How can God create anything Evil? - Page 13

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆😆ye to bahut gehri baat keh di gauri ji !😆

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Aha, how is it that no one started a topic on Shiney yet? Maybe I should go and start one.

All that we know right now on Shiney's case is based on the so called allegation and media speculation. There's nothing solid to debate on yet. Just my two cents. I'm waiting for the verdict but I don't know how much faith I'd put in there even if Shiney is found not-guilty.

If Shiney is guilty - do you think his actions were based on his free will😆

Sorry boss, just trying my best to get back on track😆 naheen toh Sareena will pm me another one of her fabulously worded dhamkees😆

Originally posted by: clodpolish

😆😆ye to bahut gehri baat keh di gauri ji !😆

😆 jatey jatey ek aur iss sey bhi gehri baat kahey jati hoon. Dhyan sey sun-na 😆

daydreaming bhi agar IF related hai toh you are now officially doomed, cp😆
😆

Originally posted by: clodpolish

Ahh thats something which i think is not always the case.

How can one be sure that a person is always capable of chosing good over evil ? I mean we do know about brainwashing and stuff no? or if someone has been brought up in a "wrong" kinda environment wherein he has always been taught to take people's lives for various reasons (religion, etc) [This does happen in terrorist camps ], now how exactly would he be capable of chosing the right path when he actually has almost been "programmed" to chose evil over good?

Can we call such human as lacking free will (according to your definition) ?

😡 See I wrote a big reply and for some reason it didn't get posted, and now I'll have to write it up again! 😭😡

Should have been clearer in my previous post. See, when I stated a person have the ability to choose 'good over evil', I really meant that a person have the ability to 'differentiate between good and evil'. Of course a person can always choose evil over good (and I think many of us here have some experiences of it, too 😉😆) but still that doesn't change the fact that the person *(under normal circumstance, mind it, not situations like being brought up into a terrorist camp, etc)* is capable of 'understanding' the difference between what is morally correct, and what isn't, unlike a computer/robot, who lacks that ability. Any human, who is incapable of understanding that (despite of not being 'brainwashed' or anything of that sort) - we call him lacking a sense of morality, or to be more explicit, we call him lacking a conscience to begin with.

But I have stated that earlier in one of your topic [Brainwash] - if you remember - that if people can indeed be 'brainwashed' into doing something, then that person could be labeled as 'lacking free will', because, like a computer or a robot, when someone is brain washed, that person's ability to think 'freely' is destroyed as well, right? The person looses his ability to exercise his free will, so becomes sort of like a robot as well. So yes, your point is valid - though I cannot be sure up to how much - but your point is valid nonetheless.

But the question is can people really be brainwashed? Personally I believe that people can be - even if it is on a small level. So where do we draw the line is the question. Up to how much can a person be brainwashed and dehumanized? Can a person be dehumanized on his adulthood? Or can it be only done if the dehumanization/brainwashing process is started from a very young age? If a person is brainwashed, then does he looses his power to exercise his will completely? Or can he, but on a small level? Lots of things to consider.

Hope this reply isn't deleted again! 😆

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

My take - yes, I feel people are responsible for choices they make in their lives but those choices are not "free-will" per se. More later...when I address POH posts.

Agreed; all choices and actions a person commits cannot be classed as a product of his own free will, because, as Ashoka had suggested, people can be brainwashed and dehumanized, and it isn't anything impossible. However, I think most action[s] a person commits is the product of exercising his free will (the brainwashing scenario isn't uncommon, but surely not all criminals ahead have not been brainwashed, right?).

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆 jatey jatey ek aur iss sey bhi gehri baat kahey jati hoon. Dhyan sey sun-na 😆

daydreaming bhi agar IF related hai toh you are now officially doomed, cp😆
😆

mujhe to din raat IF ke sapne aate hain , mera kuch nahin ho sakta😆😆

labib, will come back to that tomorrow !

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

All that we know right now on Shiney's case is based on the so called allegation and media speculation. There's nothing solid to debate on yet. Just my two cents. I'm waiting for the verdict but I don't know how much faith I'd put in there even if Shiney is found not-guilty.

If Shiney is guilty - do you think his actions were based on his free will😆

Sorry boss, just trying my best to get back on track😆 naheen toh Sareena will pm me another one of her fabulously worded dhamkees😆

Yep - that's correct; there isn't a single bit of solid information found, at least to my knowledge. But the fact that there 'there's nothing solid' makes the room for debating even bigger. If there was anything 'solid' then there shouldn't be a debate to begin with - debate happens when both sides have equally good points to make (though I'll agree that that is not always the case).

If he is found guilty ... well, first tell me, what do you mean by "actions being based on free will"? If by that, you mean that he is 'responsible' for his action, then yes, I do think his 'action' could be classified as the product of his free will, reason being, I do not think (haven't heard even, to be honest) that it is possible to brainwash a person into raping someone. I mean the dogma of shedding innocent blood for religious or political purposes can be injected into a person's head as being 'morally correct' [if it is done from childhood], but surely, a sane person can ever be 'convinced' into seeing rape as a 'ethical' action. 🤢🤢 So yeah, if he is indeed guilty, then it has to be the product of his own free will - but I guess that question was a sort of 'joke' from your part, right?

It's Sarina, not Sareena. 😛

Originally posted by: clodpolish

😆mujhe to din raat IF ke sapne aate hain , mera kuch nahin ho sakta😆😆

If Raat pe bhi sapne aye...then it can no loger be classed as 'day dream'. You know what it is. 😛

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

If Raat pe bhi sapne aye...then it can no loger be classed as 'day dream'. You know what it is. 😛

yeah😳😆