Philosophy Discussion Forums

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:46 am Last century we used the concept of Free will to explain evil here like genocide of babies and children.

Who in the last century, of when this is being written, supposedly used the concept of free will to explain evil here like genocide of babies and children?

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:46 am In WWII, Hitler’s free will was felt to his right to kill 6 million people.

What does 'felt to his right' actually mean?

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:46 am The concept of Free will died as the genocide stopped.

As far as I am aware the concept of 'free will' is alive and well, as evidenced throughout philosophy forums and discussions.

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:46 am God would give us all equal Free will and Hitler cannot have 6 million times more Free will than the people he killed.

When has one person killed six million people, and how, in hell, does it logically follow that if and when one person kills six million, that then that one person have six million times more free will than the ones that they killed?

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:46 am Free will fails to explain evil in the last century.

If free will fails to explain evil in the last century, then I would suggest that that then implies free will fails to explain evil in EVERY preceding and EVERY following century as well. Now, do you want to propose and list all of the things that fail to explain evil in the last century or would you prefer to name exactly what explains 'evil' in the last century?

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 10:46 am Earthellism explains evil the best for this pivotal century for humanity.

Why is this century pivotal?

And, how exactly does the word 'earthelism' explain evil the best, in this or any other century?

What does the word 'earthellism' actually mean, to you? And while you are at it, what does the word 'evil' actually mean to you as well?

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 11:05 pm Earthellism, a new philosophy for this century is not a religion.

The word 'earthellism' sure lends itself to a religion, just like all the other 'isms' are very religious by nature, from my perspective. That is putting belief and/or faith in things.

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 11:05 pm My forceful arguments are based on the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" and will gladly answer any question and discuss any aspect of earthellism which was born from this amazing book and the ashes of World War II.

What are your so called "forceful arguments"?

And, why make your arguments forceful? Why not just write sound and valid arguments, which obviously can not be refuted anyway?

Why try and 'force' your view/arguments?

'Forcing' views/arguments can be very easily seen as being preaching, and thus very religious as well.

Greta wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:26 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 8:45 amI don't trust Earthellism because I see some good in this natural world , and most people do see some good in this natural world. The problem of evil affects only theists and I am not a theist.

He would say that the good is God's love, but without God. God sends his/her/its love while humans send rovers and probes. Or God may be like David Attenborough, observing, and approving of, an ants' nest while not actually physically being there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er-OnJCn1gg

If God is like David Attenborough it's the deists' version of God which can't intervene.I think I've been told deists took that stance because they were really unbelievers who could not dare to gainsay the established and popular theists. Therefore Earthellism might suit the US very well and could counter the right wing tendency of American theists.

Belindi wrote: ↑May 21st, 2020, 4:21 am

Greta wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:26 pm
He would say that the good is God's love, but without God. God sends his/her/its love while humans send rovers and probes. Or God may be like David Attenborough, observing, and approving of, an ants' nest while not actually physically being there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er-OnJCn1gg

If God is like David Attenborough it's the deists' version of God which can't intervene.I think I've been told deists took that stance because they were really unbelievers who could not dare to gainsay the established and popular theists.

An interesting history snippet that makes sense. Deism doesn't much lend itself to worship. There doesn't seem much point in petitioning a giant being that basically sneezed out your universe and then left.

Earthellism says God does not allow genocide of innocent babies, children and women and men.
God cannot prevent genocide here on earthell because God is not here but God’s love is here.
Genocide is a war crime and a crime against God and Earthellism was born from the ashes of WW II where all the religions and existing philosophies failed to prevent the slaughter of 50 million people.
Earthellism can prevent future genocides.

Darshan wrote:Earthellism can prevent future genocides.

This will be repeated and all attempts to question it will be ignored. Possibly there will be a generic "thank you for your replies" before the repetition.

You've been told about the forum rules against preaching.

Darshan wrote: ↑May 20th, 2020, 11:05 pm Earthellism, a new philosophy for this century is not a religion. My forceful arguments are based on the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" and will gladly answer any question and discuss any aspect of earthellism which was born from this amazing book and the ashes of World War II.

But you didn't answer the questions I asked you.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 21st, 2020, 9:53 am

Darshan wrote:Earthellism can prevent future genocides.

This will be repeated and all attempts to question it will be ignored. Possibly there will be a generic "thank you for your replies" before the repetition.

You've been told about the forum rules against preaching.

Even if we did allow preaching, what's the point for the preacher if people can't understand what he's saying? Answering clarifying questions would increase the chances of gaining converts. No one is going to convert if it's just a bunch of gibberish to them.

Terrapin Station wrote:Even if we did allow preaching, what's the point for the preacher if people can't understand what he's saying? Answering clarifying questions would increase the chances of gaining converts. No one is going to convert if it's just a bunch of gibberish to them.

Yes, and I don't particularly relish mentioning the forum rules like this (Greta also did it earlier and I don't suppose she does either) because of issues with free speech and allowing people to claim that they've been censored. That often leads to the "I must be on to something if they want to censor me! I'm Galileo!" attitude.

If Darshan was actually willing to engage in genuine conversation and defend his/her views then I think he/she would be very welcome, due to the unusual nature of the views. More interesting than boring, mainstream views like mine, probably. But the complete lack of engagement that has been shown so far obviously means that interest rapidly diminishes.

I've tried questioning what appears to be his/her central thesis and got nothing.

Several times, Darshan has made a relatively straightforward prediction that could be examined. It is:

"Earthellism can prevent future genocides."

All that's missing is the single word which often comes at the end of high school and University essay questions:

"Discuss."

I just found the thread where darshan attempts more of an explanation:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8126&p=122200#p122200

One thing I'm not at all getting is why he thinks that "the problem of evil" has something to do with the location of Hell. That seems to be his hinge--that by claiming that Hell is located on Earth, that has some implication for the problem of evil. But that's a big non sequitur, because the problem of evil doesn't have anything to do with the location of Hell. The problem of evil has to do with the supposed "omni" properties of God and how God can allow evil in light of God possessing those omni properties.

It's particularly odd that darshan's explanation of "Earthellism" comes right out and says: "God is not omnipotent here"--but that's underscoring the problem of evil, the idea of which is that the omni properties can't hold given that there is evil. If we go ahead and say that one of the omni properties doesn't hold, then we're not solving anything.

Sure, will answer anything anytime.
Likely have answered a lot already over the last 7 years but will be glad to discuss anything.
Regarding genocide, Nazism was a philosophy that embraced genocide. Earthellism is the opposite of Nazism and condemns genocide.
Christianity and Judaism failed to stop the genocide because they are based on concept of free will.
Earthellism says free will does not explain genocide but we thought it would play out in WWII but we were wrong.
Only explaining that God is not here and that being able to kill an innocent person is somehow a God’s will like Hitler thought is dead wrong. Those who commit genocide have chosen to become human devils here on earthell and will pay for their crimes. Their victims are guaranteed Heaven and full compensation by God. This mindset can give soldiers the courage not to commit a war crime and even feel confident that God is in their side.

Also, the book he's focusing on (The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee) doesn't actually have anything to do with this. Plus he seems to be misunderstanding what astrobiology is about. Astrobiology is about how life starts and evolves due to astronomical factors--solar system and planetary evolution, including just what conditions obtain given particular sorts of stars, planetary compositions, planetary relationships to stars (distances, rotations, etc.) The book in question is science-based speculation on what the future course of life on Earth is likely to be, given what we believe to be the case about the life cycle of the sun, etc.

Darshan wrote: ↑May 21st, 2020, 10:36 am Sure, will answer anything anytime.

Start with the question I asked you that you're still ignoring:

"I'm also not following how this [the idea that Hell is on Earth] supposedly solves the issue of people becoming atheists in light of the 'problem of evil.'" Can you explain how Earthellism solves that issue?

Please rephrase anything I may have ignored unintentionally.
The problem of evil which Earthellism solves is how a omnipotent God would allow extreme suffering of innocence. The answer God does not allow it, God just cannot prevent it here because on earthell God is not here.