It is far better to act moral than it is be called moral

In my view, doubt is just the scale that represents the difference between belief and truth.

Is doubt innate for humans or did it evolve? To answer the question properly I try to imagine if I was an early human who was without rationality and no a priori Knowledge to draw from.

I'm in existence, but I know nothing about it, One of my senses will create my first thought, most common was hunger, I suspect. Either way, I would act without doubt until the point when what I had experienced to happen before did not happen.

Not yet being able to reason, the memory of the interaction will still be stored in my memory. Before there was a concept of belief and truth, truth was everything I experienced. This is when doubt truly evolved. Before we could rationalize the difference, belief became the concept of "what it is", and truth became the concept of "was supposed to be".

Anyway, my point is, doubt was not innate, it was learned from experience. If you consider the brain/mind duality, the brain is the source of the mind, but the mind has an effect on the brain. The brain uses electrical and biological methods that allow it to create a storage space for experience input.

In the beginning, the mind was just a collection of experienced memories. But each memory changed the structure of the brain as it developed. Through time we evolved a consciousness. If you don't narrow the discussion to Darwinian evolution, then you must accept the fact of evolution as a concept being required because of time.

We will always be subject to the effects of time. Any differences between T1 and T2 can be considered evolutionary since T2 is inherited from T1. Any Social state, from S1 to S2 is evolutionary because S2 inherited the conditions of S1 in order to be able to become S2.

In both cases, time just causes changes everywhere, but it always moves forward, so what ever universe you choose to imagine, was inherited from a previous universe and was therefore evolutionary. The only thing innate in a species is what it has at the start. All else is inherited from there over time.

I hope this informs the conversation in some way, as far as it concerns doubt as innate vs evolutionary.

Ultimately, it's just my view of the situation, conjured from my imagination.

No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness.
— tim wood

This seems like a good model for making a decision with regards to an enemy, except when you explore the actual results that can occur due to 'no hesitation'. My favorite example has to be Custer at the Little Big Horn. He correctly recognized his enemy, and without hesitation he attacked that enemy.

The result is commonly known as "Custer's Last Stand".

Maybe I'm confusing the matter, but "no hesitation" to me means "no evaluation", which excludes all the concepts of situational awareness like scouting, or planning or determining strength of the enemy, or weakness, or any effort to minimize losses.

Maybe it's a clear model for a perspective, certainly Custer used it. His attack was simple and decisive.

It may be a valid theory, but for those intending to engage an enemy, it is not a strategy I would advise..

I've found the truth and it is provably true! I cannot present it because it will spoil the fun. I can verify it's truth once it is presented if anyone would desire that.

As I am simple minded by nature, I must do certain things that allow me to comprehend the subject in order to contribute to the conversation. In that effort, I will try not to contradict or criticize your presentation.

Firstly, I will use the term Creator instead of God, because God has too many connotations that can confuse the discussion for me.

I also substitute Creation for Existence, because there are too many arguments about the properties of Existence that make it interfere with the subject.

It is clear to most that a Creator has a single property of "the ability to create" and Creation is simply "that which is created".

By framing it this way, I conclude that the concepts most relevant to the discussion are Agency and Constraint. With Agency being defined as the power to effect. Constraint, therefore, is anything that limits Agency.

Our first Constraints are those imposed by our creation. At birth, we have minimum Agency and gain Agency as life progresses. Agency is only the power to effect and does not imply any necessity to act. Life is really only about the exercise of Agency, and eliminating constraints.

For me, this is the most objective way to approach the subject. To seek a "first cause" is really about determining who or what it is that possesses maximum Agency. The obvious answer would have to be the Creator. The Creator is the one who determines all the attributes that his Creation has. Anyone else has only the ability to interpret the attributes, and act on them in accordance with their own Agency.

Maximum Agency implies fewest Constraints. Ultimately then, we are looking for a being with no Constraints. What do we know that can effect all of existence and even create new existences? Something that exhibits the power of a God?

I have to believe we are referring to Time. And therefore I have to say its probability of existing is 100%

But then, that is just my view.

Because you only asked for thoughts and not a proof or contraction I feel safe in responding without justification. I have analyzed the statement as best I can and came to the following conclusions.

It's called "the lazy argument" not because the argument is lazy but because it advocates for ultimate laziness.

In using the term "fated" he is referring to "that which will occur in the future". It seems he is saying "whatever will be will be" so just accept it and take no action at all. His specific conclusion is 'don't see a doctor" but his general conclusion is "don't do anything".

Most people would consider anyone not making a sufficient effort to accomplish anything as "lazy".

My current understanding of the argument suggest that just because you might not succeed implies you should not try at all. Which is an excuse to not act at all. Is pure inaction without justification a philosophy I don't know about?

If that is not "Ultimate laziness" then I don't know what is.

To Tim Wood only:
I agree with much of your assertions, but mostly I applaud the courage displayed by your effort. Because of the Nature of the situation, I have to question your wisdom. Because of the ever present malady of confusing a container for thing contained, you should have known what the responses would be like. Since nearly all responses here contain some element of that malady. A valid reason for you to present the assertion escapes me. I just would like to let you know that it did have value to me as a way to help relieve your suffering. Which is to say, in the common sense, I feel your pain!

Ponder this simple truth:

"A creation cannot know its creator"
ergo: No amount of discussion about the creator will ever produce any knowledge of the creator so such conversations are totally void of truth and are no more than gossip.

The fawn has importance to me, based on two questions:
1. How burned is it?
2. Is it still edible?

Every definition I can find for consciousness is referring to self. This is to say "internal" awareness. Computability is the ability to process information from an 'external' source. Even with AI, adding sensors only expands external sources. Unless you can develop a program that creates it's own data, then it cannot have an internal subject of reference. And even if you could write such a program, it would have to create it's own algorithms designed to produce 'awareness'.
A reasoned argument does not rely on names or definitions unless you contradict the meaning as it is used. 'Horse' is a name provided for reference so it can be can be used to communicate to others. The definition can be altered by anyone. But if you are going to define everything yourself, you will not be able to communicate and therefore you'll provide no information to anyone and thus you can't answer any questions.

I am 67 and I am perfectly amenable to the prospect of death. God or No God, at least I'll determine the Truth or I won't know anything. But I am not in a hurry to throw away the thing that is of greatest value for all living things. Time. You may not believe it now but you will change and change again and with those changes will come a new and different set of values. Perspectives that will delight and revile you and delight you again. When you get out in the World you will learn more about the Truth in the World than you ever dreamed of in college. You have a sack full of diamonds in your possession right now. They may be uncut now but they will shine sooner that you think. . But do you really want to throw all that value away without enjoying any of it?

Live Long and Prosper.

I'm 67 years old and my quality of life has been awesome. I only had the earliest effect of technology when I heard about the Russians putting a man into space on my 10'' B/W TV that got 2 channels. Watching all the technology evolve to todays world was a blast to experience. But as for quality of life. I wouldn't change 1 second of my life for the life you guys will experience. To hell with all the technology.

Live Long and Prosper.

Geez, I'm glad you all weren't around when I was growing up. Acceptance is one of the first things I learned. I learned early that hunger was gonna visit me pretty much every night. But I had no way of doing anything about it. I was 5' 11' / 3/4 and weighed 138 lbs when I graduated and put on 29lbs in
9 wks of Boot Camp. Acceptance has been a defining element in my wonderful long life. Brooding over what the problems of the world are is the greatest waste of the most valuable thing everyone has in their lives: Time. Hell, I'm 67 and I've got less Time left than all of you. I'm not going to waste my time fawning over the Worlds issues. I waited till my thirties to go to College and get a degree. Acceptance will calm the anxiety right of you. People will sense the fact that you aren't sweating over small things and people will find you personable, non-judgmental and pretty much agreeable to anyone.
I took one philosophy course in College and that was enough. If you want to learn understanding about existence and values and truth, the best method for learning all that stuff is to get out in it and enjoy it. You'll never feel the need to consider perspective again. You'll have the best perspective your Time can buy.

Live Long and Prosper.

If any of those letters have the facility to want, I bet the first thing they'd want is to get the hell off your screen and get as far away from you as possible.

Labeling is not an act of definition. You are confusing the container with the thing contained. Labeling is by definition an act of giving a thing a label. Naming something is not the same as defining the thing itself. I doubt now your ability to discern the difference between any two objects because you clearly have weak comprehension skils as demonstrated by the inability to form a proper argument. The inaccuracies in your statements make it easy to understand why you prefer belief over truth because you don't possess the faculties necessary to validate the truth of even a simple expression. You are just plain irrelevant in relation to this site and any reasoned discourse so I will conclude and bother you no further.

I proposed no definition of anything, I just stated that the difference between the two was clear and so to treat them as identical has no justification that I can derive for the failure to recognize or accept that the two are not the same. My distinction between the two is based only on the single fact that one has satisfied the required condition for acceptance and the other has not.

A Justified True Belief is just a restatement of the condition where sufficient evidence to accept the statement as Truth has been achieved. To continue to refer to it as a belief expresses an unjustified resistance to accept the existent difference.

Not to put a fine point on it. But the two statements are not equal. A truth is a statement with sufficient evidence to accept the statement as truth. A statement of only belief is a statement of minimum evidence or at least that the belief does not have sufficient evidence to accept the truth of the statement.
If he's making the statement of truth when he has no direct knowledge of it then you have to consider that the statement was made by his friend and likely a trusted source. A trusted source magnifies the evidence to a sufficient level that acceptance established the Truth. The value of a statement of belief is greater when the establishment of truth has been achieved. Since the greater value was stated then the extra statement of affirmation would have been redundant and unnecessary. It would have been irrational because the extra statement of belief would have added no value in terms of a contribution to the conversation. However, the effect of the statement lacking belief caused a good deal of contribution to our conversation.

I guess I am not reading the statement correctly because it is truthful and reasonable to me. He states that it is raining, which is factual and true so he has confirmed the truth. The fact that he states that he doesn't believe it is true is because there is no necessity to hold a belief in anything after you have established the truth.