist?And if you don't exist,is there a possibility to enjoy the end of suffering?That's pathetic to think that not living and without sacrifice/suffering is the better option than living.If you want something,would you not strive to acquire it?If you love someone,would you not suffer for her/him?Besides,what is the purpose of our lives if we would just obliterate it?Life is an obstacle race,without obstacles,you price is lesser value than of which has many obstacles.You don't have control of other people,they can make you suffer but that cannot mean you destroy them.Which therefore leads us to this,life is not something we control.

If you would die now,would you take interest in your death?And you are displaying that you are being to apathetic for others,for they strive to live.

We've already covered and agreed on the fact that if somone destroyed life, they would not only be destorying themselves, but noone would be able to cease the end of suffering.

I remember a quote from the movie Dogma,"Why? You really want to know why I'd destroy the universe, even if it was destroying myself. I just got out of hell. I would wrather not exist than go back there."

Surely, not many people are suffering to that extent, but the collective suffering adds up.

Anyway, I'm apposed to destroying the world, I just think abotu it this way.

People had a good world to live in, but they were creul, and they destroyed it along with eachother. Why not just stop them from destroying anything else?

I'm not trying to convince you it's a good idea, I'm just trying to say; I wonder why so many people haven't considered this before. If you look at it the right way, it's a real eye opener.  

[Zarfione]

A point you have made,however the quote:"Let the crops stay with the weeds,and when the day of harvesting comes,let the crops placed in the warehouse and the weeds thrown to the fire."Means we must stay with the evil ones until one day,maybe these people will be destroyed/separated from us.Destroying the world,I thought of it as a good idea before.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

1. A person is not looking at flowers right now.
2. That person thinks ALL types of flowers are beautifull.
3. There is a flower that this person is not looking at, no one else is, Neither this person, nor anyone else, has ever seen, heard, or known of the flower's existence.

Then the flower, in the minds of people is non-existant.
The flower it self exists but as long as no one has ever seen it, heard of it, and there are no records of it, they are unable to fathom its specific form, that makes it virtually non-existant in the humans reality.

4. Because no one is looking at the flower and no one can remember it and appreciate its memory, ithis person has no way of knowing the flower existed; they can't appreciate it.

5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic.

The aesthetic quality has nothing to do with appreciation of the flower, besides... it doesn't exist.

6.However this person thinks that all types flowers are beautifull.
7.This flower must indeed be a type of flower, and there is nothing wrong with it' it's intact. Therefore she must think this flower is beautifull.
8.However, since the doesn't know about the flower, she can't appreciate that it's beautifull, because she can't think about it.

She can appreciate flowers and I am sure if that flower was sensing and could read minds it would be very much delighted to hear that it is appreciated, but in under realistic the circumstances she does not directly appreciate that flower because she does not aknowledge the existance of it.

Actually you are wrong.

You missed a key statement in what they said, "They can't fathom it's form." They acutally do reguard that type of flower as beautiful, so it is classified that way.

As for, "5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic." That's like saying.

1.Two pluss two is four.
2.Therefore, starvation isn't horrible by your logic.

You made no connection between the wto ideas, you just assumed that they meant the same thing.

And if you reread my statement, I acutally speicified that even though noone appreciated it, it was still considered beautifull through classification.

I understand that, 27.

I will reiterate though, they think all flowers are beautiful but they cannot fathom that particular flower because no one knows it exists. IN their reality the flower is non-existant. Therefore they are saying flowers are beautiful, but that translates to flowers that are KNOWN TO MAN TO BE IN EXISTANCE.  

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

1. A person is not looking at flowers right now.
2. That person thinks ALL types of flowers are beautifull.
3. There is a flower that this person is not looking at, no one else is, Neither this person, nor anyone else, has ever seen, heard, or known of the flower's existence.

Then the flower, in the minds of people is non-existant.
The flower it self exists but as long as no one has ever seen it, heard of it, and there are no records of it, they are unable to fathom its specific form, that makes it virtually non-existant in the humans reality.

4. Because no one is looking at the flower and no one can remember it and appreciate its memory, ithis person has no way of knowing the flower existed; they can't appreciate it.

5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic.

The aesthetic quality has nothing to do with appreciation of the flower, besides... it doesn't exist.

6.However this person thinks that all types flowers are beautifull.
7.This flower must indeed be a type of flower, and there is nothing wrong with it' it's intact. Therefore she must think this flower is beautifull.
8.However, since the doesn't know about the flower, she can't appreciate that it's beautifull, because she can't think about it.

She can appreciate flowers and I am sure if that flower was sensing and could read minds it would be very much delighted to hear that it is appreciated, but in under realistic the circumstances she does not directly appreciate that flower because she does not aknowledge the existance of it.

Actually you are wrong.

You missed a key statement in what they said, "They can't fathom it's form." They acutally do reguard that type of flower as beautiful, so it is classified that way.

As for, "5.If they can't appreciate it, it isn't beautifull by your logic." That's like saying.

1.Two pluss two is four.
2.Therefore, starvation isn't horrible by your logic.

You made no connection between the wto ideas, you just assumed that they meant the same thing.

And if you reread my statement, I acutally speicified that even though noone appreciated it, it was still considered beautifull through classification.

I understand that, 27.

I will reiterate though, they think all flowers are beautiful but they cannot fathom that particular flower because no one knows it exists. IN their reality the flower is non-existant. Therefore they are saying flowers are beautiful, but that translates to flowers that are KNOWN TO MAN TO BE IN EXISTANCE.

In my example, I didn't state that flowers must be known by man to be exsistant.
I proved that:
1.The woman thinks that all flowers are beautifull.
2.This flower IS indeed a flower.
3.Therefore It must be considered beautiful.

If noone was thinking of the moon right now, would people still classify it as beautiful? Yes. Why? Because we don't have to be thinking of something to have an opinion about it.

1.No one knows it exists.
2.So no one is thinking about how beautiful it is at this very moment.
That is valid.
However this:
1.Even though the woman isn't thinking about it, she still considers all flowers to be beautiful.
2.Therefore, she considers even the flowers she does not know about to be beautiful.

Now if you keep saying:
1.No one knows it exists.
2.So no one is thinking about how beautiful it is at this very moment.

You may be correct in your statement, but it still won't prove my statement wrong. Moreover, you'll just be repeating yourself.