No, it wouldn’t change anything because “everyone being the same thing” would last about ten seconds until two people started arguing about what the meaning of “is” is. I think we’d set salvation history back about 8 thousand years.
Ah, yes. That would be a big moral concern for many. Thanks for pointing that out!
Do you really think the disagreement between people would be even more? Perhaps we don’t pay as much attention to people whose views are different from our own, and would pay more attention to people who profess to be on the same page as we are, but really aren’t. Good point!
Agreed!
I don’t think it would be a moral concern because there would be nothing for persons to be concerned about. I.e, your thought experiment is impossible, it is like asking what we would feel if a square circle existed. Therefore, given that free will exists, you cannot press a button to make people freely do anything(Even God can’t do that), because then free will would both exist and not exist ---- a contradiction.
It’s a hypothetical question, of course. But aren’t certain hypotheticals logically possible, as in this case? That is, YOU are in charge and you can override the free will of others. In the case of the square-circle (funny, I used that same example today on another thread of mine: pre-wired brain), however, THAT state is not even hypothetically possible (or is it, mathematically, as one form changes to another?) although, interestingly, we can have a concept of that non-existent entity.
No! The world would be so incredibly boring we would know something is seriously wrong…
A funny answer but no doubt true! What would we discuss and debate on the Catholic Forum? I take that back: there would still be plenty to debate among Catholics.No! The world would be so incredibly boring we would know something is seriously wrong…
I would say that your experiment is logically impossible, just like the existence of a square circle. Your experiment asks us to suppose that someone can **make **people freely do something by pressing a button — a logically impossibility. I say that because a button that makes people switch religions would logically entail a free choice on the part of the persons’ wills. Case and point, imagine yourself changing your religion, without willing to do so-- it is inconceivable, because it couldn’t happen without the assent of your will.
I don’t understand your argument. Of course it can’t happen in the real world. But in a hypothetical situation, why not? Suppose pressing the button itself MAKES people change their religion: it doesn’t matter HOW that happens, hypothetically speaking. On the other hand, the square-circle, it seems to me, is just unimaginable by definition even in a hypothetical scenario.
I agree. Also, having viewed your signature and profile, even though I’m not really a dog person, pugs are my favourite breed!
(I added a little bit to my earlier post) Well, here is a formalized syllogism:
This also reminds me of the Jewish joke: if you put two Jews in a room discussing any issue, you’ll come out with three opinions!
I thought that was “Jesuits!”
I don’t want to belabor the point too much; BUT in a hypothetical universe, the universe of “suppose,” couldn’t it be possible with that magic button which you press? The people involved are NOT freely changing their religion; they are changing because of your pressing the button. That’s my final word on this. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
How dare you: this is a dignified thread! LOL Very funny cartoon…Thanks!
