I was not aware that you are a professional in this very area. Then you're obviously conversant with the data, which (as far as my contribution to this thread is concerned) can be summed up thusly:

"The Houston study interviewed 153 survivors of nearly-lethal suicide attempts, ages 13-34. Survivors of these attempts were thought to be more like suicide completers due to the medical severity of their injuries or the lethality of the methods used. They were asked: “How much time passed between the time you decided to complete suicide and when you actually attempted suicide?” One in four deliberated for less than 5 minutes! (Simon 2005).
Duration of Suicidal Deliberation:
24% said less than 5 minutes
24% said 5-19 minutes
23% said 20 minutes to 1 hour
16% said 2-8 hours
13% said 1 or more days"

In an Australian study of survivors of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, 21 of 33 subjects (64%) stated that their attempt was due to an interpersonal conflict with a partner or family member (deMoore 1994). Most survivors were young men who did not suffer from major depression or psychosis, and the act was almost always described as impulsive. A similar study in Texas with 30 firearm attempters found 60% had experienced an interpersonal conflict during the 24 hours preceding their attempt.

Hence my reference to suicide trying to solve (most commonly) a "temporary problem".

Not always. Don't forget people who have degenerative illnesses who would prefer to die than continue to experience suffering. Also people who have experienced traumatic events (prolonged sexual abuse, etc). The memory and pain of the - the PTSD may never go away either. Suicide may feel like the only method to gain permanent relief

Well, you've pointed out a permanent problem (the degenerative illness), and I fully agree with Physician Assisted Suicide in such cases (as do many if not most).

As to grinding, chronic issues, those become the "norm" over time and don't independently tip the scales to "not worth living". True, the pain they cause provides plenty of examples in the "negative" category, but if despite their presence, the calculation is "worth living" something else, or a drastic worsening, needs to cause the balance to shift.

And whence is one supposed to get the optimism to believe this argument or see it as relevant?

Presumably every person has a breaking point, some just reach theirs temporally sooner than others. Once a person has reached that point, based on what can they still see their particular predicament not only as temporary, but, more importantly, that many better things are yet to happen for them and that their life will be nice and easy from that point on until the end

Several things.

First, the source of the "optimism" is the Actual Data that proves that among those in your exact situation (contemplating suicide), the vast majority (70 - 93%) will change their mind and decide that life is, in fact worth living after all. Though your implication is correct that many can not or will not understand or accept that data. But that is an error.

Additionally, we all continuously make a calculation that weighs the positives and negatives associated with continued existence. And you are correct some reach the point whereby the calculation tips to favor suicide. Say someone comes to that point at age 24. Statistically such a change is commonly brought about by a sudden, unanticipated negative (divorce, death of a loved one, financial or professional loss). That is: an acute event, as opposed to the effect of accumulated chronic issues. Think about it, if everything was going great for me then in a week my dad dies, my wife sleeps with my best friend and divorces me and my business is sued and goes under, my calculation will switch from "worth living" perhaps to "not worth living". However, fast forward 2 years, the death of a parent is something essentially everyone comes to grips with, as is divorce and bankruptcy. You'd be in a totally different mindset than the previous time point. OTOH, if I was born into abject poverty, with no family support, no economic resources and clinical depression, and I have reached the age of 24, by definition my calculation at age 23 was "worth living", so maybe at 24 it has tipped to "not worth living". Well considering what I have (successfully) dealt with all my life probably what has changed is my clinical depression (since everything else is rock bottom). Clinical depression is notorious for it's roller-coaster trajectory of ups and downs, that is how you're feeling is likely temporary.

Lastly your goal of life being "nice and easy" is a false one. Loads of people with not nice and not easy lives believe their life is worth living, which is the decider in this context.

On that we agree (speaking of the commonality of the fleeting pondering of the concept of suicide). Hence my observation that the argument against suicide is: it's a permanent solution to a TEMPORARY problem.

I think it's often the case that people find that there are fewer reasons for living than there are reasons for dying. Sometimes those people choose suicide. It's a common enough phenomenon and there might be many reasons for it. It's been interesting to read people's responses to your OP. What are the least helpful answers here?

Huh? Only a small minority of the population attempt suicide. And even among those who attempt it and fail, only about 7% will reattempt and succeed, that is 93% won't die by suicide.

I’ve never much understood why permanent solutions to temporary problems ought to be shunned. It’s only temporary problems that have solutions, not the permanent ones. And does one not want one’s solutions to problems to last and thereby be permanent? How then is this supposed to assuage those who are suicidal and have no doubts regarding there not being an afterlife?

Unfortunately for your theories, the reality is the majority of unsuccessful suiciders regret their decision to attempt suicide. In fact among unsuccessful suiciders, greater than 90% will never die of suicide (23% will have another unsuccessful attempt, but a whopping 70% will never attempt it again).

The argument against suicide is that it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Some creativity involves creating an end product, say a movie, other creativity involves creating a pathway to an end product, that is: problem solving.

The outcome “4” exists from “2+2” by logical necessity

While true, it is bordering on insignificant and useless. Basically you're saying if you give me an answer I can come up with an equation that comes up with that answer. Of course my equation may not be how Nature came up with that answer, but it's AN equation that explains the answer. BTW, many, many actual explanations don't initially seem to be the most reasonable explanation.

Basically a bundle of (next to) nothing.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin?

Well in my opinion you should start with the realization that "good" ( and therefore "evil" as well) is a subjective descriptor. Thus good, to you, is whatever you deem it to be. Societies also decide what the common good is for the community.

Of course there are certain cases where the good option is almost universally agreed upon and many fall into the trap of concluding that "good" is therefore objective. Don't make that error as there are many more areas where there is no consensus on the good option whatsoever.

What do you think about kids using social media. Personally I would ban smart phone use (outside of the home) for anyone under the age of 18. Cities do need to adapt to the needs of children though - green spaces to explore with freedom is so important I feel (beyond the watch of adult supervision).

I think it's like the hullabaloo about TV when I was a youth (remember the "boob tube"?) and video games when I was a young adult. Could watching TV rot your brain? The main issue with TV back then and social media now isn't what TV and social media add to a youth, rather it is all of the other things kids could be doing with the time wasted on these electronic time sucks. The difference with social media is that you have the added issue of warped values as to the relative importance of things (such acceptance by peers).

Most disagree with you. If someone supports the right to abortion for no reason, why decry a situation when someone states a "reason"?

If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.

Ah yes, the fallacy of the familiar. Predictable.

The optimal scenario is to grow up in an era where there are no artificial aids, learn to perform tasks yourself, then later acquire the technology, since youll have a broader understanding of where the technology fits in the big picture. Those who grow up with the technology in place and never learn what the technology "helps" you do, without it, tend not to question the technology.

↪Talkopu, this reasoning is the same, as I said before, as eugenics for disabled people. Would you likewise bar disabled people from procreating?

You do know that in the deaf community some parents will do genetic testing to see of their fetus has inherited familial deafness (like the parents) and terminate the pregnancy if the child would be hearing, right?

After all, wasn't the reason for trying to work out what was good, precisely to enable us to decide what we ought do?

Exactly. "Good", as a subjective descriptor is a functional label (when applied to actions and outcomes) for what an individual finds to be moral, which is what that individual ought to do. Of course a different individual will have a somewhat different set of what they find to subjectively be "good", and thus will have a somewhat different set of what is moral and thus what they ought to do.

If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint.

Animistic deities were definitely not omnipotent and animism started over 14,000 years ago. Polytheistic gods are also not omnipotent. Omnipotence, as you noted was invented by monotheistic religions about 3500 years ago, but had only minor, regional popularity. Monotheism didn't really take off until about 1500 years ago. So yes, omnipotence of gods is a relatively recent invention.

It was a possible scenario post when you chose the definition of God with omnipotence. It was not my own definition of God.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario".

From a functional standpoint god definitions are essentially subjective, since each religion, and each worshipper within the religion, gets to decide what THEIR god means to them, essentially their "definition" of god, that you are focused upon. Just as we all decide what we find beautiful, we all get to decide what our god is or isn't like.

Since subjectivity exists in human minds, not in the objective universe, "proving" subjective entities "exist" is possible, yet meaningless. I'm convinced beauty exists, so does my neighbor, BUT what I find beautiful is totally different from what he does. We're both "right", yet being so correct doesn't further anyone's understanding of anything. It's just a word game, leading nowhere.

Huh? You might consider becoming more familiar with a topic before posting authoritatively on it.

Everyone is aware that first cousin marriage is legal outright in 20 states and DC, right?

Just to be clear the concept of omnipotent (and omniscient) gods was invented relatively recently. Thus the majority of gods are not omnipotent.

Despite the devolution of this thread into eugenics and the relative merit of not having children, the fact is that the main "wrong" of incest is when it involves unequal power dynamics, not birth defects.

Huh? I've spent considerable energy in this thread arguing against the concept of physically "proving" metaphysical entities, like gods. So, no, I don't need to define anything, since I'm not proving anything.

You?

You mean the typing "proof"? Well, it works great for unicorns (and anything else imaginable), so I'm not impressed, TBH.

As to whether gods are metaphysical, they are by my understanding, do you disagree?

Agreed, that's why my first post in this thread noted that it is a fool's errand to search for physical evidence to provide proof of a metaphysical entity.

I believe by "existence" you mean objective existence, which in the case of gods (or any other entity that only exists inter-subjectively) is, of course true (as I said). My point is that many things we deal with routinely and without controversy also don't possess objective existence.

Not quite. I'm pointing out the reality that in the past those with ideological differences tended or tried to follow their ideology where ever it led, even if they result wasn't to their liking. Currently groups advertise their ideology merely as a convenient label, but have no trouble not following said ideology if it happens to logically lead to a non self-serving (predetermined) conclusion.

God doesn't have any of those properties. God only exists in word.

Yes, the dollar's value can be "readily identifiable" after the fact, just as believers of gods can agree upon dogmatic properties of their gods. That's neither my point nor THE point.

Rather, the dollar only has value because the vast majority of humans consciously agree that it has value, that is, it has no intrinsic or objective value. Similarly, gods definitely exist as entities through agreed human belief that is, as intersubjective entities (like nations, corporations and economies), though not objective entities, as you noted.

The tragedy is the concept of unwanted pregnancies, which have the potential to result in unwanted children. Unwanted children are over represented in the criminal element as adults. Effective Birth Control has lowered this number considerably, but every BC method has a failure rate.

A not unreasonable opinion, but as anyone can tell, I was addressing Ourora Aureis' idea, I didn't originate the concept.

If you'd have read and understood what I've posted, you'd know that my use of the descriptor "Post Truth era" doesn't reference "ideological combatants".

One should only trust what should be trusted.

I don't disagree, but what distinguishes the Post Truth era is which entities qualify as "what should be trusted".

Is Germany an entity? How about Apple corporation? How about the US dollar's value? Intersubjective entities are entities.

I do agree that the numerous definitions of gods will "require" different proofs. Having said that, more importantly metaphysical entities (which the vast majority of god definitions are) defy purely physical proof.

Exactly. Before the rise of Fundamentalism in the wake of the Born Again movement of the 1970s, many if not most Christians were comfortable with viewing the scriptures as a moral guidebook instead of a history textbook.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the relative roles of distrust as pertains to enemies in the Truth vs Post Truth eras. My point is that among those who share the same conclusions, say party members and party leaders, shared ideology trumps adherence to the Truth (meaning the generally accepted Truth, not ideological Truth). Thus the rise of QAnon believers etc among party leadership.

How much Truth (in the Truth era)? The exact same amount. What distinguishes the Post Truth era isn't the absence or lack of Truth, it's the marginalization of Truth and a degradation of it's public influence. Previously, there was a general public consensus of the way various entities work, say elections. Of course many disagreed with this understanding, but there was a price to pay for verbalizing (usually self serving) alternatives publicly, since acting in a blatantly self serving manner in a public forum went against the public interest, which meant something in the Truth era Thus speech about ideas such as gerrymandering, or electing election officials who would only certify one party's majority could only take place privately among others with the same viewpoint. In the Post Truth era, a leader pays no price for verbalizing self serving proposals since his constituents are only interested in his conclusion or goal, but don't care how he accomplishes it nor the "logic" he uses to justify it. So liberated from any downside from not adhering to the Truth, he's free to say (or do) essentially anything, and for the purposes of this thread, that includes lying.

Nice thead. We are definitely in the Post Truth era. But having said that, I'm referring specifically to the way obvious lies are treated publicly, not individually. In the past (as now) everyone had their personal appreciation of what they understand to be the truth. What has changed is the way what is commonly understood to be the truth (by a majority of society), no longer serves as a guardrail to moderate publicly spoken opinions.

For example, everyone has a preference of how a society should work. Many in the past, collected observations of society, pondered what "worked" and didn't work, then came to a conclusion based on their interpretation of the "evidence". Now many more folks come to (an expedient) conclusion first, then cherry-pick observations to support that conclusion. In the first scenario, new evidence can change the conclusion, in the latter new conflicting evidence is discarded (just as conflicting evidence was discarded initially) so the (usually self serving) conclusion is never changed.

Similarly, in the past public figures feared appearing to have conflicts of interest, or appearing to behave inappropriately and thus often tempered their behavior and their rhetoric to give the (often false) appearance of fairmindedness. Now public figures know that their constituents likely support their policies regardless, that is they and their constituents share the same conclusion of how society should work, so are willing to overlook impropriety, scandals and (for the purposes of this thread) lying.

Majority acceptance does not signify that a moral stance is right. That's what matters.

No one said the majority moral opinion automatically makes an opinion "right", so I don't know who you're addressing. I said when viewed in it's own era a majority opinion is reasonable. That is a logical train of thought can lead to that opinion. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the reality that when dealing with complex issues reasonable, thoughtful individuals can come to different conclusions.