Leon_Amarath Leon_Amarath

The Balance Theory

▼

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
162,703 views 45 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top
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.


can you please read the thread before posting
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
can you please read the thread before posting


I didn't want him to read the thread first, so he didn't. You see, I thought it would be more fun to reiterate things ad nauseum.

There is no you . . . there is only me.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
please forgive me I have trouble getting around to all your questions and posts.

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?


I take is as a philosophy more to be precise.

It could apply to the universe. The big bang theory is repeative. The universe explodes from a point in space. Then is drawn back into that same point and explodes. Sending verything scattering out again just so it can be drawn back in to explode yet again. A process that supports the balance theory. But science on PREDICTS that will happen, there's no way to prove it.

Like i said. This is also a Theory. No one said it was precise, or accurate to assume this is the meaning of life.

There is no good and evil? So if I think raping children is an evil act, that's just my silly point of view?


It would been seen as evil from a human point of veiw. Infact if you raped a child it would be 'choice'. In the end, Good and Evil is really determined by someone's feelings on a matter. for example, if you choose to rape a child you wouldn't see it as evil, you would see it as justified. other would see it from a different point of veiw. The terrorists believe what they are doing if for the good of us all, but we see it as Evil. SO this proves that evil and good exist only in our heads in relation to choices we or others make. Merely a description to describe how we feel about choices been made.

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.


I see your point, but in a way what you said is right. we 'think' right and wrong but in reality they are just choices we make that other will not agree with. some more intensly that others. some would support the choice. Good and evil, right and worng are words in the english language, we just use them to describe these choices in relation to how we feel about them.

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


Choas theory is similar to what i'm talking about but at the same time not at all what i mean. the choas theory dictates that everything isn't in balance and life is random. I'm saying life is structured, and our actions are recognised and given an equal and opposite reaction. for example movies stars have big money, big lives big everything and they are living the high life. They take so much from life and then life must deal them a set of equal and opposite reactions. Paparazies, drugs, public humilation, pressure. the list goes on and some actually fall to this. then life stops and everything equals out yet again. but we have the choice to react to these events. Sure life deals them but ultimately our choices dictate what will happen next. fate isn't written, we right it with our choices.
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.


exactly. christian, budist, Jewdism, or no faith it doesn't matter. The point is that everyone who is part of these communities Believe in something. Which is the whole point of this balance theory. to believe in something and be ready for life.

The only problem with religeon from my "Personal" perspective is that they don't accept eachother existance. It is written in the Bible that we should 'love thy neighbors' (Which I do agree with) but they never support it. They hate people who are of another religeon and dispise those who doesn't believe. They forget how to love and accept those who ARE different. Also their teaching of christianity has gone crazy aswell, Instead of the all loving and accepting god, preists teach people to fear god because he WILL punish you for not praising him. good and evil are points of veiw right but if god is Really like this (I doubt he is) then I'd have to say he's pretty evil for making his children fear him. or maybe that's the preists interprating the bible the wrong way. sorry just my perspective of the matter. some religeons have a weird way of getting across their message.
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My theories are mostly based around nature and the natural balance in which we as humans originally came from.
Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
It could apply to the universe. The big bang theory is repeative. The universe explodes from a point in space. Then is drawn back into that same point and explodes. Sending verything scattering out again just so it can be drawn back in to explode yet again. A process that supports the balance theory. But science on PREDICTS that will happen, there's no way to prove it.


It's interesting that you say this. It seems that a lot of atheistic cosmologists find the Hindu idea (though of course it's not exclusive to Hinduism - clearly, Balance Theory, among others, is also included) of a cyclical universe extremely attractive. I personally don't know why, but perhaps it's because they think that science defines our universe in totality, so everything must be neat and ordered and cyclical. If this is the case, I believe it's unnecessarily misguided, since science should concern observation and attempted explanation based on evidence, not personal opinions.

People like Carl Sagan seem(ed) to have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the fact that evidence actually supports an accelerating expanding universe. The whole gist of post is actually that science does NOT PREDICT a big crunch. It predicts an open, not a closed universe. Of course, as you say, it may be wrong, but at the moment the evidence appears to be pointing to open-endedness.

Perhaps there is something of a lack of understanding of the second law of thermo for me (seeing that I am merely beginning my studies of it), but how does that fit into all of this?

In the meantime: @Carbon016: Thank you for that very cogently put argument - I shall try to stick to the point in my arguments, because I suspect that I either deviated from or misunderstood the already established point :P
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
The only problem with religeon from my "Personal" perspective is that they don't accept eachother existance. It is written in the Bible that we should 'love thy neighbors' (Which I do agree with) but they never support it. They hate people who are of another religeon and dispise those who doesn't believe. They forget how to love and accept those who ARE different. Also their teaching of christianity has gone crazy aswell, Instead of the all loving and accepting god, preists teach people to fear god because he WILL punish you for not praising him.


Apologies for the double post, but I couldn't let this go:

It is written indeed in the Bible that we should love our neighbours. This is true. We should. The fact that Christians don't is WRONG, and I, as a person, am just as guilty of this. This doesn't excuse us - you should go ahead and condemn us for it, because it is a sin. There is a saying that sums it up: "Love the sinner, hate the sin". The distinction is important.

"They hate people who are of another religion and despise those who don't believe". I enjoy talking to Muslims; I respect them. One of my best friends is an atheist, and we get along just fine. I violate your generalization, and I know of several other Christians who do the same.
However, in the cases of people who do indeed hate other people for what they believe, they are again wrong. Why? Because it's against Biblical teaching. It's also hypocritical to accept Christ's forgiveness, as a sinner, and then condemn someone else for the same sins.

"Instead of the all loving and accepting god, preists teach people to fear god because he WILL punish you for not praising him."
I don't know which priests you hear saying this, but mine certainly don't.
Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
In the meantime: @Carbon016: Thank you for that very cogently put argument - I shall try to stick to the point in my arguments, because I suspect that I either deviated from or misunderstood the already established point


np, nice to salvage some intellectual discussion from the thread
Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top
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.


Something like this happened to me just the other day. I was waiting at the bar to be served and a robot cut right in front of me and ordered drinks. True story.
Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
I cannot agree with any theory/philsophy that does not have any evidnece beyond ones own experience and a feeling that i would be right.
Nor does any example proofs that something is true in the way you are trying to do.

And last but not least: if you believe in something, why cant you do it silently?
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Haha...

I don't think you understood what I was saying. He says in the OP that right and wrong are relative, or in other words, there is no such thing as right and wrong. I said that the mere idea of right and wrong proves that there is, in fact, such a thing. If right and wrong didn't exist, then the idea would never have either. You can't miss what you never had!

can you please read the thread before posting


As for the thread, people seem to have somewhat touched on this somewhat. Again, I don't think Carbon understood what I meant, and so thinks that what I said has already been stated. I did read the thread, and it hasn't. Someone said that evil is defined as something harmful, yet that is also a relative definition. I am merely pointing out the existance of an absolute. If absolute truth did not exist, then we would define things as normal and abnormal. Being a pedophile is abnormal, but not "wrong." Cutting in front of people at the bar is normal. You see what I am saying? We would define our actions by the end result, not by whether or not we should actually do them.

And last but not least: if you believe in something, why cant you do it silently?


'Tis the reason most people hate Christians - because their beliefs hold them responsible to tell other people. It is the same reason people hate jihadist/suicide bombers who think blowing themselves up will please Allah. It is why both parties are suppressed and despised. It is their view of the truth, and truth is relative. You can't say that they're wrong if you believe in relative/no truth and "religious freedom." So where did the idea some from that they're wrong, even when following their own beliefs? You obviously think it is wrong for them to express their ideals. Why do you think that? Is it wrong, or abnormal?
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Choas theory is similar to what i'm talking about but at the same time not at all what i mean. the choas theory dictates that everything isn't in balance and life is random. I'm saying life is structured, and our actions are recognised and given an equal and opposite reaction. for example movies stars have big money, big lives big everything and they are living the high life. They take so much from life and then life must deal them a set of equal and opposite reactions. Paparazies, drugs, public humilation, pressure. the list goes on and some actually fall to this. then life stops and everything equals out yet again. but we have the choice to react to these events. Sure life deals them but ultimately our choices dictate what will happen next. fate isn't written, we right it with our choices


well yes but thats close to what i am trying to say but other then being random and unstructured but every thing has a point. as thing go and get more complected as they go on the start to get to complected and start to cyclopes in till the it just falls and a new event starts the cane all over again but it dose happen all at an instinte it happens slowly in till it just ends do to its complexity, and then brakes down to a simpler form and starts again. its like in the 1800 when the natives americans round up a herd the buffalo and ran them of a cliff and did it over and over again till they had anuf.
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I cannot agree with any theory/philsophy that does not have any evidnece beyond ones own experience and a feeling that i would be right.
Nor does any example proofs that something is true in the way you are trying to do.

And last but not least: if you believe in something, why cant you do it silently?


lol, good to see this gets people thinking. there is no evidence to support this. But to get the evidence you first need an Idea, something to insipe you to look for evidence.

as for silent believing that is a question of life that still needs answering. I personally am just glad to believe something, and i'm not afraid to tell the world what I think. Even if I do get people who disagree with me that doesn't matter, coz this is my perpouse to live, like everyone had got there own. I'd encourage people to not shy away from their beliefs and come clean with what they believe. does wonders for the self-esteem :D.
Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top
If absolute truth did not exist, then we would define things as normal and abnormal...We would define our actions by the end result, not by whether or not we should actually do them.


This is a non-sequitur. Explain.

Also, my thesis is not that absolute truth doesn't exist. It's reductionist: that there is a absolute "good" and "evil" built into us physiologically (just like most are biologically pre-conditioned to be afraid of bugs or height due to those traits being advantageous for survival), but that societal factors can override them. This "absolute good" does not transcend Homo sapiens - our "absolute" may not be the same to, say, a space alien. For example, for us altruism is "good" and killing is "bad", but it's simply a biological mechanism for ensuring a species' survival, our brains just give us the end product and don't tell us exactly how we figured that out.

Three examples of precedent - attraction can be a number of factors including ones we just can't pin down, but our brain nonetheless tells us we are attracted to someone. Behind the scenes. This could be a myriad of subconscious observations. The same is true of intuition or fear: sometimes things just "don't feel right". In this sort of situation, our brains aren't giving us the whole story, just the end product. Another would be the placebo effect: though many are aware of its existence, they still fall victim to it subconsciously. In this respect, the reason why we have a hard time defining good and evil is because the "source code", the series of additive judgements about an action that have been preconditioned by both genetics and society, is not available.

If "good" and "evil" were absolutes, then either you have to hold to moral absolutism (and everyone will have different definition of "good" and "evil", so this reduces down to an individual's perception of good and evil, which is at least the same as and at worst much more sinister than relativism), or you have to explain how "good" and "evil" exist outside ourselves and apply to the entire universe, which presupposes Platonic supernaturalism.


It's interesting that you say this. It seems that a lot of atheistic cosmologists find the Hindu idea (though of course it's not exclusive to Hinduism - clearly, Balance Theory, among others, is also included) of a cyclical universe extremely attractive. I personally don't know why, but perhaps it's because they think that science defines our universe in totality, so everything must be neat and ordered and cyclical


It's just _neat_. It's orderly. The Big Bang does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, as all the matter was contained in an infinitely dense point, but it's certainly very similar to a "all out of nothing" scenario which is intuitively counter to essentially all of physics.
Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top
Also, my thesis is not that absolute truth doesn't exist. It's reductionist: that there is a absolute "good" and "evil" built into us physiologically (just like most are biologically pre-conditioned to be afraid of bugs or height due to those traits being advantageous for survival), but that societal factors can override them. This "absolute good" does not transcend Homo sapiens - our "absolute" may not be the same to, say, a space alien. For example, for us altruism is "good" and killing is "bad", but it's simply a biological mechanism for ensuring a species' survival, our brains just give us the end product and don't tell us exactly how we figured that out.


This is interesting. I'm still not sure I entirely agree with you, but I do know that I don't disagree as strongly :P The last quoted sentence I think I do agree with from a scientific standpoint - the religious one is easily "satisfied" (I need a better word) simply by explaining that God, through scientific processes, "put" those biological mechanisms in us as humans. This type of thinking also helps with questions such as the Big Bang (i.e. God was the cause of the Big Bang, perhaps. It's why I am also an evolutionist :P ). Speaking of which...

It's just _neat_. It's orderly. The Big Bang does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, as all the matter was contained in an infinitely dense point, but it's certainly very similar to a "all out of nothing" scenario which is intuitively counter to essentially all of physics.


I don't dispute the Big Bang - I dispute the cyclical quality that some people apparently wish to give to the universe (I hope that made sense), and this dispute is on the basis of an accelerating expansion, which evidence at this stage supports. Is a "BANG! sssssss...." universe necessarily *not* neat? Does it have to crunch for it to be neat, or indeed, orderly? My problem, scientifically, lies with the type of thinking that goes "Cyclical = orderly, so the Big Crunch will happen despite evidence". I don't know what religious (Christian) implications a Big Crunch would have, but I do object to the type of thinking I mentioned.
Unless, of course, I'm way off, or missed the point yet again :P
I suppose as a direct response to your comment, I agree just about in totality. The "all out of nothing" scenario I think you're referring to is the type put forward by Creationists, and I assure you most Christians I know are not Creationists. Then again, perhaps I'm just being reeeeaaally arrogant in assuming that you actually *are* referring to Christians, so I'll just shut up now :P
Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top
Not referring to creationists at all - referring to the similarity between "giant infinitely dense thing pops out of nowhere/exists and then BOOM" and "cannot be created nor destroyed". That just feels wrong to a lot of physicists, but I'm not advocating it by any means.
Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top
re: Bodyless
And last but not least: if you believe in something, why cant you do it silently?


I'll have to disagree with you here - I believe the sharing of beliefs can actually be quite a positive and constructive process, as long as everyone involved has an open mind and is receptive to having their own thinking challenged. If some of your beliefs don't hold up to criticism, it's not the end of the world, it's an opportunity to revise or replace them with something more rugged.

That said, if people are unwilling to critically analyse their own beliefs, it's reasonable to hope that they do not inflict them upon others.

re: Carbon16
The Big Bang does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, as all the matter was contained in an infinitely dense point, but it's certainly very similar to a "all out of nothing" scenario which is intuitively counter to essentially all of physics.

On what basis can you assume that before this singularity there was nothing, or for that matter, on what basis can one sensibly extend the concept of time to 'before' this event?
Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top
On what basis can you assume that before this singularity there was nothing, or for that matter, on what basis can one sensibly extend the concept of time to 'before' this event?


I can't and I don't. Where did I?

Time, linear or otherwise, is irrelevant: my point was simply that a cyclical universe seems intuitively appealing because it requires none of the above. Certainly, assuming an originally "timeless" universe (before the singularity), there is very little problem with it existing as it was, and it may well be a fallacy of extending temporal cause/effect to a non-temporal system (universe without time, has always existed -> circular/cyclical universe -> inherently temporal -> oops we just assumed time in a universe without time!) , but the more complete aesthetics of such a model can't be denied.

Again, I'm not defending it. And it's certainly fallacious for the reasons above. I'm just saying it's appealing because it requires no infinite regression (something that the longstanding argument against creationists has made much more important).

edit: also see here for an explanation of the cyclic model..not exactly what we're talking about but similar. Note that I think a lot of the string theory mumbo jumbo falls prey to the "sounds pretty" argument as well. dark energy has been conveniently and unabashedly used as a scapegoat for all sorts of crazy crap that couldn't be piled on to the standard model.
Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top
Maybe I misinterpreted your remark about drawing a similarity between the big bang and the " 'all out of nothing' scenario". At least to me, the statement "all out of nothing" only makes some kind of sense if you assume that there is some underlying passing of time.

I agree that cyclical models have a certain intuitive appeal, but our intuition is based only on prior human experience, and demonstrably fails pretty badly when it comes to physical scenarios that are well outside the realm of everyday experience. Both theories of relativity (I'm in no position to talk about general relativity) and quantum mechanics have an certain asthetic beauty of their own, but it's a stretch to call them intuitive.

edit: hahaha, good to see you threw in a dig against string theory. As the classic critique goes, it doesn't make any testable predictions and only serves to generate a heap of PhD theses.
Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top
As the classic critique goes, it doesn't make any testable predictions and only serves to generate a heap of PhD theses.


it's like the 'create your own ship' feature in GalCiv II except with more branes and a doctorate at the end

customize your own string theory variant! win fabulous prizes and grant money!
Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top
I guess I'm not being entirely fair. Theoretical physics has developed a fair bit of interesting mathematics as a side effect, and I can hardly fault that.

Going off off topic, I never really got into the GalCiv games, despite losing years of my life to Master of Orion 2.