God is simply one out of an infinite options. A first cause not being a God is simply one other out of an infinite options. This is not a discussion of God. This is simply a discussion of what being a first cause entails, and that we cannot say with certainty what that first cause must necessarily be.

My God, yes. We all do this, myself included. It was this realization that made me give up Philosophy as a career. I thought in my youth that if you could solve certain logical problems, people would be happy to find them out.

No. They will hate you when they cannot counter you (In a polite and non-arrogant discussion). They will slam doors in your face. They will listen to five percent of what you are saying while ignoring the other 95%. They will work to twist your words out of context to fit their personal outlook on the world.

VERY few people want the truth. They want a truth that fits themselves. Most people are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings that try to fit the world into their own ideal.

If they don't care to try to find truth, why should I? Why should I fight people who don't want to hear it? Further, why should I listen to others when most aren't trying to impart other truths, but simply trying to convince others of their own view of the world? It was one of my more depressing realizations about people. Again, including myself. I am not innocent or above this myself. However, I do try and fight that inner demon that makes us worthless beings.

The way I view morality is, that only moral agents can be said to be either moral or immoral. So an outcome (not being a moral agent itself) cannot be said to be moral or immoral, as far as my views go. — Tzeentch

I agree to an extent. I'll clarify my statement better. Yes, agency is needed to determine morality. We don't consider a comet immoral if it destroys the Earth. Moral intents are that a particular outcome should occur. The outcome of a person's moral intentions would be called moral outcomes. One can have good intentions, but still produce immoral outcomes. Morality is the question of, "If I do this, will the result in X"? So I believe we cannot speak fully about morality if we do not also talk about its outcomes.

Does that make sense?

I've always summed the approach as entities having the ability to discretely experience.

Imagine a camera taking a picture of a sheep in a field. It does not know that there is a "sheep", or a "field". Its just the experience. But thinking things can look at that blob of white and see that its different from that blob of green. They can observe the "discrete" within experience.

I can observe a field of grass. A blade of grass. A portion of the grass. I can ignore the grass entirely. I can part and parcel my experience however I desire. This, to me, is the basis for all other thoughts and determinations about reality.

The ability exists irrespective of actual truth or fact, that is to say the person can argue a lie or untruth as incontrovertible fact and thus convince people to adopt their views /perspectives with relative ease. — Benj96

This argument is basically mind control. Since the facts don't matter at all, its about someone having absolute power over other people. What would they do? Depends on the person of course. Some would use the power for evil, others would use it for the power of awesome.

Would other's meaning be lost? Well, not the meaning of the person controlling everything. People would lose their agency, independence, and free will. Humanity would essentially turn into a hive mind. I believe most people would be repulsed at the idea, even if they know they would be completely happy, satisfied, and have a new meaning in serving "the great one", if they gave their agency up.

I believe we generally are against this because one person cannot be everything. Humanities strength comes from the variation within the species. It allows us to adapt and change to new circumstances. One person cannot adapt and be good at everything.

We can then go on to say that 'what is' is eternal in the sense that it cannot have a beginning or an end, making it to be unbreakable and unmakeable, deathless and ungenerated, etc. — PoeticUniverse

I'll politely disagree. A self-explained cause has no underlying necessity as to what it is. It cannot have any, "must be", because that implies some rule beyond itself. It can be anything. Anything! It could appear for five seconds, then blink out of existence. A self-explained causality could even appear within a causal universe and disrupt it. While a self-explained entity could also be eternal and be the "first" thing (thus the start of time if time can only exist with "things"), that is only one option out of an infinite other.

I have defined deprivation as an aspect of a harm that removes a benefit from a particular person. — TheHedoMinimalist

Right. The ability to choose is a benefit of a person. People like personal agency.

The primary aspect of rape that makes it really bad is that it causes a lot of suffering which isn’t inevitable suffering. — TheHedoMinimalist

What is the cause of the suffering? The suffering of broken bones is different from the suffering of a broken heart. People like to have sex, but they like to have sex with people they choose to have sex with. Rape is removing a person's choice NOT to have sex. It is the removal of this personal agency that in my mind defines rape. If you have another way of defining it, feel free to propose it.

I suppose what you are trying to say though is about whether suffering is inevitable. We should define that more clearly.

While it is inevitable we will all die one day, dying at the hands of the murderer is not inevitable at that particular time. If the murderer did not interfere, it was inevitable that you would live. If we ignore the time between when you were murdered, versus when you would die of "natural causes", we are missing a major part of the equation.

The only way we could state murder to be equivalent with dying is if a person was murdered at almost the exact moment they would have died naturally. But the idea of, "You're going to die in 20 years, so its not so bad if I murder you now," doesn't work as a valid comparison

Though, I was talking more about painless murder being not as wrong as we typically think. Under my view, one could be committing a major wrong by murdering someone painfully. — TheHedoMinimalist

Actually narrowing down what you mean by a "major wrong", is difficult because of statements like this. Now its not inevitability, but the idea of murder with pain versus murder without pain which determines what makes it a major wrong versus not so bad. But that doesn't answer whether that's a major wrong in relation to different types of wrongs. Of course getting sliced into bits with a razor blade while numbed is going to be a less horrible experience then if you feel every second of it, but does that make the action less wrong then having 5 dollars stolen from you?

Another thing worth mentioning is that there is a silver lining to getting murdered in that it alleviates you of any future suffering that you might have to undergo. — TheHedoMinimalist

The problem is you're not including all of the other positives of living you might have to undergo as well.
Its kind of like saying, "I stole all your money, but don't worry, now you don't have to pay taxes anymore". Taxes are not the only thing we spend money on. Suffering is not the only thing we spend life on.

Again, all of these griefs have the potential to resolve themselves into something better, except murder.
— Philosophim

Why do you think that? — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, that wasn't very clear. If my friend has five dollars stolen from them, I can feel grief at their loss. But five dollars can be earned again. If my friend breaks up with their significant other, I can feel grief at their loss. But they could possibly remarry, and they have other things in their life they still enjoy. Murder is the end. I will have grief over my friend. They will never come back. They will never experience life again. There is no potential for future joy or improvement. There is only the end.



.

We can determine an action to have a good/bad effect only in relation to an observer; we judge the act to be moral/immoral by relating that position to the awareness/intention of the causal agent. — Possibility

That is one way to attribute it. I believe what I was talking about was moral outcome, not intentions. If in my ignorance I accidently kill a person, my action resulted in an immoral outcome. A repeat of that action, would also result in the same immoral outcome. Moral intentions are nice, but they don't prevent the murder. Ignorance is the true cause in the proposed case, as we're assuming the person would be willing to make a choice that would result in a moral outcome if only they know the consequences of their action.

There's an old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". What I would attribute to the person though is, "Moral intent". Which, as you stated, if they have all of the information and capability available to make a moral action, we run into the binary result you proposed. However, people are not always aware of the information needed to make a moral outcome. It is tragic when a person has moral intent, but ignorance causes them to do immoral things.

But to add to what you are further saying, I agree that if one realizes the dangers of ignorance, a moral action would be to seek to remove it. If a person is unaware that they are ignorant, or how to solve that ignorance however, it may require others to come into the picture, or a the person to stumble into the result and learn "the hard way".

So in the end, while it is a nice description of moral intentions, that wasn't the point I was addressing. What about moral outcomes? If an ignorant person commits an immoral action with good intentions, what is the true evil here? Is it the person? Is it ignorance? Is it something else?

I don't ascribe to taoism or buddhism. Nothing against yourself if you do. =) Whatever you read in an astronomy text book is my view of the universe.

Does uncaused cause come from nothing. And can nothing be a power? — Gregory

No. An uncaused cause does not "come" or is "caused" by nothing, or anything. It has no prior explanation for its being. It is quite literally, magic that we logically conclude must be real.

It can take time to wrap your head around what that means, it did for me anyway.

I just tried to show that there are many different cases and not all of them have the potential to resolve themselves into something better. And it looks like your arguments missed such cases completely. — Skeptic

All I did was answer your question as presented to me. If you have specific criticisms you would like to discuss, feel free to point them out.

I have only one question after reading your arguments, why does euthanasia exist in this world? Maybe your missed something? — Skeptic

Lets take a look at Wikipedia's definition of Euthanasia.

"Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary:[6]

Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries.
Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in all countries.
Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

In all cases, Euthanasia without consent is considered a crime. Murder is taking someone's life without consent for persona benefit. It could be gleaned that Euthanasia without consent is considered murder.

From Brittanica:
"Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures. "
britannica.com/topic/euthanasia

In the case of "acceptable" euthanasia, it is understood that the person is suffering from something which has no potential to improve. Yet this is not a mere ailment, but something considered typically debilitating and an excessive degradation in quality of life, possibly to the point of not being able to survive without assistance. Regarding my above points, the lack of potential improvement seems to fit in with the trend of something being terrible.

So with consent, I do not believe Euthanasia would be considered murder. Grey lines start to come into affect when a person is unable to give permission, but a close friend or relative believes the person would give permission if they could.

I these three identities

So much for theory. I assume you have experienced a) friendship, b) love, and c) lust. So, restricting yourself to as full an explication of your experience as you can, what was your experience of "romantic love"? — Bitter Crank

I keep these three identities in mind as goals to work on. You can improve your sex life. You can work on developing your friendship. You can work on choosing to love a person. Further, I try to see what my partner seems to desire more, and give more effort to that.

Its seemed to work well. My problem is...I found I'm a bit of an asexual. I faked interactions in my youth, and it was successful. The problem is, I'm ultimately lying in my interest, and eventually came to grips with the fact that relationships really aren't my bag of tea.

Even so, its fun to think of the "ideal" in terms that can be broken down into the "real".

"a combination of lust and trust". Lust and trust have better long range prospects than romantic love.

Lust and idealization seem to be the essence of romantic love. — Bitter Crank

I think these all fit within the aspects of love, friendship, and lust. Its another way to view it, but the underlying essence seems similar.

This is just pop psychology. You can find this in horoscopes and psychic readings all around the world.

Yes. So a lot of math at that level is abstraction. Its "good enough" for many of our purposes, but its not exact.

Quantum mechanics presents a special problem. You see, to measure something we bounce one thing off of it, and read the result. That's the way light and sound work. As long as the thing you are bouncing is small enough, it does not significantly impact what you are measuring.

At the quantum level though, we are actually shooting enough mass and energy at the thing, that it alters the state of the thing we are observing. Combined with the fact an electron is more an abstraction then a particular spot, it leaves us with the uncertainty principle.

Philosophy is about questioning all things. To take what we assume, and really examine it at a logical level. Perhaps someone is concerned about such negative things, and is asking because they seek an answer to an emotional quandry they have.

If you wish to answer their questions, strive to find the positive side. Really dig into their assumptions and see if it holds out. We should not be afraid that people ask questions about even the worst things. We should only be afraid that we do not give a proposal its just due and put it through its paces.

That being said, I'm glad your voice is here. Don't worry about the doom and gloom people. Do what is right and meaningful by you. We can control nothing else.

Most atheists, like religious people, live their lives as things and ideas have value and an inherent meaning when there can’t be any. — philosophience wordpress com

This is not evidence based, but preaching. You do not know this. Perhaps a better way to address this would be to find specific things that give atheists meaning in their lives, then evaluate those answers.

I'll volunteer. I find meaning in my continual existence. In getting up in the morning and grinding fresh bean coffee. In thinking about things. Playing some video games. Solving coding puzzles at work. I find meaning in discussing questions like this. =)

I enjoy living for its own sake. I want to ask you something. If there is an afterlife, will you enjoy it for its own sake? Will it not have meaning when you reach it, as you then know there is nothing beyond it?

Further, did not God make this world? Did God not make it good? Have you ever thought that not getting meaning in living in God's creation today is an insult to God's creation? I don't mean this snide, but genuine questions to think about. Cannot the atheist enjoy God's creation, even if the atheist doesn't know about that God? Would God not be pleased by that?

Questions like these can be good to re-examine our assumptions. However, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. You're not claiming that murder isn't wrong. You're saying, "Its not as wrong as X". You also claim its not a "major wrong". What is a major wrong? I think this needs to be defined as well.

Still, lets look at some of the arguments.

1. Deprivation.

Deprivation applies to most wrongs. Stealing deprives one of things. Rape deprives one of sexual choice. Each of these deprivations though can be recovered from. Murder, cannot. As there is potential to better oneself in almost every wrong except murder, I can't see these wrongs being greater than murder.

If comparing to abortion, I suppose you would have to classify if it was murder, or something else.

2. Preference-based theory

How about we call this, "Agency of choice". Again, all wrongs are the removal of choice from a person. Murder is when you deprive someone of their life against their consent for some personal gain. Again, all other wrongs can be recovered from to some extent except murder. If someone chooses to die, this is not murder. So someone may prefer death to a particular existence. When we choose for them, that is when it is an evil.

3. Grief-based theory

We have grief for those who have been deprived of choice, means, and life. Again, all of these griefs have the potential to resolve themselves into something better, except murder. I think we see a pattern forming here. It appears that the deprivation of potential betterment is really why murder is such a heinous crime.

4. Religious theories

The Aztecs used to call a specific type of murder a "sacrifice". I don't think a religion alone can justify it. Perhaps if we addressed the underlying justification, we might get somewhere with this. At a shallow level, a religion can justify murder as much as justify not murdering, so it can't be a good basis of judgement.

5. Kantian theories

Meh, I don't find Kant's ideology useful or logical.

If you assign an objective value to one, then your determination is always uncertain relative to the other. — Possibility

How so?

So, it’s not so much a matter of simply stopping the ignorance. It’s more a matter of interacting with others in such a way that we strive to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. When we isolate or exclude others, we invite ignorant intent. — Possibility

This is not negating the point that ignorance is the problem. You are simply introducing one of many ways to prevent ignorance.

It doesn't negate it so much as make it a risky action. Have kids: Risk of harm and risk of pleasure (risky), Don't have kids: No risk of either (safe) — khaled

Again, you have failed to answer the question. Why does the risk of pain outweigh all the other benefits of life? If you don't answer this time, I'm just going to assume you don't have one.

There is no need to go into divine realms for an answer — Gregory

I never said anything about divine realms. This is not religious, its simply logic. There is inevitably an uncaused cause. It could be the big bang, a God, or something completely unknown. Because a first cause is bound by no rules, if we do not know what it is, anything could be possible.

But that is the only thing we can conclude. We can conclude the specifics, or some natural law of the universe from it.

Your classic ‘trinity’ explanation fits the common understanding — Possibility

Yep, that's all I was targeting. Nice history lesson though!

Causes can simply go back in time forever with no end. — Gregory

So what is the cause for why that is? Why can it go back forever instead of their being a first cause?

Because it simply is. There is no explanation for its being. You cannot escape the fact that there is something that has no cause besides the fact of its existence. Feel free to try.

You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? It seems very odd to me that you're focused on only a slice of human existence, and ignoring all the rest.

You're assuming that a causeless cause is possible, simply based on the basis that anything exists -- this does nothing to refute the claim that all events must have causes, thus that the universe must be a causal loop.

The fact that anything exists still follows a causal loop model, where causal loops as a whole are not create and do not have a first cause - they simply exist. But causality still obeys a logical consistency within the loop (i.e. no event without a cause) — ChrisM

No, a causeless cause is the only logical conclusion. It is logically impossible for there not to be a causeless cause, even within the idea of a causal loop. That is because there is still the question, "Why is there a causal loop, instead of there not being a causal loop?" The answer cannot be found inside the loop, except for the fact it exists. There is no prior explanation as to why it exists, therefore it is a causeless cause.

Certainly causality is obeyed within the loop itself, or even within finite causality itself, but the only way to find the causality within that loop, is to observe it directly. We can conclude nothing greater about the universe whether there is a loop, or is not a loop.

One aspect I did not point out is that since a first cause has no prior reasoning for its existence (in this case, the infinite loop), it is not necessary that there be an infinite loop, or a finite regress. The only way we could determine it is if we reached that particular end. As we logically cannot tell whether we have an infinitely regressive loop, or we just haven't reached the logical end yet, we can just as easily claim there is an infinite loop as there is a finite end.

But we can logically conclude that there absolutely must be a "first cause" in some aspect. Feel free to propose a counter to this idea.

If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering? — schopenhauer1

Because existing is good! Again, pain is just a sign to your body that you need to change something, that you're being damage. Pain is letting you know, "Hey, existing and being healthy is good! Something is hindering this, do something about it!"

Pain tells you, "Take care of yourself, you're worth it."

Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.

I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why?

There really is only one conclusion in thinking on infinite causality. In the end, the inception of the universe is a first cause, and has no reason for its being.

Take two options. Finite causality versus infinite causality. Finite causality means there is something in the beginning of it all that does not have a prior cause. In detail, this means it is not necessarily dependent on something prior for its existence. It simply...is. No reason, no rhyme, no limitations as to what it could have been.

If we look at infinite causality, there is still one question of cause left. Why does infinite causality exist over finite causality? There is no causal answer to that question besides the fact that it simply...is.

Meaning the infinite causality versus finite causality question is a false dichotomy (Love that phrase).
The reason for our universe's ultimate existence is the fact that it simply is. And if it simply is, there is no rule or necessitation of how exactly it had to have come about, or continues to exist.

In short, we can conclude absolutely nothing about the necessity or nature of our universe from looking at causality, because we reach a point in which there are no rules of prior necessitation, only the unyielding result of the existence that is there.

Pain is your bodies messaging system to tell you there is some harm going on that you should try to fix.

Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering.

I think a well intentioned person "believes they are being moral, and desires to be moral", but their actions may result in immoral outcomes. Ignorance in this case is causing evil, which is immoral. Thus we credit that if the person's ignorance was erased, they would cease to cause immoral consequences with their actions.

So it is the ignorance that is the root cause of evil in this case. But is the person committing an action which results in an immoral outcome? Yes. Good intentions are wonderful because if we erase the ignorance, we hope the person will not commit evil anymore. But the ignorant person is still committing evil. The difference is that ignorance is what must be stopped, not the person themselves.

A happy weekend! I can finally sit down and type this out.

First, I understand this is a draft, so won't be commenting on the order of things. Just on the ideas.

To sum up, I believe you've stated we have a search for a goal. Our beliefs regarding that goal must be applicable and consistent. Applicability means it must be able to be used in regards to one's goal. Consistency means it must not be a contradiction within one's set of beliefs, and in its application.

I think applicability and consistency works. I'm still a little hesitant on what a goal entails. Like this:

"Goals are hierarchical. Criteria of lesser goals are void if fulfilling them hinders the pursuit of goals that are designated with a higher status. As such, any sub-goal that does not include the adherence to consistency cannot be pursued whilst pursuing the search for knowledge."

I think you have a germ of an idea here, but I think it needs clarification.

Goals are the journey's start, and as such, they are not a criteria for evaluating knowledge itself. If a contradiction happens within your goals, you have to decide to throw something out. But there is nothing within the goals that you've put forward at this time that clarifies which contradictions we should throw out. So all that we are seemingly left with is our own personal belief system as to which goals are more important than others.

As an example, lets say that I have it as my primary goal to prove the Earth is flat. Lets say I encounter a contradiction to this by having a lesser goal of "Going into space". So I do, and it "appears" that the Earth is curved. So I just say, "This is a contradiction to my main goal, so I'm just going to invalidate this lesser goal." Maybe you say, "Well its obvious that space bends our viewpoint of the Earth the farther away from it we are," or even "Space must just be beyond our understanding," then you don't pursue that goal anymore because it contradicts your primary one.

If you are to claim a hierarchy on goals, I believe this must be fleshed out to avoid conclusions like above.

"Provisional knowledge". A good breakdown showing that knowledge is provisional. But I wouldn't classify a "provisional knowledge" and "final knowledge". The only thing we can conclude so far is that knowledge is provisional. Since "final knowledge" does not exist, there is no separation within knowledge. I think noting that knowledge is provisional is enough.

Just a little add, when comparing knowledge versus beliefs, you can note that beliefs are also provisional, but they lack the order and structure that reinforces knowledge.

Your unicorn argument is fantastic, nice job.

The unfalsifiability section just needs a second pass to clarify the idea you're positing. It seems like you're implying what is "unfalsifiable" is based on context. Like the unicorn, it is a belief that has been constructed with a context that we cannot apply. If we could somehow create a context in which it could be applied, it would no longer be falsifiable.

In the beginning, you note how you will explain how we can know definitions once the theory is explored. You don't follow up on this at the end.

My final thoughts are this is a nice start. The only thing which I think still needs some clarity is "What a goal is". If I did not have the knowledge of our past conversations, I'm sure I would not be able to understand exactly what a goal entails from reading this paper alone. But this is a good draft. Feel free to clarify or correct my assumptions here.

I can see it now! I won't be able to get to it tonight, but hopefully tomorrow.

I replied to a post months ago about what it was like to pursue philosophy in higher education. I can't find it though. =/

I have a masters in philosophy. I was also a math teacher for 5 years in high school. I have had students ask me why they should go to college.

There are 2 simple reasons to go to college.

1. A job which is in demand and will make you decent money.
2. Passion for a career.

Philosophy will not give you 1. Philosophy will only give you 2. And after I obtained my masters, I found that academia would not really give me number 2 either. It might for you, but it sounds like you're just curious.

If you are new in college, you might be interested in something fun and interesting as a career. Don't. You are paying a TON of money. Unless you have a passion you can see committing your life's work to, find a field that pays well and has high demand. Don't take "easy" classes except when you have to fill credits. If you can get out of college making 60k+, you'll thank yourself later.

You don't want to be a college grad making 30-40k a year. Been there, done that.

It is because conservatives are at minimal, content under the current system. Sure, it ain't perfect, but to a conservative, its good enough. Even if it was a coin flip of improvement, a conservative would still favor incremental change, because they fear loss more then they desire gain.

So is that the difference between the beliefs in your statement about knowledge (that I quoted earlier)? So the first belief (“belief in something”) is only a belief that something might be? And the second belief (“belief that ‘the something’ is co-existent with reality”) is a belief that something actually is? — Jarmo

" It is both the belief in something, and a further belief that “the something” is co-existent with reality."

-Quote from part 1

How we obtain that "that something is co-existent with reality", is through subjective deduction, or if a belief is not contradicted by reality. For what is not contradicted by reality, "is". At least, as a very simple start within our own minds. That's what is called "distinctive knowledge". Part 2 also identifies, "Applicable knowledge".

So to keep this within the context of the paper and ease confusion, make sure you understand what "Distinctive knowledge" is. Feel free to critique it and poke holes in it, as understanding this is required for anything else to make sense. And don't just look at my comment, please read the more fleshed out portion of the later half of part 1. The above is a summary, not a comprehensive answer.

Adults have more information, more types of goals and have more information including, for example, conclusions drawn from reasoning. But the motivation is still emotions/desire. — Coben

So this is a little personal, but I have had chronic depression since I was a teenager. Depression is not sadness, it is the absence of emotion. I have had to live my life despite this biweekly to monthly lack of emotion, and live my life by reason and a code.

While this is an extreme case, I have often faced great emotional frustration for a rational goal. I was a teacher for five years in inner city schools, and faced a lot of stresses and frustrations. If I were merely guided by my emotions, I would have quit in my first year.

You definitely can live your life by emotions alone. There are plenty of people who do. Plenty of us though realize that emotions alone do not always lead to the best outcome. This is not an emotional decision, but a rational one. We will forgo our emotions and power through them. Emotions stopped being my sole motivator for action a long time ago. They are still there, and I value them greatly when they are. But I have learned they are a fickle mistress, and cannot be relied on for any long term value.

What would I call this... Justice? I hope he learns from the experience and comes out of it a better person. I'm not holding my breath though.

I think what you're asking is whether reality can be reproduced, not simulated. A simulation is an attempt to emulate reality within a certain degree, but it is not a 1 to 1 reproduction.

Since we would have to reproduce reality within reality, reproduction doesn't seem plausible and would lead into some infinite mirror issues. The accuracy of the simulation might vary, so yes, simulation is very much possible.

Think of an atheist whose beloved, deep religious mother is dying and says that she is happy and content because she 's going to heaven, to God and she 'll meet her son again there someday in the future. And she asks him what he thinks of it. What should her son answer? — philosophience wordpress com

"I think that sounds wonderful Mom," The situation you painted will be mine in the future. My mother is fiercely religious. I still love her. I want her last moments on Earth to be wonderful. Its not about, "Who wins". If you're an atheist, you're pretty confident that the end is the end. It would be cruel to be petty and deny her those final moments of peace.

Emotions are part of your thinking brain. They are absolutely essential as you grow when you are just learning about the world. As you age emotions are still important, but they are no longer your sole motivator for action.

I view emotions as a digest or summary of your instincts and experience when you encounter a situation that is different from your current state. When a child first falls when trying to walk, they may cry out of fear. But after falling a few times, that fear goes away as they have new knowledge that a fall isn't damaging.

If you want to break down why you have a particular feeling, it requires rationality to get the full story. You might be angry at a person, but not know why. At that point you start breaking down the person's actions and mannerisms, and might be able to figure it out. Rationality is detective mode, while emotions are your daily impetus and first reactions. Sometimes emotions are all you need, especially if you've learned to temper and hone them with good experiences and a rational foundation over the years.

https://www.livescience.com/26914-why-we-are-all-above-average.html

A great livescience article explaining why we all believe we are better than average.

Well, unless you have depression, anxiety, or you're incredibly capable. It turns out having confidence in yourself is an important measure in asserting yourself to attempt that action, even if you're not very good at it.

Me personally? Give me the truth. The scalding unyielding truth. This is not an armchair ideal either. Early in my life, I could have avoided some seriously life impeding situations had people not lied to my face about certain things. They did it so they wouldn't hurt me, or they were afraid. That hurt me more than anything else when I found out years later.

Of course, what type of truth though? It should be truth that helps you grow. Yes, you might find out something terrible about yourself, but then you can attempt to fix it. If of course you're told a truth with the idea that you should jump off a cliff and end it all, that's no good either.

Lies can be comforting to yourself and those around you, but they simply put a rug over the issue. The truth is still there, and no lie will ever deal with it properly. So we should speak truth, but we should be gentle and understanding about it. It should be seen as giving another person an opportunity to pull the rug away and clean house. We should also understand that some people will hear the truth, recognize it, and put a rug over it anyway. Its their life to manage; let them do it as long as they aren't hurting others.