Good can be beneficent or maleficent, you can either benefit or hinder yourself using the environment, and you can do the same to others.

Good is a term referring to the 'as is' or 'it is what it is' factor.

It depends on how you treat 'what is' or 'the good(s)'.

well said.

you're the one who made the claim. Of course the burden of proof is on you. I expect we'll have your answer sooner than maybe... Death. Or perhaps you'll lie again and use abstract communication to put your own troubles on the innocent/intelligent.

agreed. This is miraculous.

Other people's depression, maybe. To wonder at someone who believes in 'nil' in every context can toll or harm mind.

If the universe is simulated or in part simulated, it doesn't make it any less real, it just means the product of the universe came about through non-conventional means(it's beginning was not the answer discovered by looking at what the evidence shows, directly, but it was something indirect, such as a great vortex instead of a big bang). This could be to make things more efficient, if it can be made semi permanently without making a huge explosion, why not? It also may allow for forcing luck/bias such as creating a life supporting planet where a perfect eclipse occurs. In all fairness, simulation may occur even where the universe did come about through a massive explosion, in zones, to split the mass of it all. Simulation doesn't just mean 'it's secretly fake', it can also mean 'more efficient' or 'biased'.

Purpose, in my opinion, is to attain value, whether that be financial, experiential(in such cases as heavens), or other. It gives us drive because it improves our experience. The ground of attaining value is gaining pleasure - and losing pain, whether that be short term or long term. Some may want to serve the world, but this is for some future reward, in that they are being moral. Some may take lots of pain to improve themselves in elegant 'loss-of-pain'.

God is something that directs us to the highest value, or 'heaven'.

If you know all physical objects, subjects, and then start pondering on all you know, to find mental information on these things you know, you'll end up with copious amounts of information relative to part, individual, multiple or all. This would be metaphorically like hitting a gold mine of information, continuously spurring out with information, hypothetically 'ring-ing' intellectually.

If you were to ask me, 'which way do I go to reach X?', and I said, 'I know, it's this way and then that way', that would be a case of me knowing objectively. In part, we don't know objectively enough, it's mostly spurring from inane mind (for a pointless reason - such as chit-chat). However, there will be times where we do know objectively, and that is my argument against the original post.

You'll find more luck in death, which I believe is like a male to life where life is the female to death. I would consider death, ultimately perfect for everyone, all loving, all knowing and all powerful. In the case of life, we take pain to experience greater pleasures, and I advise you as a part of life to accept the good with the bad in pursuit of things like higher understanding, great inner peace and true love, etc.

I have a question.

Is a fact about the universe now, still a fact if we are not part of the universe and have no interaction with it from somewhere external to it? Can there be facts without observation? And thus, do facts exist in the mental realm, moreover the physical realm as per se one's collection of facts(in mind) as opposed to the states of things in a locale?

A fact is self-confirming, regardless of whether you've thought about it or not.

'This is text,' is a fact, and it confirms itself.

Yes, there are many. Word Language is a tool - I would say get in touch with your wordless side - but this side is also word-full(wordless; as a directive to freeing your mind of words, and experiencing your voice without the word tool).

There are movements, or chain actions, that can't be properly described with words, only touched upon and referred to. You can pretty much touch upon anything with words.

Philosophy is crucial to self-control and yes it helps us to understand things. No, education is not perfect, it is in fact unfairly filtering youth, and working towards tinkering madly with our broken society machine. There is lots that needs to change; philosophy lessons in primary and secondary schools would be a good start. However, any philosophy lesson should be about self-control, rather than positions on past topics, or interpretations of past people's thinking.

I have recently changed my view of morality, from good being outright beneficent and evil being outright maleficent to accepting some neutrality between the two. Evil - 'eve all' - "bring a clean ending to everything coming upon me". We commit evil all the time, when we speak up to defend our argument, on this forum, is an example. We attempt to stop the thoughts of a hypothetical third party representing all peers(who read our words), from being against us, and we try to turn them to supporting what we have said. My version of evil, is controlled impulse. Good on the other hand is twisting the forces that makes up our experience in order to have them boost us, whether in a progressive or digressive way, and anyone can/may affect anyone with a boost, and boosts can be maleficent to any other. My version of good, is a personal universe(in some way it reflects the progressing forwards your own creation in the manner to boost yourself, or boost or neglect others - your own universe).

This makes morality simple, it's how you are ordered in your application of good or evil forces, whether you are completely criminal, using good and evil to be maleficent to other subjects or objects, or supporting yourself, and thus being a moral person, a friendly of all or an outright enemy of all.

Absolutely.

For that I would have to know everything so you've kind of set the bar too high.

you wouldn't be able to reason with something specific if you didn't have the relative induction.

yes. I didn't know this term.

well I can't help but agree with that. Thank you. Lol.

Empirical: is it consistent and leaning towards this answer.

Logic is: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

A statement is just the conduit of which I expressed a logic. Hence, content in statements.

The fact it's an empirical logic means all I need to produce is a statement on the matter and not a thesis, because it's obviously relatable and using the tool of word, I can depict something corelate to the empirical nature of that logic.

It's a statement referring to a logic. Statements are not normally free of content, can you make a content-less statement? The content of the statement was a reference to empirical logic about rising Suns and day time.

when you asked me 'do I mean statement?'

No, because it's based on the fact when stars successfully rise and fall above or below planets there is day time and night time. There is an outstanding amount of stars and planets working like this at this moment. Therefore, without writing a thesis I can determine this statement in reference to empirical logic is true.

If the Sun rises above Earth and it doesn't create day time, it doesn't change the fact it's more likely to create day time. Empirical does not mean absolute, it means more probably.

Logic that's based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

For example, this logic wouldn't need to be a peer reviewed thesis because it stands out in our observations and experiences.

It will be day time if the Sun is to rise above Earth successfully; an empirical logic.

The impossible can be made possible. I argue there are other levels of something being not possible, it's not just impossible, but impossible, impalpable, etc.

It's all good.

The nature of the self is to overcome obstacles and understand the enmity between the obstacles and reality.

Doesn't 'pop up' imply it popped up from a origin point/event, and thus, by my use of the term 'cause', this origin point/event is the cause? Otherwise, what is the significance of 'popping up'? Is it what the claim to be 'nothing-ness', you claim pop has no meaning?

I suppose yeah. Well, well-said everyone who contributed. I will re-think my understanding.

Whatever floats your boat at the end of the day, don't we all live by this code? Happy-go-lucky!

Example: in the beginning 'it was very hot', thus, something was making it hot. That's all I assert.

Given the big bang has a 'how it was', or 'what happened', it can be derived to a causation, 'the nature of the effect happening' must have some causation as with nuclear bombs exploding by some chemical reaction; bangs wouldn't be bangs without, per se, a beating of a drum. Given we can judge the big bang effect and ponder what is exactly happening there, I don't see your point. Either remove the idea of the big bang and trade it for 'popping up for no reason', or you revel in stupidity. How can you give content to the beginning, such as by 'big bang', if you then trade all meaning of that for 'it popped up for no reason'?

Infinity is concerned with reach of multiplication and addition whereas divinity is reach of division and subtraction.

Divinity is something to be considered more numerous than infinity. I don't claim God made it.

I have provided an example in the topic starter that suggests 'it's wiser to assert the universe came from some enumeration in the multiverse', probably the anti-thesis of the big bang.

Causality itself implies things are caused, so I would assume causality has a cause, it is the case directly, probably by some divine force. What is causality if not an association with the nature of things as I've put. One could say it's caused by the fact of the matter everything is caused, and thus we ponder 'causality' or it's an existent.

And if you believe the universe has no cause, you have to provide evidence, otherwise the empirical logic(of everything being caused) is the determiner of this case.

It implies there's some grounds to the assertion, 'for no reason', when there is not. In fact it leads to space-headed-ness. It's not really a sensible conjecture. It is as stupid as: Cause: no reason. Effect: it popped up. What I argue is exactly this point, we must assume a cause, it's not optional. Saying no reason is what I argue to be saying the cause was no reason. You can't have an effect for no reason. I have asked already for someone to provide an example of something that was not caused to exist as a forward on this discussion or debate.

It's your word versus mine. If there is nothing without a cause, then how is what you said true?