If God was the Devil, How Would You Know?

[Purple Knight]

Questions for debate: If the more powerful being were the evil, and the rebel the good, how would you know this? What clues would you look for? Would it even be possible to glean such knowledge in a universe where the evil being is omnipotent and controls all? Is it a nonsense question because a being that was truly all-powerful would have every authority and power to set up the rules for good and evil and simply favour itself?

[1213]

...A non-slave is legally free to work for whomever they want. ...

Yes, you can choose what you do, but you can’t choose stop paying taxes. And at least here were I live, there are plethora of taxes so that you can’t avoid them, even if you don’t work. And because of that, the choice is quite meaningless.

[nobspeople]

...A non-slave is legally free to work for whomever they want. ...

Yes, you can choose what you do, but you can’t choose stop paying taxes. And at least here were I live, there are plethora of taxes so that you can’t avoid them, even if you don’t work. And because of that, the choice is quite meaningless.

I don't subscribe to the idea that a choice is meaningless entirely. If it's a choice, it's one you can take as not everyone has a choice. In that, it shouldn't be described as 'meaningless' in any way, shape or from, less you strive to discount one's God given ability (if you subscribe to God, which you do) to choose.
This is no way means there's not consequences to one's choice. It strikes me odd, in a way (but not entirely) that you would claim any choice is meaningless.

[1213]

... It strikes me odd, in a way (but not entirely) that you would claim any choice is meaningless.

The choice is meaningless for do you have to pay taxes or not. No matter what you choose, you have to pay taxes.

[Purple Knight]

The one who can force you to pay taxes owns you similarly as slave was owned.

Not even close. Your desperation is showing. Paying taxes and obeying the laws is not the same as owning a person as property.

What is the difference in practice? In both cases person works for someone else and is basically forced to do so (In Bible, some did it voluntarily, which makes it little different).

I have to say there's some wisdom in this.

If you paid 100% in taxes you'd be 100% a slave.

And if Otis, who is owned by Mr. Flaid, is one day told, "Work on my plantation however you like. I trust you, and I don't micromanage, so just find what needs to be done and do it," then Otis is still very much a slave, because it's about Mr. Flaid owning the fruits of the labour of Otis. Just because Otis can choose to pick cotton or corn on Tuesday doesn't make him a free man on Tuesday.

Otis would be a free man only if it was his cotton, and his corn, to sell or eat as he pleased, and his labour was for the purpose of improving his life, not somebody else's.

[Haven]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #71]

You couldn’t know. It’s really that simple. If a being is truly omnipotent, then it can cause people to believe that its ways are good, and prevent any dissent from arising.

(Note: I’m back on DCR after a five-year absence, and didn’t read the entire thread—sorry if my response is out of sync!)

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #71]

You couldn’t know. It’s really that simple. If a being is truly omnipotent, then it can cause people to believe that its ways are good, and prevent any dissent from arising.

(Note: I’m back on DCR after a five-year absence, and didn’t read the entire thread—sorry if my response is out of sync!)

You're not. It got off-topic but I don't ever mind that.

Yours is the exact kind of answer I was looking for.

So let's run with that. Alright, you couldn't know, so do I have this right?:

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

[Tcg]

The one who can force you to pay taxes owns you similarly as slave was owned.

Not even close. Your desperation is showing. Paying taxes and obeying the laws is not the same as owning a person as property.

What is the difference in practice? In both cases person works for someone else and is basically forced to do so (In Bible, some did it voluntarily, which makes it little different).

I have to say there's some wisdom in this.

If you paid 100% in taxes you'd be 100% a slave.

Except for the fact that slaves receive no wages. If they lived in a society that required 100% taxation, they'd owe nothing. Only freepersons would owe taxes and only then if they chose to work.

And if Otis, who is owned by Mr. Flaid, is one day told, "Work on my plantation however you like. I trust you, and I don't micromanage, so just find what needs to be done and do it," then Otis is still very much a slave, because it's about Mr. Flaid owning the fruits of the labour of Otis. Just because Otis can choose to pick cotton or corn on Tuesday doesn't make him a free man on Tuesday.

It's not about Mr. Flaid owning the fruits of Otis' labor, it's about Mr. Flaid owning Otis.

Otis would be a free man only if it was his cotton, and his corn, to sell or eat as he pleased, and his labour was for the purpose of improving his life, not somebody else's.

Otis would be a freeman only if he weren't owned by another. If he were a freeman he could choose to grow or not grow whatever he chose. His choice may or may not improve his life, but it would be his to make.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

If you paid 100% in taxes you'd be 100% a slave.

Except for the fact that slaves receive no wages.

If you paid 100% of your income in taxes you'd receive no wages.

It's not about Mr. Flaid owning the fruits of Otis' labor, it's about Mr. Flaid owning Otis.

And he still would own Otis even if he chose to let Otis do what he will with his day. I choose the phraseology I do about the fruits of Otis's labour because you can own someone and not call it ownership. If you like, you can call it debt. You can call it servitude. You can call it punishment.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say, oh, I don't really own him, and people will believe it. In the modern world, sadly, even Otis believes it. But, Otis, when you pick that cotton, where does it go? Who benefits from it? That isn't so easy to definition away as whether or not you own somebody.

[Tcg]

If you paid 100% in taxes you'd be 100% a slave.

Except for the fact that slaves receive no wages.

If you paid 100% of your income in taxes you'd receive no wages.

Slaves have no income. 100% taxation would not change this.

It's not about Mr. Flaid owning the fruits of Otis' labor, it's about Mr. Flaid owning Otis.

And he still would own Otis even if he chose to let Otis do what he will with his day. I choose the phraseology I do about the fruits of Otis's labour because you can own someone and not call it ownership. If you like, you can call it debt. You can call it servitude. You can call it punishment.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say, oh, I don't really own him, and people will believe it. In the modern world, sadly, even Otis believes it. But, Otis, when you pick that cotton, where does it go? Who benefits from it? That isn't so easy to definition away as whether or not you own somebody.

It is called slavery. Taxation, no matter how large or small, is irrelevant.


Tcg

[Haven]

You're not. It got off-topic but I don't ever mind that.

Yours is the exact kind of answer I was looking for.

So let's run with that. Alright, you couldn't know, so do I have this right?:

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Yes, I'd agree 100%.