Right, there are mathematical and other applications to it, but I still feel that all it proves is that all actions and reactions within a controlled natural system (earth, math, smaller systems, etc.) are all related to each other. First of all, I don't think that this proves that there is any reason for any of it. And secondly, I don't think that it's applicable to humans since the introduction of self awareness, responsiveness, and emotion changes all of the underlying premises which the Chaos theory needs. It's like using a robot to depict love...it's just not compatible.

I'd be interested in hearing your story whenever you might get around to posting it...the thread will be here.

No not at all, I was just using emotion as an example that the Chaos theory may not cover all of the situations being discussed. I used emotion as an example because I think that when most people say that everything happens for a reason, they are often referring to interactions between humans and generally emotional things such as love.

Chaos theory, if I recall it correctly, has no relevance to human interaction...rather it pertains to the underlying chemical and biological interaction of all existing matter. That wouldn't necessarily have any impact on anything involving cognizance or emotion.

First, thanks for the civility and let me be clear that I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong or change anyone's mind. This is all opinion.

I'm curious though about these patterns that you find. What about times in your life where there were no patterns when it seemed like there should be? What about times when the pattern only fit because you were simply looking at the instances which fit the template of the pattern instead of realizing all of the instances which were outliers to the expected pattern?

I just don't think you can pick convenient patterns and claim that everything has a pattern. The outliers don't prove the rule.

The belief in free will seems pretty incongruous with the notion that everything happens for a reason. Unless the "reason" that it happened was for the promotion of free will, which would be circular and nonsensical.

I strongly disagree that everything happens for a reason.

In order to accept that proposition, it's necessary to believe in a higher power and to disown the concept of free will...neither of which I'm comfortable doing.

I think you're right in your post about what love is...but I don't think you can accurately assess whether those feelings are true or not if you never see each other in person.

I started mine an hour and a half ago, but my POS dryer still hasn't put a dent in the wet clothes!

Have you ever met or spent time in person? A month is short, but it can happen if you spend a lot of time together that you know you're in love with someone after a month. If it's only online or over the phone, though, then it's not a very accurate predictor...

People write entire books about this sort of thing. (See: Peter Singer) There's no simple answer to display a viewpoint. Everything will be affected by context. Killing plants is fine sometimes (but what if it affects an ecological habitat?). Killing flies is fine (but what if they provide an important biological process?). Etc.

My morals for human interaction is most closely aligned with a Kantian viewpoint, although I sometimes stray from that when pressed in certain specific situations.

How do we know whether or not a plant has feelings? Anatomically, it may simply be prevented from a noticeable reaction to pain. More likely, though, you're right that they do not feel pain.

But is the simple infliction of pain an absolute barrier to the righteousness of something? (I'll try to avoid the word 'sin' since it's ridiculously subjective). We execute killers and consider it just. We often inflict very small levels of pain to enforce a point. Where does it change from justified to unjustified? To me, it's ridiculous to argue that you have to pick a black or white opinion...there needs to be a sliding scale. Sometimes inflicting harm on some organisms, human or otherwise, is justifiable.

Hey chicka, it was me that left for a while. I popped back in, but it's not so great in the forums any more from the looks of it...so don't expect me for long, haha.

He asked if it is a sin to kill anything that's living. Plants are living. It's a legitimate extrapolation according to the initial terms.

extrapolate it further to a microcosmic level then...do you feel bad when you hurt/kill plants?

For the record, CNN broke this story.

optical

lexical

edit: medial

Technically it wouldn't be a felony then.

wait, isn't it supposed to end in -al ?

diabolical

Not much, honestly.

A tense situation could lead to an impromptu decision, or an overall lack of a bearable and prosperous future could lead to a well thought out crime.

Just telling it like it is. So now you know if I fail out of school to lock your doors or I'll rob you.