https://time.com/6246864/reverse-aging-scientists-discover-milestone/They got it right that a paradox is an event that is logically impossible, not something which could actually occur - Meaning the very fact that you've gone back in time at all is an immediate ruling out of the possibility of time-travel paradoxes.
They got it right that the Nobikov Principle is retarded because it tries to resolve the problem of temporal causation being violated by time travel with the proposition that the more familiar laws of physics would need to be suspended in some way - Meaning that going back in time would necessarily imply the existence of at least more than one timeline.
They fail to understand the difference between parallel timelines and branching timelines. They covered branching timelines - where certain events cause a timeline to split into two or more branches, but they failed to cover timelines which are truly parallel - an infinite numbers of timelines that exist in complete form from the beginning of time to it's end, each with different configurations of events between those two points.
It seems that the concept of externalism and the idea that all possible worlds existed for as long as there were ever any worlds at all - That God didn't make everything once, he made everything in every which way, every precise event that could happen will happen, in at least one of the infinite numbers of realities and versions of our reality that exist.
[ + ] NoRefunds
[ - ] NoRefunds 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 23, 2023 00:58:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 23, 2023 01:13:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AryanPrime
[ - ] AryanPrime 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 23, 2023 04:18:06 ago (+0/-0)
Another response to the problem of evil is that the quality of evil is transient, what may be considered evil by you may be called good by another, and who are ether of you to appoint yourself the ultimate judge?
^^^absolutely bullshit kike gaslighting
"God can create the multiverse but not lay out "righteousness" properly"
"Evil calls itself Good therefore it has as much right to be thought of as 'Good' as real Good does" based on the assumption that "God" doesn't have the right to determine the "rules" of his own creation, nor can any of us determine the "nature" of good and evil.
"You could answer the problem of evil with moral relativism"
No, you literally can not, that's what kikes want people to think, it's what the west has tried my entire life and failed miserably at, there is no "moral relativism" with people who rape children to death and then consume their flesh and drink their blood...the kike is evil, end of discussion (Because we all know this is about kikes and their evil and has nothing to do with the article in question, you are simply using that as a vehicle to push your chutzpah)
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 23, 2023 12:30:19 ago (+0/-0)
So you are an advocate of divine command theory.
Where good is good because God the creator of all things has proclaimed it to be so, evil is evil because God said it is.
Not only is he the creator but he is almighty in every way (omnnipotent, omniscient, etc).
So it's a morality with God as the standard, and as "his law is writ upon our hearts" he could order anything and it would seem good or evil to us as our conscience would follow God's will.
I don't get what you think I'm saying here, do you think I am telling you you shouldn't stop them? How would you get to that conclusion from this? How does any of this originate from relativistic morality?
From the perspective of the kikes who kill our kids it may not be evil for them to do that. But why should their perspective matter to us?
We are not them, we are instead who we are, and from our perspective it is evil for them to do what they do.
Also from our perspective it would be good for us to stop them and kill them, it would be evil for us not to, so why should our perspective not matter as much as theirs? We should try and stop them and kill them.
It is the only resolution here is for us to try and kill them, and for them to try and not be killed by us, that's how morality works.
Do you think it would be wrong for us to kill a jewish child (not gonna eat their flesh or drink their blood, that disgusts me)?
If morality is relative, then people call good what they feel is good, and call evil what they feel is evil. Some do things that they feel is good, but what others feel is evil. Then what those people feel is good is to punish those who do what they feel is evil, so that is what they do. They would also feel it is good to take steps to prevent others from doing what they feel is evil. Of course, some of what these people feel is good is seen by others as evil, and so we come to the ultimate arbitration of good and evil: Violence, Force, and Intimidation. The stronger impose their wills upon the weaker, this is where all civilization originates from, government means "to manage minds", and the use of force to enforce one's will upon another is the most basic function of government. Realizing this would harden your heart to their manipulation of morality for their own ends, as they would cry out to some objective moral standard that makes your acts against them wrong, you will not be swayed as you know that it is the nature of the world for men's interests to compete with one another, and for victory to be the ultimate judge of one's righteousness in the annals of history. You do what you think is right for your people, they did what they thought was right for theirs, they have no right to complain.
(Because we all know this is about kikes and their evil and has nothing to do with the article in question, you are simply using that as a vehicle to push your chutzpah)
I wasn't trying to, originally I was just writing about time travel, but then I had a thought at the end, and kept on thinking/writing to eleborate upon it, but ultimately it led me back to the philosophical rutt I'm in.
I want to find something beyond this idea, the only thing I could think of was the gene based morality but that was also relativistic.
The objective morality offered to me still broke down into relativism when I examined it, it's always Christian an the only thing keeping it objective is the Christians refusal to realize that it is relativistic. They want to follow it, they feel good when they follow it, an this has always been the case for them even if they are converts. They use God as their standard, then what's God's standard? If he is his own standard, then isn't that just declaring an abrupt end to the examinations? Like, you want to have some unquestionable ultimate source for morality, so let's just end the questioning here and give ourselves this, we pretend it's the end, so it is.
Christians don't follow a biblical morality though, many of the moral stances I've seen Christians take come from their own personal convictions, and show up nowhere in the Holy Bible, not to mention the many moral stances the Holy Bible does take that Christians do not take and would likely take a stand against. They have their own personal conception of what God wants from them and how it's all supposed to work. I'd like to create a country that operates itself biblically, as in "all laws are biblical and no laws are extra-biblical" - if its a law of the good book then it's the law of the land, if it isn't a law of the book then it isn't a law of the land. I'd like to see what people would think of a country that operates itself in that way.
The problem is that whatever I'm told is good is something that feels to me is good, and which the person who tells me about it likely feels it is good as well. Evil feels evil to me, and on occasions where something I was told was evil ever felt good, I usually was given a framework that made the evil act just.
Would you ever want to do something evil? Would you want to rob a store, get caught, and go to jail? How about rob the store and get away with it? How much of your resistance to doing evil comes from the consequences of having forces used against you, or from the social disapproval you'd receive for having done such an act?