Here's an example from science to illustrate.

As you may know (I didn't until recently) time runs at different rates at different locations. This isn't a theory, it's been proven. I can provide more detail if requested.

The fact that time does not run at a fixed pace everywhere isn't especially relevant to normal human scale experience because we live in a very fixed location, the surface of the Earth, and the time rate differences between say, sea level and the top of a mountain, are so small (billionths of a second) that they have little practical impact.

However, this time rate fluctuation has to be programmed in to GPS satellites or they wouldn't work. GPS satellites are far enough away from the surface of the Earth that the time rate fluctuation begins to matter.

The point here is that things that are simple, obvious and useful at human scale don't automatically apply to ANY scale. And the God idea is basically referencing the very largest of scales, it's a theory about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

Hope this makes my challenge a bit more clear.

I believe that both the cosmological and ontological arguments are the application of reason. The make a reasonable argument that there at least in one point of time there was a necessary being. Or a reasoned argument for the existence of perfection.

These arguments, among others, are tests of reason against what I may believe to be true by faith. If one could make me a reasoned argument that would make what I believe by faith to be in direct conflict with reason. I would be a fool to ignore the reason to support the faith.

I believe that both the cosmological and ontological arguments are the application of reason. — Rank Amateur

Yes, they are, agreed. But that doesn't prove that reason is relevant to the God question, that it is a qualified methodology for this set of questions.

With respect, what you're experiencing is FAITH in the infinite scope of human reason. You are in very good company in doing so, but um, faith is still faith.

”Incorrect. If it's not in conflict with established fact, or in conflict with reason, then it's reasonable.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
What a pointless "if". It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith.

.
You’re confusing “different from” with “in conflict with”.
.
If you want to claim that faith that there’s God is in conflict with reason, then you’d need to prove, by reason, that there isn’t.
.
Can you show objective proof that Theism isn’t true?
.
No, there’s no scientific evidence, registering on Geiger-counters or ammeters. Your problem is that, as a Science-Worshipper, you firmly, faithfully, and unshakably believe that matter is all of reality, and science covers all. To you, Theism must be wrong because it conflicts with that premise. Yes, that’s what it conflicts with.
.
John Searle said:
.
“Materialism is the religion of our time, and, like more traditional religions, is accepted without question, and provides the framework in which other questions can be posed, addressed, and answered. “
.
He also said:
.
“Materialists are concerned with a quasi-religious faith that their view must be right.”
.
William Lycam (Lycom?) admitted that his “own faith in Materialism is based on Science-Worship.
.

”The matter of God, or the matter of the nature or character of Reality as a whole isn't amenable to, or a topic for, proof, reason or logic.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, that's not true with regards to the matter of God. This very discussion, as well as others, attest to that.

.
I would have dismissed all that discussion, but I’ve read a little about the cosmological argument, and it sounds like something that occurred to me too, but more ambitious than what I’ve been saying. I read a good defense of that argument. But I don’t know how it would work with my metaphysics.
.
But the cosmological argument, and the other similar arguments, take the matter a lot farther than what I say, It’s much more ambitious that what I’ve been saying, which has just been about impressions and feelings. I don’t know if it’s possible to rightly say as much as the cosmological argument, and similar arguments, say. But I can say that such arguments aren’t necessary to Theism or faith.
.
I’ve spoken about there being reasons, in philosophy and in common-sense, for those impressions. Those aren’t claimed to be, and needn’t be, proof. But I won’t go into those here, because they’re outside the scope of this thread.
.
I emphasize that belief isn’t the same as assertion.
.
But what about pure faith, aside from any reasons for belief?
.
That’s valid.
.
Some Definitions of Faith:
.
Simon & Schuster pocketbook:
.
“unquestioning belief “
.
or
.
“complete trust or confidence”.
.
Merriam-Webster:
.
“firm belief in something for which there is no proof “
.
(Notice that it doesn’t require that there be conflict with proof to the contrary.)
.
or
.
“complete trust”
.
Houghton-Mifflin:
.
“belief not based on logical proof or material evidence”
.
(Notice that it doesn’t require conflict with logic or material evidence.)
.
or
.
“confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing”
---------------------------
Nothing can be proved about the character or nature of Reality as a whole (unless one or more arguments like the cosmological argument are right—something that I don’t claim to know—or unless you can prove that there isn’t God.)
.
…so I’ll just say that, so far as I know, nothing can be proved about the character or nature of Reality as a whole.
.
Therefore, one person’s impression, opinion or trust is as valid as that of another.

.There’s nothing unreasonable or contrary to reason, about someone expressing trust that Reality is good. …unless you can prove otherwise.
.
Yes, I’ve heard the problem-of-evil argument. I’ve answered it in another thread. For one thing, it depends on an assumption of omnipotence. For another thing, it over-rates what happens in one life, in one physical world. You can disagree with that opinion, but you can’t prove that the worse things that happen in a life an in a world represent the whole character and nature of Reality as a whole.
.
It isn’t unreasonable for someone to trust something good about Reality, merely because it would be the good way for things to be. …and therefore arguably the natural way for things to be. Before you challenge that, remember I’m talking about something for which there isn’t proof either way.
.
So, trust, faith, isn’t unreasonable, even without any evidence. And anyway, in other threads I’ve spoken about reasons why things are pretty good overall. Let’s not get into it here. It’s off our topic, and I’d have to write another 10 or 20 pages.
.

I suspect that your error here is treating the matter of God as if it is the matter of God as per your personal take on it, whereby you've made it such that God is a special exception. You don't get to have exclusive say on God.

.
When Atheists claim that there’s no God, or that any belief that there’s God is in conflict with reason, their statement isn’t about any one particular conception of God. It’s a blanket denial of all conceptions of God.
.
Further questioning reveals that the Atheist’s One-True-God to (loudly) disbelieve in is the God of the Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalists.
.

“And, regarding a matter that logic and reason don't apply to, the only way to be in conflict with reason would be to try apply reason to that matter. ...as you're attempting to do.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, you don't seem to understand that a matter of faith, by nature, conflicts with a matter of reason.

.
You keep repeating that as a faithful chant of dogma. When “reason” doesn’t say anything about a matter, then, about that matter, it would be rather difficult to conflict with reason.
.
That has been explained to you several times, by several people.
.

They are chalk and cheese. If where I live were a matter of faith, which it clearly isn't, then there would be no conflict with my faith that I live on a boat in France, even though reason leads to the belief that I live in an apartment in England. Is a boat an apartment? Are England and France the same country? No, the two sets of beliefs, as well as how they were obtained, clash. They are in conflict.

.
In that instance, your faith that you live on a boat in France would indeed be in conflict with verifiable fact.
.
No one denied that faith can conflict with known fact. But it can’t conflict with reason on a matter on which reason has nothing to say.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Your problem is that, as a Science-Worshipper, you firmly, faithfully, and unshakably believe that matter is all of reality, and science covers all. — Michael Ossipoff

What's interesting about this phenomena is that it illustrates how faith is a human issue, not a religious issue. We tend to feel more comfortable as humans if we feel we know what's going on. If we can't believe in one explanation, if we've lost confidence in one authority, we're likely to go running in to the arms of some other explanation, some other authority.

Those who argue vehemently for their own preferred authority, whether it be religious or secular, are folks with a strong need to have an answer from someone they trust. They usually don't want their chosen answer interrupted by competing answers. They usually don't want their chosen authority challenged, because upsets the apple cart of "knowing" that they've carefully assembled in their minds.

There's no fundamental difference between vehement theists and vehement atheists, it's the same process at work in both cases. It's just matter of waving different colored fantasy knowing flags.

What's interesting about this phenomena is that it illustrates how faith is a human issue, not a religious issue. — Jake

Yes, and, in particular, a social issue and an image issue. There are a lot of people, some of them here, who need to perceive themselves as the scientific debunkers, champions of science.

As Searle pointed out, Materialism (or Science-Worship) is the prevailing religion of our time. In the minds of a lot of people here, proclaiming and championing science establishes one's credentials as one of the scientific, rational people. There's a perception of status in aligning oneself with the prevailing belief-system. .more scientific than thou.

Yes--aligning oneself with perceived authority.

There's no fundamental difference between vehement theists and vehement atheists, it's the same process at work in both cases.

Yes, I sometimes suspect that the people who are loud Atheists and Materialists now, would, in medieval days, have been loud and aggressive persecutors of accused nonbelievers in the official authoritative-perceived religion of that time.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, andrewk. Firstly, I'm not a theologian. I'm a metaphysicist. — Lucid

I just started laughing when I got here. I mean come on I know all of you did too.

Yes, and, in particular, a social issue and an image issue. There are a lot of people, some of them here, who need to perceive themselves as the scientific debunkers, champions of science. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, this is a very common position on philosophy forums. It's good that somebody is making that argument, but it's more interesting when they leave the emotional ego agendas out of it, to the degree that is possible for any of us.

As Searle pointed out, Materialism (or Science-Worship) is the prevailing religion of our time. In the minds of a lot of people here, proclaiming and championing science establishes one's credentials as one of the scientific, rational people. There's a perception of status in aligning oneself with the prevailing belief-system. .more scientific than thou. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes again, this is the mirror image of the "holier than thou" pose some religious people get wound up in.

If you'll forgive a shameless plug, in this thread I make the case that while science is clearly a very effective mechanism for generating new knowledge, out of control knowledge development is inevitably going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization. Thus, worshiping science as a "one true way" is not very rational. Understandable, but not full rational.

Yes, I sometimes suspect that the people who are loud Atheists and Materialists now, would, in medieval days, have been loud and aggressive persecutors of accused nonbelievers in the official authoritative-perceived religion of that time. — Michael Ossipoff

I've spent a lot of time on atheist forums over the years. You often find that the loudest atheists were once upon a time a loudest theist. It's not theism or atheism they are interested in so much as it is the experience of being adamant.

You’re confusing “different from” with “in conflict with”. — Michael Ossipoff

No I'm not. You're confusing line spacing with full stops.

It’s off our topic, and I’d have to write another 10 or 20 pages. — Michael Ossipoff

For the love of God, please don't. Your "Atheist Science-Worshipper!" over the top rhetoric is not something I'm in a hurry to see more of.

I intend to come back through and reply to those who have replied to me. I will admit, I'm not quite sure how to respond, in some cases.

For now, a question. When a writer writes a book. Are they condemned as evil for the horrors in which the characters experience? Unless the book is merely just a cover for the author to live out some fantasies, no. Why is this? Because adversity makes the story interesting, in a most cases.

Yes it's possible to have stories without any conflict or adversity, and yes they can be enjoyable; but they're often short, and simple, and thus proclaimed as children's stories.

So when the author writes of this crazed psychopath who unleashes his killing rage and murders hundreds of people, what makes this acceptable? Not merely the fact of it being a story, because if it was clear that it was just the guise for murderous fantasy, and held nothing in the way of plot or resolution, we would be sickened.

Nay, it's because the violence sets up conflict, which in turn sets up resolution, which presents progress. Or motion of narrative. The killer gets hunted down, or experiences an epiphany and turns himself in, gets accidentally killed... It could manifest in a variety of ways. The point is that we accept evil when we know it Leads to something, and isn't just ultimately senseless.

Some writers even kill off the entire human race but do we decry that as tragedy? Certainly we sympathize but more often than not it's with the principle that's illustrated by the action. An alien race contacts humanity with the best of intentions... But inadvertently brings bacteria which ends up wiping out the human race.

We feel the force of tragedy... But it's utilized in such a manner that we empathize with the alien races despair and subsequent vow never to wander the stars again.

If we lived in a perfect world... We'd die of boredom or lose our capacity for intellectual examination of life, much as the creatures in hg wells the time machine became simplistic and juvenile after completely dominating their environment.

Many people have brought up various diseases. But isn't it the point of a disease for us to overcome it? More than a few books have been written about just that, and we seem to enjoy those perfectly fine.

It's when we are in the story and unable to see the true scope of things that we find evil so tragic and intolerable.. and yet, isn't that another point of evil? Isn't one of the things essential to mankind our ability to yearn for more and rail against corruption?

Please excuse me for not reading the whole thread I have limited time and will get to it soon ,in hopes of a confirmation that it has already been thought of in the thread or atleast for it to be disproved so that I can move on to the next theory here is my two cents :

So God created for instance good and evil ,and the argument can be made why did he create evil then if He is all good ,the answer Might lie in that good and evil are two extremes of a much more broad concept ,a larger continuum, so then for good to exist evil must exist aswell or at the very least a lesser good than the ultimate good and except for all the concepts I might not have thought of yet I want to draw a line through most emotions and concepts like the one of good and evil.

What if good and evil don't actually exist in the sense of being two different things, polar opposites? What if it's just a matter of perspective, of context? What if the division we perceive between good and evil is a human invention?

For example, on the surface on the Earth there is a clear obvious difference between up and down. The concepts of up and down are useful in that limited context.

But once you get far enough out in space, away from any clear reference point, every up is a down, and every down is an up. Up and down are united as one.

To us, standing on the surface of the Earth, up and down seem like universal truths, because for us they are. But in the vast overwhelming majority of reality, up and down are meaningless concepts.

Seems similar to the concept of skeptical theism. Shouldn't we be skeptical of judgments on the nature of "goods or evils" based solely on our perceptions of our observations.

What is the basis of believing the statement the underlying assumption in the argument from evil

- We have looked at what we can see, and with what we can understand we do not perceive any compensating good for the evil we observe.

IMO there is a touch of human hubris in the underlying believe that if there was a compensating good - we would see it and recognize it as such - with the tools we have. We human beings have a very long history of believing completely in the knowledge of the moment, right up until we prove it wrong.

If one considers infinite realm of abstraction as as the possible state of affairs where compensating goods could exist - I am skeptical that if there was a compensating good we would be aware of it and recognize it as such.

That doubt is enough for me to not be persuaded by the argument from evil.

It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith.

Faith is believing something when there is insufficient evidence for a more formal conclusion. Sometimes when there is no evidence at all. Much of the time, this is reasonable. Faith that actually contradicts the evidence is, er, more difficult, though. :wink:

Faith is believing something when there is insufficient evidence for a more formal conclusion. Sometimes when there is no evidence at all. Much of the time, this is reasonable. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, when there's also no proof or convincing evidence to the contrary.

Yes, that's what Sapientia doesn't seem to get at all, because Sapientia is using his own personal, unusual definition of "conflicts with", equating it to "is different from".

Michael Ossipoff

”You’re confusing “different from” with “in conflict with”. “ — Michael Ossipoff
.
No I'm not.

.
How’s that for a compelling and irrefutable argument !
.
Re-assertion of a criticized claim, used as a supposed answer to a refutation or criticism of that clam.
.
…a common trademark-tactic and identification-mark of Internet-abusers.
.
I refer you to my comments regarding that matter, in my most two recent posts to this thread.
.
If only you could just tentatively let go of your ideology for long enough to just listen to yourself.
.
Thank you for giving us an excellent verification, demonstration and example of what Jake was referring to when he said:
.

Many or most vocal Internet atheists are actually heretics to their own chosen methodology. They're eager to apply reason to the other fellow's beliefs, but not to their own, which reveals they're not actually interested in reason at all, but have instead confused it with ideology.

.
You said:
.

You're confusing line spacing with full stops.

.
Often, jamming sentences end-to-end in a line or paragraph means that they distract from eachother, sometimes making them less noticed or less easily found, and sometimes losing some clarity.
.
Sometimes different sentences should get their own line or paragraph, for emphasis, better visibility, or clarity.
.
So I often like to separate them with a line-space, for that reason.
.
Another unconventional practice that I admit to:
.
A long sentence, or one with added clauses, can lose clarity. So I often use ellipsis (…) to separate an added clause from the main sentence.
.
A few other departures from standard “style”:
.
I capitalize names of religions, belief-systems, and philosophies, etc., or their adherents or advocates. In general, in fact, I capitalize categories in whatever topic I’m discussing. At sundial forums I capitalize the names of sundials. At map-projection forums I capitalize names of map projections. At calendar forums, I capitalize names of calendars.
.
I do that to clarify, distinguish and identify references to main categories in whatever topic the forum discusses.
.
I often hyphenate when standard style doesn’t, to clarify that some particular pair of words are part of a phrase that is used as a word. …most frequently, but not always, a noun-phrase. In fact, I sometimes even hyphenate-together two adverbs (but also words of whatever same or mixed part(s)-of-speech), one of which modifies the other, when it would help to clarify their relation, first to eachother, before their relation to the rest of the sentence. It’s akin to the use of parentheses in mathematics or logic notation.
.
But I also recognize that standard-style’s avoidance of those capitalizations and hyphenations could be justified on the grounds of writing-ease. But I usually prefer to put clarity first.
.
I was once accused of impersonating the Michael Ossipoff who’d written elsewhere. I answered that if I’m not Michael Ossipoff, then I’m doing a thorough job of imitating his unusual style.
.

Your "Atheist Science-Worshipper!" over the top rhetoric

.
First, are you sure that I’ve used the words “Atheist Science-Worshipper” together? .
.
Additionally, even if I’d used that word-combination), are you sure that I had an exclamation point after it?
.
Sapientia, we use quotes only for ]direct quotes. We don’t use quotation marks with combinations of words &/or punctuation-marks that the person quoted didn’t use.
.
Merriam-Webster’s definition for “rhetoric” that’s closest to the unfavorable meaning that you want to imply, is about insincere or dishonest implication or exaggeration, as opposed to accurate or reasonable factual statements or claims.
.
It’s meaningless, inappropriate and rhetorical (by the above unfavorable definition) to apply “rhetoric” to an accurate or reasonable factual statement.
.
In another thread, I quoted definitions from Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, for “Religion” and “Materialism”. …definitions by which (from both dictionaries) Materialism is a religion.
.
Additionally, in my post-before-last to this thread, I quoted John Searle regarding Materialism as religion and faith.
.
Additionally, next in that same post, I quoted the well-known Materialist philosopher William Lycan, a quote in which he admitted that his belief or faith in Materialism is a result of his “science-worship” (his term—When I use that term I capitalize it, because I capitalize names of religions).
.
Michael Ossipoff

I intend to come back through and reply to those who have replied to me. I will admit, I'm not quite sure how to respond, in some cases.

For now, a question. When a writer writes a book. Are they condemned as evil for the horrors in which the characters experience? Unless the book is merely just a cover for the author to live out some fantasies, no. Why is this? Because adversity makes the story interesting, in a most cases.

Yes it's possible to have stories without any conflict or adversity, and yes they can be enjoyable; but they're often short, and simple, and thus proclaimed as children's stories.

So when the author writes of this crazed psychopath who unleashes his killing rage and murders hundreds of people, what makes this acceptable? Not merely the fact of it being a story, because if it was clear that it was just the guise for murderous fantasy, and held nothing in the way of plot or resolution, we would be sickened. — Lucid

If he freely, unnecessarily and wantonly writes such a story, in which the fate of everyone (except maybe a few brutal criminals) is bad, then it can't be said that he's benevolent with respect to his characters.

Of course if he does so because he's constrained by a plot-requirement of delayed justice and postponed good results, including a literary necessity for undeserved bad results for some, then it could be fairly-argued that he isn't omnipotent regarding how he write his story.

I asked in an earlier post to this thread, if Atheists claim that Theists should believe that it's possible to make there be statements that are both true and false, mutually-contradictory facts, mutually-contradictory true propositions, and, in general, impossible contraventions of logic.

And I asked, "Because otherwise, what is the "omni-" in "omnipotent" supposed to mean.

Do Atheists want God to be omnipotent in that regard?

Lives are hypothetical experience-stories, consisting of complex logical-systems, systems of abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. ...with configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions..

The life that you're in is because of you. --you being protagonist in one of those infinitely-many experience-stories.

So do you think it would be possible to make there be a system of mutually-contradictory facts, or mutually-inconsistent truth values for propositions?

Because, if not, then don't expect God to make there be such a physical world, a made-to-order physical world in which everything is fair, good and right.

Among the infinity of possibilities for life-exprerience stories, you have free rein to make yourself consistent with whatever kind of story you will. Evidently you've stumbled, or you wouldn't have been born in a societal world like this one. A stumble can result in behavior that temporarily compounds and worsens the stumble. You're in worse surroundings, leading you to even worse conduct, leading maybe to a temporary worsening multi-life sequence resembling a multi-car pile-up.

But don't hold God responsible for the infinity of possibilities or the particular ones that you (maybe unknowingly) choose.

Forgive me for asserting my metaphysics here--I feel that it's necessary, at some point, to get down to specifics a bit.

If we lived in a perfect world... We'd die of boredom or lose our capacity for intellectual examination of life, much as the creatures in hg wells the time machine became simplistic and juvenile after completely dominating their environment. — Lucid

So you couldn't be happy in a world in which people weren't suffering horrible fates? Does one person's enjoyment or happiness depend on someone else's horrible suffering?

Many people have brought up various diseases. But isn't it the point of a disease for us to overcome it?

I could give numerous examples of irreversible things that can happen to someone, and ask, "How would you overcome that?" You get the idea.

It's when we are in the story and unable to see the true scope of things that we find evil so tragic and intolerable.

That's a bit more like what I'd said: This life and this physical world are only one life and one world, among infinitely-many.

These experience-stories are really insubstantial in their nature. ...implying an open-ness, ethereal-ness, and lightness to them.

But, even for the Materialist, things aren't really so bad. By their account, as animals, we're just purposesfully-responsive devices.

Since when does a Roomba care if you turn it off, or accidentally spill water into it, or if it falls downstairs?

Have the wisdom of a Roomba.

Sure we care about what happens to us--enough to do our best to achieve what we like, want or prefer, and, to that end, to last as long as we can.

But we're about our likes and preferences--as we act on them, when it's time to act on them. We're not about the outcome when it happens.

Kentucky Buddhist Ken Keys pointed out that we don't have needs, or even wants. ...only likes and preferences.

By the material account, then, if we're fulfilling our evolutionary design-purpose as best we can, what more is needed? We aren't here for things to happen to. We're just here to act optimally, for our built-in purposes as purposefully-responsive devices. So what's the big deal?

Don't worry about it. Just do your best. Buddhist have written that when you've acted on, or chosen how to act on a situation, then you've dealt with it.

And, still in the Materialist account, your supposed "free will" is mythical. Your choices are determined for you by your (built-in or acquired) preferences, and the circumstances around you.

So you're relieved of the burden of those "choices".

So: Where's the problem about your "choices" and the outcomes?

And additionally, this life, and even this entire sequence of lives, is temporary. And the sleep at the end-of-lives is final and timeless. ...and therefore is the natural, normal, usual and right state of affairs.

This life, or these lives, is the exception. Barbara Erenreich said something to the effect that death doesn't interrupt life--Rather, life interrupt sleep, the natural, normal, rightful and usual state of affairs.

So: Two answers to the Atheists' Argument from Evil:

1. There isn't a possible "omnipotence" like the Atheists posit.
2. Things aren't as bad as Argument-from-Evil advocates think.

Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, but I've added this edit-addition to my post before this one, and I want to add it here in a separate post too, in case you've already read the other post.

Since when does a Roomba care if you turn it off, or accidentally spill water into it, or if it falls downstairs?

Have the wisdom of a Roomba.

Sure we care about what happens to us--enough to do our best to achieve what we like, want or prefer, and, to that end, to last as long as we can.

But we're about our likes and preferences--as we act on them, when it's time to act on them.. We're not about the outcome when it happens.

Kentucky Buddhist Ken Keys pointed out that we don't have needs.. ...only likes and preferences. — Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

Correction:

At the end of my post before the most recent one, I mean to say that there isn't a possible omnipotence like the advocates of the Argument from Evil seem to want to attribute to Theism.

Michael Ossipoff

You said "So you couldn't be happy in a world in which people weren't suffering horrible fates? Does one person's enjoyment or happiness depend on someone else's horrible suffering?"

And I find it interesting that your take on " a perfect world would be boring" is to immediately assume that I meant it in the sense of Entertainment...

To answer you directly, no, my enjoyment does not depend on someone else's suffering, nor is that what I meant to imply. What I meant, was that my enjoyment depends upon MY suffering. Which brings more satisfaction: doing the job or hiring someone else to do it for you? Often, enjoyment is directly proportional to the amount of effort invested to reap the rewards.

Same reason why they say "no pain, no gain": it's a fundamental truth of our reality that satisfaction and enjoyment come through overcoming adversity.

Same reason why it's also said, that you could never be happy without having tasted sadness. In a more simplistic sense, you can think of it as how a rollercoaster has ups and downs. The ups are only ups because you come down, then go up again, etc.

Imagine a world where there was NO adversity. No problems of any kind. No bad weather, no conflict, no natural disasters, no famine or death... You know what would inevitably occur? The analytical centers in your brain would essentially begin to atrophy, having Nothing To Process. Meanwhile, more and more of your brain would be used to process enjoyment and creativity. Eventually all rationality would be lost until all that was left was a brain that could only operate on instinctual satisfaction of desire.

Think about humanity. Since our birth what has been the single constant? Adversity. Since he times of cavemen when hey discovered fire and the rudiments of toolmaking. Proceedijg to hunter gatherer states which were a strict improvement. Then on to agricultural and animal husbandry. Then, industry. Now it's information. Next, I strongly suspect, will be culture.

The point is that adversity, struggle, and conflict are an essential part in what has given us the intelligence and awareness we so appreciate, and without which, we would be little more than animals with a sense of wonder.

Of course there's something to what you say. There was a Twilight-Zone episode in which a criminal died, and found himself in a place where he could have whatever he wanted, for the asking. Always surrounded by adoring women, jewels, cash,, liquor, and he never lost at the roulette table.

Eventually it was all so easy that he was bored of it, and told he proprietor that he wanted to go to the other place. The proprietor said, "This is the other place."

And of course having robots, or well-meaning people, do everything for us wouldn't be any fun.

But you're ignoring the really horrible things that can happen to someone. You can't tell me that those things would make you happier, or that the fact that some of them might happen to you makes you happier.

As do I, you feel that what-is, is good. ...that things are really alright. They are. But not for the reason you're saying. Those horrible fates really are undesirable. The risk and possibility of those horrible things really is undesirable.

Is it good that unarmed Black people are being killed by police on a continual regular basis? Explain that to their mothers.

Likewise all the many other intentional massacres, torture and other atrocities that we all hear about, which, likewise, are being done regularly, continually and routinely. You and I, where we live, aren't subject to that risk. It's easy for someone who is safe from it to say that it's a good thing, but try explaining that to a family that has lost someone in that way.

Imagine a world where there was NO adversity. No problems of any kind. No bad weather, no conflict, no natural disasters, no famine or death... You know what would inevitably occur? The analytical centers in your brain would essentially begin to atrophy, having Nothing To Process. Meanwhile, more and more of your brain would be used to process enjoyment and creativity. Eventually all rationality would be lost until all that was left was a brain that could only operate on instinctual satisfaction of desire. — Lucid

The point is that adversity, struggle, and conflict are an essential part in what has given us the intelligence and awareness we so appreciate, and without which, we would be little more than animals with a sense of wonder. — Lucid

No, those things wouldn't happen if the weather were always good, and no one were perpetrating massacres or torture. There are plenty of other sources of happiness, plenty of other things to like.

I grew up where there are no tornadoes or hurricanes, Just the occasional earthquake. We heard about tsunamis, but never encountered one. But I doubt that anyone's happiness depended on the risk of a fatal earthquake or tsunami. I grew up during the Cold War, and yes of course anything dangerous is of interest, but there's no evidence for saying that a reasonable person couldn't have been happy without that danger.

When I was a kid, I liked to be told, read &/or ask about everything dangerous. Volcanoes, earthquakes, quicksand, the various kinds of really dangerous weather events, venomous snakes and spiders, crocodiles, large carnivore mammals that sometimes eat people. I suggest that it's natural and adaptive for us to be interested in things that could threaten us. That information could be helpful for survival. One reason why you and I were even born is because some ancestor of ours wanted to find out about things that could threaten his safety, and thereby survived something that he otherwise wouldn't have survived. The ones who didn't, many or most of them don't have any descendants now. We inherited that attribute.

Of course I liked those subjects. But there were also plenty of other things to like, and I don't think that we'd all have been miserable and bored without those dangerous things.

And the horrors of all the human-perpetrated atrocities and horrible diseases, etc. don't contribute to anyone's happiness.

Oh, one curious thing. One day in '64, they said that there was some small chance that a tsunami might arrive near or at our town. So my mom's guest, and my sister and I all drove down to the beach, and joined the crowd of people there who didn't want to miss the tsunami. :D

People sometimes seem to seek danger. Evel Kenieval is an example. But that's usually the exception.

Michael Ossipoff

Faith is believing something when there is insufficient evidence for a more formal conclusion. Sometimes when there is no evidence at all. Much of the time, this is reasonable.
— Pattern-chaser

Yes, when there's also no proof or convincing evidence to the contrary.

Yes, that's what Sapientia doesn't seem to get at all, because Sapientia is using his own personal, unusual definition of "conflicts with", equating it to "is different from". — Michael Ossipoff

two of my favorite quotes on this issue, taken together they about say it all.


Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” Thomas merton

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas

I'd like to correct some wording that didn't say what I meant:

Since when does a Roomba care if you turn it off, or accidentally spill water into it, or if it falls downstairs? — Michael Ossipoff

Of course, I assume, a Roomba is designed to avoid going over the edge of a stair-step at the top of a staircase. So of course that means that it does care if it falls downstairs.

...but only when it's time to avoid that. It's like us in that regard. We too are designed, by natural selection, to protect ourselves from harm.

Acting on a preference when it's time to act on it doesn't mean having an attitude about the outcome after it happens. Like the Roomba, we, as purposefully-responsive devices, are about the actions toward our design purposes. Period. That's why I say that we aren't here for things to happen to. We're just the one who acts for our purposes and preferences when called for. That's why I said that we're about our likes and preferences.

Hinduism speaks of life being primarily for play ("Lila").

Michael Ossipoff

Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” Thomas merton — Rank Amateur

Exactly.

Michael Ossipoff