The Balance Theory

This is basicly a form of religeon in a sense. Got to give credit for Imaginitive thinking

from GalCiv2 Forums

Everyone needs to believe something, this is what I believe.

The Balance Theory:

Balace theory is the basic foundations of what we call life. It is were everything is equalled out to produce an even balance in which life can support itself. You can see it in everyday life and in world affairs. From the smallest insects to the reches of space and time the Balance Theory keeps the world in perfect a perfect balance.

The Rules of Balance:
1) The rules cannot be broken. Physically or Mentally these rules are at the foundations of the Universe. In essence they are part of the meaning of life and destiny.
2) Everything is doomed to repeat itself. It is like a circle which cannot be broke. Life, history and future are affected by this rule.
3) You cannot take something without first giving something of equal value. Yes this is very similar to the first rule of Alchemy. Why do you thing that is? Look around, you can see this rule not just in Alchemy but in many sciences. This rule affects the natural equations of life.
4) Good and Evil are points of veiw. They are man made illusions which are designed to sprout hatred. They do not full under any of the rules. This rule affects the filtration of false perspectives.
5) Life encourages us to look forward and stop dwelling on the past. In the future the past will repeat. Our reward for this is luck. This rule affects the linear existance of all living begins.

The 5 rules are merely guildlines for the balance of life. If we didn't have them life would collape in on itself and fall apart. We have choice, no doubt about it, but only over OUR lives. The choices we make can be altered by balance should they over step the boundry. If you don't want to read futher into this theory of mine or understand the rules then I segest you leave your comment or close this window.

Understanding the rules further:

1) The rules cannot be broken. Physically or Mentally these rules are at the foundations of the Universe. In essence they are part of the meaning of life and destiny.
This means that forget it people, the rules arn't like the man made ones. If we try and break the rule balance will come back at us. If you know what karma is then you will understand that karma is a way for balance to punish us for breaking them. karma is a was of achieving balance.

2) Everything is doomed to repeat itself. It is like a circle which cannot be broke. Life, history and future are affected by this rule.
This is probably one of the biggest rules. it simply says that everything that has happened in the past to countless people will ultimately be repeated. There is no avoiding it, impossible to. Unfortunately this means there will always be war. Human like dinosaurs will one day be extinct by a major cataclysmic event. it's a sad way of thinking about it. So I say this, peace will always endure. Love will always be found. Our lives will always be reborn whether we be human or not. There is no boundry to this because it is impossible to break, therefore no punishment. Our souls are not limited by this. When we die, there is this great sceptical outlook of hevan and hell. Oh they exist, but not as the great evils we suspect them to be. There is no great begin for a God or armies of good and evil (Because like i said, good and evil a points for veiw created by man). Hevan is infact a reward for living life, all you need to do is believe in yourself and others. Which really isn't hard to do, we do it everyday. We do not stay in hevan forever, just long enough for life to give us another physical form which we can yet enrich ourselves with more life. Hell is similar, except for the fact is is a punishment for ending life early. Surcide isn't part of Life's plan. When the going gets tough Life wants us to push on, become stronger. When we end it we are punished. Like before though it isn't forever, just until life can give us another body. God is Life, Life takes care of us on earth and in the afterlife.

3) You cannot take something without first giving something of equal value. Yes this is very similar to the first rule of Alchemy. Why do you thing that is? Look around, you can see this rule not just in Alchemy but in many sciences. This rule affects the natural equations of life.
This is for the equations in life. Ever wondered why Maths is the same in EVERY country? or Science will only allow you do do things when you get the right amounts? That is balance of the most visible sort. Think about it 3x3 wouldn't equal 6, it can ONLY equal 9. We are more intouch with balance as a race that any other species on earth. This rule can be discovered and practised by anyone.

4) Good and Evil are points of veiw. They are man made illusions which are designed to sprout hatred. They do not full under any of the rules. This rule affects the filtration of false perspectives.
One of the biggest rules is not to get man made ideas mixed in with balance. for example good and evil are not part of the balance theory. There are always 2 sides to every arguement, every war or anything really, but never are their any goods or evils. Sure a side can say "We are good and they are evil", but the other side will say the same thing back, "No, WE are good and YOU are evil". Balance isn't involved in this because it is man made. Religeons have good and evil to try and control your motives, "Stay away from evil! You MUST obey what we say or you will go to hell and forever be tortured by satin himself" (I do not mean disrespect to those who believe this is true, but remember it was your choice to read on). Religeon is man's opinion on the meaning of life. I'm not saying this balance theory is true, it's a theory which I believe and abide by. It is YOUR choice to believe it or not, but Life doesn't really care if you believe in the balance theory because all it wants is for you to live life and experience the full potential it has to offer. Religeons Ideas are scattered and various. But they believe in something, Which is the meaning of the Balance theory. To believe in something, because when we believe in something we have reason to live.

5) Life encourages us to look forward and stop dwelling on the past. In the future the past will repeat. Our reward for this is luck. This rule affects the linear existance of all living begins
You will often find people depressed and thinking about why life is worth living. unfortunately there is no answer. But that is no reason to give up. In life we get 1 chance to prove what we are capable of before we are reborn into a new body. Life wants us to live a linear life. When we get in a state life this we stop the linear equation and therefore can't live life. the more we dwell in the past the more life tried to give us oppitunities to move on. Life is go go go, when we stop we pause our lives. nothing will ever happen, nothing will change for us. It is very hard to imagine but Life cares about us living to our potential. Life looks after us in life and death. So if you are depresssed and feel like life has none meaning, take moments to look into yourself. Life is within you, and is willing to help guild you in the right direction if you will listen. You can find the answer and you will.

Every choice has a conclusion, every mistake has an equal balance of luck, everything you take without giving will be punished and everyone has a perpouse in life. Never look back because there is nothing there for you. The road ahead is what you should focus on. Life will be there to pick you up and walk to the path you have been aiming for (Assuming ofcourse this path has not been blocked off). You will suceed in life, if you try your hardest to live it.

The Meaning of Life:
The meaning of life is what you make it.

Written by FireNight666©

off-topic
162,844 views 45 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 Corner TIME, CUBES EARTH.
If a God existed, he would be EVIL
to DENY 4 Opposite Corner Days.
NOTE: Paired Opposite Arrows on
drawing exists only as Opposites -
cancelling to nothing as One/Entity.
Composed of Opposites, Earth has
Zero Existence, as One is Nothing.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
chaos theory
the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

everything is influenced but at the same time everything is random
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Solipsist theory - none of your losers exist anyway, you're all just constructs of my mind.

My consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists in the entire universe. I just made you idiots up to hurt myself.

And it worked.

Yes it did!
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Solipsist theory - none of your losers exist anyway, you're all just constructs of my mind.My consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists in the entire universe. I just made you idiots up to hurt myself.And it worked.Yes it did!


? no thats just crazy
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One electron universe.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One electron universe.


or a marble
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
? no thats just crazy


Is it really crazy, or did my mind (the only truly existing thing in the universe) want dissent from the idea, thus creating you to make that comment?
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
Do you take this as a religion, a philosophy, or both, if I may ask?

Also, does this balance theory also apply to the laws of nature? Because if it did, then the universe would not appear to be accelerating in expansion. And what about the second law of thermo?
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There is no good and evil? So if I think raping children is an evil act, that's just my silly point of view?
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
There is no good and evil? So if I think raping children is an evil act, that's just my silly point of view?


Echoed.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
There is no good and evil? So if I think raping children is an evil act, that's just my silly point of view?


"evil" is a human-defined concept and one that exists really only to define ethically questionable actions. we can say something is evil to quickly define it as a action that is harmful, unproductive, etc, but then the risk is that that concept can be defined really any way you want it to. there is no shared definition of evil.

as such, people often try to generalize evil and act like it exists in some Platonic realm, where action X is objectively evil and action Y is not. this is wrong.

so this is a leading question. it's like taking a piece of paper with a orangish-red hue and asking people if it's red. you'll get different answers. by asking whether something is "evil" you are only implicitly assuming that everyone defines "evil" by the same subset of actions as you do. it's likely that most people will define "raping children" with "evil" but what's the use of asking if they're the majority?

so yes, it is your silly point of view. you can define any word any way you want it to.

this is a stupid belief for a lot of other reasons, but its rejection of good and evil as "forms" is relatively sound
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
"evil" is a human-defined concept and one that exists really only to define ethically questionable actions. we can say something is evil to quickly define it as a action that is harmful, unproductive, etc, but then the risk is that that concept can be defined really any way you want it to. there is no shared definition of evil.


Keep in mind that Inches did not try to define evil itself. He merely marked a particularly "questionable action" as "harmful, unproductive", etc. If he then wishes to append the word "evil" to such questionable actions, is it a silly point of view? Is it actually silly?

as such, people often try to generalize evil and act like it exists in some Platonic realm, where action X is objectively evil and action Y is not. this is wrong.


Surely there are objective evilnesses and objective goodnesses? To say that goodnesses and evilnesses are not objective is also wrong. There has to be some reference point, no? Or are humans themselves the reference points, or is society? As an example, do you think that everyone (obviously excluding children) in a society that taught its inhabitants that raping kids was not merely not evil, but also inherently good, would be perfectly happy with that assertion? Would there not be some sort of internal objection, based on some unknown, undefined reference point?
You know from past discussions that I'm a Christian, so you see my motivation for asking this. I wish to question this obviously relativistic view, not only because I think relativism is itself an attempt to escape responsibility for certain actions, but also because I think people are intrinsically aware of a 0-Kelvin (so to speak) reference for actions.

Obviously, though, what you say about people defining good and evil differently is true. I regard good as something God defines as good, and evil as something He defines as evil. You don't, and others don't. This is because, as you say:

you can define any word any way you want it to.


So it's a word. But what about the concept? Surely a concept of something with certain characteristics is constant? Do the characteristics change, or are they dependent on the society? My belief is that, from a societal point of view (i.e. in the way that people see them), the terms of good and evil has some freedom, but will always have a solid grounding somewhere; and from a truly moral point of view, that everything is indeed thoroughly solid. Implicit is of course the assumption that morality is totally independent from society.

In the end, I suppose my rejection of this relativism is due to my belief that
"evil" is a human-defined concept

because in my view it isn't.

By the way, I would say that things are facts rather than personal beliefs, but I'd rather not get into a "discussion" about who is right and who is wrong :P
Apologies for the long post.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
Keep in mind that Inches did not try to define evil itself. He merely marked a particularly "questionable action" as "harmful, unproductive", etc.


right but that's my definition. i have no idea what Inches' definition of evil is - it could be 'ability to fly on Mars'. i am implicitly led to believe that he is using my definition of 'evil' but I'm questioning that due to the context.

If he then wishes to append the word "evil" to such questionable actions, is it a silly point of view? Is it actually silly?


kind of semantic - what I meant was that it's silly and misleading to ask other people whether something is "evil" without first defining what your personal definition of "evil" entails.

Surely there are objective evilnesses and objective goodnesses? To say that goodnesses and evilnesses are not objective is also wrong. There has to be some reference point, no? Or are humans themselves the reference points, or is society?


if we talk about the concept and not the word - but that's a completely different argument! i'll take it up though: given a lack of any ability to precisely define what the term means to an individual, the reference point is the average of what a given society or..well..species believes. just as it's impossible to define "red", but we can still say we have a red car and have other people understand. there's enough of a margin of error, enough of a shared definition, that others can at least piece together an approximation of what I mean when I say something is 'evil' despite not knowing exactly how I or themselves came to the conclusion.

it's similar to how an electron behaves in quantum mechanics. you don't have a little ball running around a nucleus, you have a cloud of probability of where that electron might be. but certain areas are so much higher in probability than others that you can make an inference that approximates the electron as a little ball (for example, when discussing shell types)


As an example, do you think that everyone (obviously excluding children) in a society that taught its inhabitants that raping kids was not merely not evil, but also inherently good, would be perfectly happy with that assertion? Would there not be some sort of internal objection, based on some unknown, undefined reference point?


not sure what you're getting at here - I don't see why such a society would have any more or less objection to it than we have here. certainly either society is going to go "well, yeah, I'm pretty sure raping children is X, bro" but I'm not making a point that's dependent on that. we could easily reverse the entire argument from a standpoint that's directly opposite to what we were taught, but I think we'd be having the same discussion.


You know from past discussions that I'm a Christian, so you see my motivation for asking this. I wish to question this obviously relativistic view, not only because I think relativism is itself an attempt to escape responsibility for certain actions, but also because I think people are intrinsically aware of a 0-Kelvin (so to speak) reference for actions.


And I see the point. Moral relativism and cultural relativism are inherently broken for a number of reasons. I'm not trying to argue or rationalize. But essentially if you take a mechanistic, non-supernatural view of psychology, sociology, etc, it's the only conclusion to draw. Aristotle figured that out a long time ago and rejected Plato's line of thinking that "justice" or "the good" or "beauty" were heavenly ideals, and that everything on earth was an attempt at approximating those ideals. Similarly, my position is (at least to my knowledge) the only way to mechanistically explain society's concepts of evil. We all have a 'spidey sense' of 'this is a bad thing to do, this is a good thing to do', but you don't need to get supernatural to explain it. You just accept that it stems from a variety of complex judgements about the situation that are collectively packaged and perceived as right and wrong, and that those judgements are shared among people of similar physiological, psychological, and sociological backgrounds. We don't usually bring it up because we usually know the other guy understands what we mean by "raping a child is evil", but if you're going to talk about the concept itself you have to discuss the abnormal as well.

Do the characteristics change, or are they dependent on the society? My belief is that, from a societal point of view (i.e. in the way that people see them), the terms of good and evil has some freedom, but will always have a solid grounding somewhere; and from a truly moral point of view, that everything is indeed thoroughly solid. Implicit is of course the assumption that morality is totally independent from society.In the end, I suppose my rejection of this relativism is due to my belief that"evil" is a human-defined conceptbecause in my view it isn't.


Tackled this a little before, but I'll go ahead and rephrase it to address this. The problem is that you can quite easily say "well, it's clear that due to a bunch of guys on an island doing things we believe are pretty nuts that our perceptions of morality are at least in part relative, but there's a foundation somewhere". But that's mixing up the observation and the theory. I don't disagree that that's the case, and I've made the same observation, I'm just attempting to take it a little bit further and more clearly define the roots of that foundation.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It was common for roman men around 30 to marry young girls around 12.

That would be a crime in my country nowadays, marriage or no marriage (people younger than 14 having sex with adults - over 18 - is considered to be a pedophile act). Is being a pedophile in such scenarios (30 with 12) evil?

Nowadays yes. Back then no.

---

Is killing someone who's trespassing in your lands evil? In the US no (or so i hear), over here it is indeed evil and a crime.

---

I could easily go on with such examples... Evil and Good are values that use by reference our society and are only truly appliable within it. It's absurd to talk about good or evil inherently related to the human being because there's no such thing as a human being without society.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Is killing someone who's trespassing in your lands evil? In the US no (or so i hear), over here it is indeed evil and a crime.


a Crime heck a year ago some kid that hates me greatly brought some freids and about three Guns and bat like obgests. i told them to leave but they didn't then i got my hunting rifle i fired a few shots and they ran if i did't i probaly not be here right now and no i could not call the polece becase the last time i called 911 it tock 20 min to get here so thanks to the Texas state law i have the right to defend my own land and not get killed but the point is you can choose to kill or not to kill when the opertty arises.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Only excuse here to kill someone without being a crime is self-defense. From what i can tell, in the US it also includes property defense.

And i'm giving an example of different values between 2 western countries. If you compare what is considered right/wrong or good/evil between western countries and eastern (or christrian vs muslim) you'll see that what we take as universally true, is only universally true in our medium, which doesn't make it less valid.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Not that i really want to get into this post BUT... Considering something to be a crime is not necessarily the same as considering it evil.

Trespassing is a crime but I'd hardly call it evil and I can't imagine anyone would unless the trespassers are performing other acts that could be called evil.


And as far as math goes, i don't know if you can use the term balance. 3x3 = 9 is not balance, its a definition.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
or christrian vs muslim


Religion is the really evil stuff they made the defention between Good and evil what is right and what is wrong. religion put that in a good connects
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
@SanChonino: your first post got a fair chuckle out of me - pity that was about the only good song from that album :/

The pseudoscience mathemagic trickery makes me sad. Chaos theory? 3*3? Quantum bloody mechanics? Let's not take precise technical concepts completely outside of their domains and `apply' them to ethics or morality. Urgh.

Our lives will always be reborn whether we be human or not.
...
Surcide isn't part of Life's plan. When the going gets tough Life wants us to push on, become stronger. When we end it we are punished.
...
Every choice has a conclusion, every mistake has an equal balance of luck, everything you take without giving will be punished and everyone has a perpouse in life.


Apologies if I'm taking this a bit seriously, but by which lines of reasoning do you arrive at these conclusions?
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Our lives will always be reborn whether we be human or not.
...
Surcide isn't part of Life's plan. When the going gets tough Life wants us to push on, become stronger. When we end it we are punished.
...
Every choice has a conclusion, every mistake has an equal balance of luck, everything you take without giving will be punished and everyone has a perpouse in life.


i have know idea but i think this was made to descuse what he said and everybody else and pluse to see what other people think or bleive in. Chaos theory is just a fancy word for saying every thing is random
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Religeons have good and evil to try and control your motives, "Stay away from evil! You MUST obey what we say or you will go to hell and forever be tortured by satin himself" (I do not mean disrespect to those who believe this is true, but remember it was your choice to read on). Religeon is man's opinion on the meaning of life.


It's interesting how you not only consistently misspell "Religion," but you equate "Religion" with "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" faith. There are a lot of religions out there, and not all of them are as cut-and-dry as those three.

as such, people often try to generalize evil and act like it exists in some Platonic realm, where action X is objectively evil and action Y is not. this is wrong.


It is very dangerous to deny any form of objectively negative actions. This mode of thought leads to amorality, the idea that any action is justified so long as you think it is OK.

It was common for roman men around 30 to marry young girls around 12.

That would be a crime in my country nowadays, marriage or no marriage (people younger than 14 having sex with adults - over 18 - is considered to be a pedophile act). Is being a pedophile in such scenarios (30 with 12) evil?

Nowadays yes. Back then no.


That they considered it right does not in fact make it right. It only means that it was considered OK at the time.

I don't understand why people have a problem with judging past actions as immoral even if they were the accepted standard of the day. Future generations may judge some of our actions as immoral, and that is their right. We'll all be dead, so we won't much care ;)

I could easily go on with such examples... Evil and Good are values that use by reference our society and are only truly appliable within it. It's absurd to talk about good or evil inherently related to the human being because there's no such thing as a human being without society.


Are some human beings better than others innately?

If the things we believe to be right and good and true are right and good and true, then they must be so for all of humanity. This doesn't mean we should go on a holy crusade with tanks and fighter planes to enlighten the non-believers, but it does mean that we have the right to judge others by our own standards, and make arguments as to why our point of view is better than what they have.
Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top

It is very dangerous to deny any form of objectively negative actions. This mode of thought leads to amorality, the idea that any action is justified so long as you think it is OK.


no, no it doesn't. you don't need to delude yourself into a supernatural view of ethics just to be a moral person or to explain how morals arose. this is a pretty clear false dichotomy.

If the things we believe to be right and good and true are right and good and true, then they must be so for all of humanity.


bullshit. they're only universally right and true if they're based on attributes which the species itself physiologically carries (for example, things like fear of large predators). and as we know, even such things can be overcome: people can eat bugs or hunt large carnivores and if in a society where eating bugs is commonplace they see it as the norm. this doesn't make what we believe right and true, but it means that there's a subset of actions that are commonly believed to be right and the rest are societal. unfortunately, it's very difficult to separate the two.

saying that what we believe is universally true lacks a mechanism for explaining how that morality exists in other people, thereby leading us to the conclusion that everyone else is immoral. you want a dangerous consequent there you go.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
See, if the problem with saying that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong is that, if it were true, nobody would think in terms of right or wrong. It's like telling your neighbor, "Hey, I have no hands!", but then he asks, "What are hands?" If there was no standard for right and wrong, people would have no concept of such a thing. They would behave more like robots, making decisions that had the most benefit for themselves. I might add that the result of such a system would be chaos, and a society could never exist in it. Yet most people have at least a partial sense of right and wrong. Where did that come from? Not from a society. The society could not exist, and even if it did, it has no concept of right and wrong.