Whether the end of hardship has value or not, it is still something that all of life seems to strive for. Most organisms have some function or another that is used to avoid hardship.
This is massively ill-informed. There are few things ALL life strive for and the main one usually involves purposely putting oneself through hardship and suffering(procreation if you couldn't figure it out).
So now that we've established that avoiding suffering can't be the purpose of life; with it probably being procreation. The point of stalling the inevitable is most likely so that you can procreate as much as possible. That was simpler and more obvious that I expected.
Why exactly is effort wasted in a dream? If it is because you aren't working towards a goal does the same hold true to effort in reality that isn't towards a tangible goal? What if the goal you were working towards becomes invalidated? Also if you never realize that it is a dream and thus wasted effort does this have an effect on whether the effort is actually wasted? Is it only wasted if you realize that it doesn't matter? I'm trying to nail down why you think there is a significant difference between reality and dreams if you can't tell the difference.
But it does not seem like that is possible for the majority. Enlightenment is something that (if it exists) is something a very small number of people have achieved.
Umm, I'm not sure if you read that link properly because it gives a fairly definitive answer to your question. Throwing out the random propaganda and justified hate of religion it can be boiled down to two stances. Simply if life is currently a net positive continue living, if life is currently a net negative consider giving up. Along with all kinds of reasons why we should let people choose but that is irrelevant to your question.
So for your exact question. Why continue to live if you will eventually die? Because I personally am currently enjoying life. If you aren't then 'my' answer won't help you. Though I would suggest to try to enjoy life.
The point is that living as though it is a lie means you would not have wasted any effort or time feeding into an illusion. It's a "safe" response. It's not paranoid at all, although I wish it was. It's taking the surest precautions you have available. There is nothing worse for humans than the feeling that they have wasted their lives, even death is preferable to that. It is rational to prepare for the worst case scenario, you should know that. This would entail living as such.
Your worst case scenario isn't bad at all. It would be a relief for some actually. The one I have presented is far worse because you are in a reality where nothing you do has any real impact and your efforts are truly fruitless. It's like being dead in the sense, but far worse since you are aware of the waste of your life.
Imaginary things don't have feelings, by definition. They have to exist for that to occur. Your feelings for imaginary characters don't mean anything because the object of those feelings is nonexistent. That's just how it is.
Ok, lets look at the simplified versions.
Scenario A - All of reality is an illusion
Option A - Do nothing __ You have stated this is the optimal stance so you waste nothing.
Option B - Live your life as though it is in fact real __ I take this stance because it is the most optimal after all if nothing is real you can't waste anything
Scenario B - The world is in fact real
Option A - Do nothing __ You have taken this stance out of fear and it has the most horrible out come you yourself has stated, "nothing you do matters because you did nothing"
Option B - Live your life __ I have taken this stance due to the unlimited amount of upside with literally zero downside.
So if you're right then there is no difference between our choices. If I'm right you have forced your own worst case upon yourself.
How can you defend this as rational? The safe response is assume that reality exist because that is the only one with negative outcomes.
You have yet to present a case for assuming you're right, either as the more likely truth or as hedging your bet. In addition you have not proven your worst case is in fact bad at all. You have failed to present an argument beyond personal melancholy and have met each counter argument with the equivelent of "I can't consider the possibility I'm wrong so you are wrong."
It seems rather rational. I mean you cannot know whether this is real or not, so your whole life could be a lie and you don't even know it is. We don't work on imaginary goal because the ones we have (assuming we aren't talking about a game) can cause real change and difference in the world. Having it being imaginary makes it rather futile to attempt to do anything. In short, if it was true then it would render life utterly meaningless and not worth living. The fear seems rather justified since no one wants to feel like they are running on a hamster wheel their whole life.
Your stance is
Everything MIGHT be a lie. And thus your entire life should come to a stop because if it isn't real whats the point and if it is real, are you sure it's real?
How is this rational? Even if we assume that both sides are equally likely, you are proposing living as though the worse side is the absolute truth and the other one is unlikely. This is paranoia, it is irrational at its foundation.
Even if everything is a lie so what? How is things be imaginary make everything pointless? You haven't given a good reason to live as though it is a lie rather than assume it is real. While the reason to live as though it isn't a lie is fairly good. Crippling fear of the worst case isn't really rational.
The point about imaginary people is that they have no feelings or any of the things that people do, so there is no reason to treat them as real. You can treat them however you want since there is no consequences which is the main reason we treat people as real (because there is a punishment for doing otherwise).
For imaginary people and their feelings. Are we talking figments of our own or someones else's imagination? Or advanced AI's? Either way why do they not have feelings? Why don't their feelings matter? As I said already I can't be certain you are in fact real and yet I am assuming you have feelings and am treating you far nicer than the people I interact with physically on a daily basis.
Even though people make bonds with fictional characters, they still ultimately mean nothing (even though they refuse to accept that fact). Plus I tend to regard anyone who does that as soft in the head.
Why do you get to decide that these people's feelings don't matter? What gives you the authority to disregard the reality they live? Especially when you currently fear living in a similar reality?
And from what I have gathered, the possibility is that bad. It makes life pointless to live anymore. When the worst case scenario is that everything you do is futile and useless then it seems rather justified that one should fear it being true. That those who don't are simply unable to grasp the implications of such a thing,
So the worst case scenario is everything in your life is futile and useless means don't do anything. Instead lets say the worse case scenario is if you do anything you will die(This is a real worst case scenario), however if you don't do anything you will die(again a real worst case scenario). Looking at the world like this everything being imaginary is no worse than the worst case if everything is real.
I'm saying that given such a possibility, how can people not crumble underneath it?
Why would this make people crumble? How could the mere possibility cause this?
How can they just act like nothing is wrong when they can't know which situation is true one way or the other?
Why would you act as if something is wrong when you don't know if anything is wrong. Isn't this the definition of paranioa?
Even if you did "wake up" from this illusion (if it was an illusion), you cannot be sure that what you wake to is any more real than where you previously were.
If this were to ever happen I could see why you would suddenly crumble but until such an event why would you live assuming that this could happen at any moment?
How can people live with the uncertainty about such a thing that serves as the foundation for everything else in their lives?
The same way people ignore everything else that contradicts their current preferred vision of life. Ignore it or assume it is wrong due to lack of proof(even if proof exists)
If it ends up being imaginary than what of your accomplishments and friends?
We already spend countless hours on imaginary goals so why would the revelation that the other goals we were working on being imaginary harm us?
Neither truly existed to begin with, and there is no reason to treat illusory people in the same manner as real ones.
Why? There is no reason to treat imaginary people any worse(or really any different at all) than real people. Take the internet, I can't prove you are a real person but I'm attempting to hold a conversation with you and I'm in fact far more polite than in 'real' life.
Any emotions or feelings such people would have would not matter because they aren't real, it's like a character in a game saying that to you. It means nothing.
Don't discount peoples ability to form emotional bonds with imaginary characters. People wept for days when Aeris died. You can substitute Aeris for a multitude of fictional characters. A character being fictional/imaginary/not real has never stopped a vast number of people from forming very strong very 'real' bonds with them. People even form bonds with their smart phone AI.
Given how bad such a possibility would be, how can people do anything at all if they cannot know one way or the other?
First, is such a possibility that bad? I haven't seen anything even suggesting that such a fact would be any kind of net negative. But lets assume that this is some life shattering theory, how do we live with it? Its really simple. You can live fearing the worse case scenario or you can live. If irrational fear keeps you from doing things then there is nothing people can do for you.
I'm shocked that you aren't getting this. It isn't that any conflicting views are met with this defensive stance it is that such a strong conflicting view is met with defense. Racist isn't just a 'your wrong' it is 'your wrong and a horrible person'. Such a strong conflict will put people on defense while slower approaches can actually yield results. I even stated how to go about this but you ignored this and instead doubled down on my first point. When debating you need to get the other person to see your side and then except it as fact, as long as you put off using the word racist until they actually see the side of the argument that makes the original thing racist then it can be used as a powerful finisher, but starting with racist is too strong of a shift and will make them reject your view without considering your side.
But yes if your opinion of a person is challenged it is more likely to put you on defense then if your opinion on a subject is challenged because people like to think they are good judges of character. Partially because it encompasses many facets while a single subject is exactly that, a single subject.
Mr. A: Mr. B, you're racist
=> Mr. B does not want to be characterized as racist, so he becomes defensive
Mr. A: Hey Mr. C, Mr. B is racist
=> Mr. C does not want to be characterized as racist, so he distances himself from Mr. B
Obviously a simplified version of the situation, and this may not be the case for every "Mr. C", but I hope it gets the point across.
This is only expected when "Mr. C" doesn't have a well defined opinion of "Mr. B". In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation, and the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point. You should ease them into the realization themselves, if you can't then nothing you do will help but at least you haven't picked a fight by using a loaded word.
Doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it. And I contest that the situation would always get you fired- it very well could, I don't think it definitely would.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but there is no way that would fly here in the US.
So you say, but it would be a private decision no? There is no law prohibiting saying it.
There is definitely no law on this because at my workplace, government run no less, you can't go a whole hour without one person being referred to by the 'n-word', though it may be fine because it is used only by other African-Americans. But this goes to show that we don't limit the actual words allowed, but we do have means for dealing with people saying things others aren't OK with and it isn't automatically harassment.
If your specific work place has such a culture that using the 'n-word' even once would get you fired then you have the responsibility to recognize that that type of culture has filled your work place and to act accordingly, this is all covered under the 'doing it respectfully' part of DJK's argument.
I find it very unlikely someone would use she/her/herself to refer to someone who identifies as male simply because of effeminacy despite their asking otherwise without any other kind of issues related.
I'm not asking you whether you find it likely. It's a hypothetical. I'm asking whether you think that, by itself, constitutes workplace harassment.
By itself this should never constitute harassment. However things are never by themselves, there is some kind of intent behind actions. If the person is doing this for the purpose of harassing, offending, mocking or any such thing then it is wrong. If they think it is only in jest, or in the case of nonbinary pronouns a constant slip of the tongue because you aren't used to the new word, then there should be other avenues for dealing with this that 'can' escalate to a harassment case but shouldn't start there. The point is that the proposed bill would make it harassment regardless of intent and intent is one of the most important issues in this kind of event.
In other words, Limbaugh is absolutely right -- consent IS the critical element -- and the only thing you can quibble with is whether that's a good thing or not.
Except this is so wrong it is frightening that anyone would think its right. The difference isn’t consent vs non-consent, that would essentially be one side is pro-rape and the other is pro-euthanasia. Neither side has these positions; at least we hope they don’t. The issue is never this simple and this is one of the worst possible ways of simplifying the issue. No one has ever said that anything is fine with consent, consent is assumed needed on both sides of the issue, each side simply has the view that certain actions are unacceptable even with consent. The scope of the actions they find fine with consent and unacceptable even with consent simply differ greatly.
I think I've kept up with both sides here but in case I didn't I'm starting with my understanding
Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.
Only God exists--->God preforms some incomprehensible action---->The Universe now exists
If I've understood correctly, you believe that creatio ex nihilo is illogical because we don't know/can't explain what God's incomprehensible action was or because for some reason God's incomprehensible action couldn't have taken place because nothing existed. Neither of these seem to make sense and if your position is something completely different please explain better so I can better understand.
I think the problem is that the OP is questioning why an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God requires that we pray as opposed to just fixing everything before its a problem. If that is the problem you are addressing then it should be spelled out and clear. This is personally my main reason I've never been able to believe in God, at least not the God in the bible as written.
These are not my personal beliefs as I currently don't pray but this question got me thinking so I asked around and gathered the various answers into a general understanding of what those I asked felt.
When they pray they aren't praying to God(I couldn't narrow down a reason why they didn't pray directly to God. Reasons included but were not limited to: "it isn't his place to interfere with ever little event" "(who ever they are praying to) is more sympathetic to their cause" "('') are more merciful and will better convey the message that is being delivered to God", they would pray to whatever saint was best suited to deal with whatever problem they had or even other figures whom were influential but aren't yet sainted. Even when they want to speak to God they don't speak directly, they use an intermediary such as the Virgin Mary, Jesus, or their patron saint. None of the people I asked are biblical scholars in any fashion but each of them is very devout in their beliefs even if they aren't supported completely by the book.
My only problem is with Rakdos Ritual, cards that don't do anything are weird and should be frowned upon. I'm not sure what you can have this do that isn't weird and then ramp up to the RB with the ability. Also rituals are scary, they tend to do very broken things in older formats and are thus priced abnormally high nowadays.
So now that we've established that avoiding suffering can't be the purpose of life; with it probably being procreation. The point of stalling the inevitable is most likely so that you can procreate as much as possible. That was simpler and more obvious that I expected.
So for your exact question. Why continue to live if you will eventually die? Because I personally am currently enjoying life. If you aren't then 'my' answer won't help you. Though I would suggest to try to enjoy life.
Scenario A - All of reality is an illusion
Option A - Do nothing __ You have stated this is the optimal stance so you waste nothing.
Option B - Live your life as though it is in fact real __ I take this stance because it is the most optimal after all if nothing is real you can't waste anything
Scenario B - The world is in fact real
Option A - Do nothing __ You have taken this stance out of fear and it has the most horrible out come you yourself has stated, "nothing you do matters because you did nothing"
Option B - Live your life __ I have taken this stance due to the unlimited amount of upside with literally zero downside.
So if you're right then there is no difference between our choices. If I'm right you have forced your own worst case upon yourself.
How can you defend this as rational? The safe response is assume that reality exist because that is the only one with negative outcomes.
You have yet to present a case for assuming you're right, either as the more likely truth or as hedging your bet. In addition you have not proven your worst case is in fact bad at all. You have failed to present an argument beyond personal melancholy and have met each counter argument with the equivelent of "I can't consider the possibility I'm wrong so you are wrong."
Your stance is How is this rational? Even if we assume that both sides are equally likely, you are proposing living as though the worse side is the absolute truth and the other one is unlikely. This is paranoia, it is irrational at its foundation.
Even if everything is a lie so what? How is things be imaginary make everything pointless? You haven't given a good reason to live as though it is a lie rather than assume it is real. While the reason to live as though it isn't a lie is fairly good. Crippling fear of the worst case isn't really rational.
For imaginary people and their feelings. Are we talking figments of our own or someones else's imagination? Or advanced AI's? Either way why do they not have feelings? Why don't their feelings matter? As I said already I can't be certain you are in fact real and yet I am assuming you have feelings and am treating you far nicer than the people I interact with physically on a daily basis.
Why do you get to decide that these people's feelings don't matter? What gives you the authority to disregard the reality they live? Especially when you currently fear living in a similar reality?
So the worst case scenario is everything in your life is futile and useless means don't do anything. Instead lets say the worse case scenario is if you do anything you will die(This is a real worst case scenario), however if you don't do anything you will die(again a real worst case scenario). Looking at the world like this everything being imaginary is no worse than the worst case if everything is real.
Why would this make people crumble? How could the mere possibility cause this?
Why would you act as if something is wrong when you don't know if anything is wrong. Isn't this the definition of paranioa? If this were to ever happen I could see why you would suddenly crumble but until such an event why would you live assuming that this could happen at any moment?
The same way people ignore everything else that contradicts their current preferred vision of life. Ignore it or assume it is wrong due to lack of proof(even if proof exists)
We already spend countless hours on imaginary goals so why would the revelation that the other goals we were working on being imaginary harm us? Why? There is no reason to treat imaginary people any worse(or really any different at all) than real people. Take the internet, I can't prove you are a real person but I'm attempting to hold a conversation with you and I'm in fact far more polite than in 'real' life. Don't discount peoples ability to form emotional bonds with imaginary characters. People wept for days when Aeris died. You can substitute Aeris for a multitude of fictional characters. A character being fictional/imaginary/not real has never stopped a vast number of people from forming very strong very 'real' bonds with them. People even form bonds with their smart phone AI.
First, is such a possibility that bad? I haven't seen anything even suggesting that such a fact would be any kind of net negative. But lets assume that this is some life shattering theory, how do we live with it? Its really simple. You can live fearing the worse case scenario or you can live. If irrational fear keeps you from doing things then there is nothing people can do for you.
But yes if your opinion of a person is challenged it is more likely to put you on defense then if your opinion on a subject is challenged because people like to think they are good judges of character. Partially because it encompasses many facets while a single subject is exactly that, a single subject.
If your specific work place has such a culture that using the 'n-word' even once would get you fired then you have the responsibility to recognize that that type of culture has filled your work place and to act accordingly, this is all covered under the 'doing it respectfully' part of DJK's argument.
Except this is so wrong it is frightening that anyone would think its right. The difference isn’t consent vs non-consent, that would essentially be one side is pro-rape and the other is pro-euthanasia. Neither side has these positions; at least we hope they don’t. The issue is never this simple and this is one of the worst possible ways of simplifying the issue. No one has ever said that anything is fine with consent, consent is assumed needed on both sides of the issue, each side simply has the view that certain actions are unacceptable even with consent. The scope of the actions they find fine with consent and unacceptable even with consent simply differ greatly.
So for a causal event we need
So for creatio ex nihilo we have
If I've understood correctly, you believe that creatio ex nihilo is illogical because we don't know/can't explain what God's incomprehensible action was or because for some reason God's incomprehensible action couldn't have taken place because nothing existed. Neither of these seem to make sense and if your position is something completely different please explain better so I can better understand.
When they pray they aren't praying to God(I couldn't narrow down a reason why they didn't pray directly to God. Reasons included but were not limited to: "it isn't his place to interfere with ever little event" "(who ever they are praying to) is more sympathetic to their cause" "('') are more merciful and will better convey the message that is being delivered to God", they would pray to whatever saint was best suited to deal with whatever problem they had or even other figures whom were influential but aren't yet sainted. Even when they want to speak to God they don't speak directly, they use an intermediary such as the Virgin Mary, Jesus, or their patron saint. None of the people I asked are biblical scholars in any fashion but each of them is very devout in their beliefs even if they aren't supported completely by the book.