Nicely written! I can tell you've put a lot of time and thought into this. I'll critique, but know that it comes with respect for the hard work and thought you've put into it. Here are some problems I see in the argument:

1. It's possible to talk and reason about a concept without having a precise, rigorous definition of the concept. — icosahedron

There is something implicit you are leaving out. "...if the goal is to ultimately discover what that rigorous definition of the concept ultimately is."

We start with the ephemeral and try to make it clear. That's the point of good philosophy. If we keep terms general and wishy washy based on a person's personal opinion, we're talking about loose subjectivity. At that point, we just stop wasting everyone's time and say, "Believe what you want to believe". But that's not rigorous thought or rationality. That's just giving up.

2. It's meaningful to talk about free will. — icosahedron

What is "meaningful"? You gave examples of what some people conclude free will is, but why is it "meaningful"?

People understand what is meant by free will, which is why they are able to have meaningful discussions about it. — icosahedron

Here is seems you are equating "meaningful" with "People understand what it means". If people understand what it means, then why is there a discussion and debate? The problem is many people do not understand what it means. Free will is an often addressed question on these boards. I would clarify what "meaningful" means in this instance.

In grade school you have probably reasoned about numbers like 1,2,3, and how they interact. Did the teacher provide you with a definition of these numbers? No. You intuitively understood what they meant from examples. — icosahedron

This is an example of a mistake you repeatedly do in your proposal. You are assuming people act, think, or have experiences in a particular way. Don't ever do this in a proposal. People don't think, act, or experience things the same way.

When I learned to count, my mother taught me using each finger to represent the number. There is nothing intuitive in matching the number "3" with the concept of three. Without being taught to think about the number 3, a person may very well just have though, "a bunch", and never conceived of math. I used to teach math for five years. If math concepts were intuitive, I wouldn't have needed a job. =)

If some fact or statement is immediately perceived to be true then it's reasonable to believe the statement unless you have a valid reason to doubt your perception. — icosahedron

Sure, no problem here. The problem comes into play when you think on it a bit longer, and start to get valid doubts on your perception. Free will for example. Many people think they know what free will is, then have an idea that puts doubt into their minds. If free will was still perceived to be true upon further reflection, then very few would question it. The fact that you had to write a paper showing why free will is intuitive and true, is evidence that it is not so cut and dry.

In this argument we have already achieved something that I've never seena anyone else arguing for free will achieve before, at least not explicitly. We have completely turned the tables of the argument. We made it so that the burden of proof is on the objector of free will to give a valid reason to doubt my perception of free will. — icosahedron

The argument has been made before, but it is a good strategy. =) I don't think you need all of the leadup for this though. You can simply state, "Look, free will as I perceive it works well for me. Give me a valid reason to doubt my perception of free will in a way that also works well for me." Start from there.

5. There is no rational reason to prefer determinism over indeterminism. — icosahedron

Then you do not understand what rational means. Rationality is using stable concepts to concretely understand the world with as little indeterminism as possible. Its the use of deduction, while minimizing induction.

Quantum mechanics does NOT show that the universe is indeterministic, but it does destroy all hope to prove determinism through laws of physics. — icosahedron

I think you're misunderstanding quantum physics. The only reason we are able to use it is because we have found deterministic limitations within the indistinct. We have deterministic conclusions that we cannot measure a quantum states and velocity at the same time. This allows us to accurately and reliably predict how things work. This is why we have cell phones that work consistently.

Unless you are a scientist, don't use quantum mechanics in your philosophy examples. Its to easy for non-scientists to attribute mystical qualities to it, when that's not the case.

6. Answer to the objection "But determinism does not give you free will. It only gives you randomness, and free will cannot arise from randomness, nothing about randomness is free, it's just random." — icosahedron

I don't have this objection, so am skipping it.

7. Answering the Sam Harris objection about predicting our choices before we become aware of them. — icosahedron

A good answer. I agree this objection falls flat.

Feel free to counter or point out where I've misunderstood your points!

I am sorry that you are not aware that my parents were just a tool, not the Will which is behind my existence (and their existence as well). — KerimF

Sorry again, because if someone hears you mentioning the word 'God', he would have the impression that you also know what it means. On my side, I am not sure what do YOU mean by (or how YOU define) this word. — KerimF

It seems like you're defining God as the Will behind your existence. But the only will I see for your existence is your parents. I'm assuming your grandparents are out too. Meaning that we're only left with something prior to humanity that has a will, so must be conscious. The usual placeholder for such a being is "God".

If this doesn't fit what you're trying to go for, then I have no idea what you mean by a will outside of humanity. I get that you're trying to be poetic, but it doesn't make any sense if we're to draw any logical conclusions from it.

Are you, by any chance, referring to the problem of induction? — TheMadFool

Yes. And you are completely correct. While we cannot ascertain that something will repeat, we cannot also ascertain that something will NOT repeat. Its why I liked your answer of tentative vs certain knowledge. We can be certain of what we know now. We can even make logical conclusions about the future of something based on what we know now. But that knowledge is tentative, as repeatability of the same knowledge in the future is something we cannot be absolutely certain of.

Your parents forced you into the world. All your questions should be directed towards them. If you're going to be talking about God, it doesn't really lead off when you're talking about your personal birth of being born into the world.

Well, I read a couple of responses. — FrancisRay

Which are utterly useless, as they lack the context of the paper. It never ceases to amaze me that people think they can judge a paper without actually reading the paper. I also never stated I agreed with Quine, I'm just indicating that I am familiar with several epistemological theories.

This is devolving into dumb ego. Read the paper if you're interested and converse on that. If you're going to comment on the paper without reading the actual paper, its a waste of both of our times.

Philosophim Your point is a fair one, but I see no point in reading an article that seems epistemilogically naive.even before I start reading. You can ignore me. — FrancisRay

If you haven't read the article, how do you know its epistemologically naive? I have studied and am familiar with the history of epistemology up through Quine. Lets be real: most people just don't want to read an article longer than a forum post, and look for every excuse not to. Which, I have nothing against! Its fine. But telling me it looks naive when you haven't read it? Come now. Just be honest and go about your day instead of trying to slight me.

the argument that I am trying to make is not concerned with how any or all knowledge comes to be known, only that knowledge which is sought. — TVCL

Ok, I think this clears up a significant amount of confusion and reservations on my part. You are specifically removing any consideration of knowledge which is not specifically sought out. As for the why:

because we cannot create a model for finding knowledge which is not sought — TVCL

I had to read this a couple of times, and I want to make sure I understand what you're stating. If I understand correctly, you are stating knowledge is an active process. Because we have to consider things such as applicability and consistency, this requires our active faculties. This is versus taking beliefs without question or consideration.

Now while I think goals are a fantastic way of explaining why someone searches for knowledge, they can also be precursors to simply believing something without the need for knowledge. If my goal is to learn ethics for example, I could take a web of beliefs that construct an ethical morality that satisfies an emotional goal. If my goal is to believe in Santa Claus, it can drive me, but it doesn't necessarily drive me towards knowledge in Santa Claus. Same with the flat Earth examples.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that goals are not necessary or exclusive to the application of knowledge. Goals are the necessary precursor to seeking something, but that something can be about seeking beliefs that satisfy one's own desires. We say what separates a belief from knowledge is its applicable consistency. But I could just as easily have an inapplicable inconsistent conclusion if my goal is to have a belief without using knowledge.

So to go back to your beginning, I do believe that the precursor to knowledge is having a goal, or something a person wants. In trying to obtain that goal, a person might (not necessarily) discover that their conclusions may clash with reality. In wanting to obtain goals that are more likely to reflect reality, a person seeks a way to obtain a goal in the most rational manner. The conclusion a person can gain from this is beliefs which are applicable and consistent are the most rational conclusions one can make if they wish their beliefs to not be contradicted by reality.

I think however once knowledge is discovered, it is something one decides to integrate into future goals, but it is not a goal itself. Often times in pursuing our goals we are shown that they are impossible to reach. Either that, or we learn something we never event considered, and it opens up new possibilities for us. While the goals may change, the ever present undertaking of the process of knowledge remains with us. Do we decide to continue to apply it in every case? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And I think this is perhaps what you are trying to imply? The question perhaps here is what is the justification for deciding to use the process of knowledge in some cases versus not others.

This question is a version of the the problem of induction, which is not a simple problem to solve. I believe your answer is that it is up to every individual to use knowledge, or not. While this does simplify the issue, I believe it is a surrender that many people will pick up on. The question is begged, "Is there a rational way of deciding when we should use knowledge, and when we shouldn't?"

But I'll let you respond here to see if I'm on the mark, or still off a bit. Great reply, I think we're almost to the point we can start taking the theory into some common epistemological problems!

Hume's skepticism is about how certain knowledge is impossible but we can, in that case, run with tentative knowledge. — TheMadFool

This was my understanding too. Essentially Hume is stating that it is impossible to know what the future will bring. So any knowledge that asserts with certainty of anything beyond the present cannot be true. The only way we could know with certainty, is if we saw the result in the future. Of course, we can't function at all if we don't have some belief that things are repeatable, or that certain rules and laws will remain as such in the future. The lesson is we should always be aware that knowledge is a tentative grasp, and that we can never escape needing some induction about the future in our lives.

You seem to believe that knowledge is belief. — FrancisRay

Are you going by the comments here, or the paper itself? Because the comments here are only to get people to actually read the paper and understand the points. You will not glean my argument from the comments alone.

If you have read the paper, I will summarize to help you understand. No, knowledge is not merely a belief. There are two parts to knowledge. Distinctive, and applicable. In both cases, a belief that is subjectively deduced is the particular type of knowledge based on the context. Which part are you having trouble understanding?

I do not care about any of your personal philosophies of knowledge, I care about good criticism of the ideas of the paper. Now if you can apply your personal philosophies of knowledge to the paper, that would be fantastic! But generic personal opinion without addressing the paper serves no point.

The only reason I'm replying to this is to add to the chorus of rejection. Honestly, this OP isn't about philosophy, but conspiracy. You're a smart guy Gus Lamarch. Don't waste your gift and talents on trash like this.

Ok! Finally got some time to sit down and really analyze this again.

So there are some really good things with goals. I think they are a great way to start a search for knowledge. I just don't think they are a necessary precursor to knowledge, or work as an end. Lets keep our space example. I have a goal to discover that the world was flat. I am told before I go into space that water will float out in the open if you release it from its container. I don't believe the astronaut, or have any care or goal to learn this.

Once I am in space, I grab my water container, squeeze the straw, and sure enough, water emerges and floats there in space. I never had a goal in the beginning or the end, and yet it appears I now have applied knowledge that water floats in open space.

Perhaps this is where my issue comes from. It seems like you want to propose goals are a necessary part of knowledge, when I think it is an optional part of knowledge. Again, I really like it as an explanation for why we start seeking knowledge, but much of our day to day applied knowledge is not anticipated or sought out.

As for inter-goal applicability, while your explanation is more fleshed out, I don't think it solves the main problem. So far, I can decide whatever goals I want. Which also means I can throw out whatever goals I find contradictory, so long as there is consistency in my set of information.

What this leaves us with is a web of beliefs that are are not contradictory if we throw out evidence we don't like that fits our end goal. This is what a conspiracy theory is. Flat Earthers throw out any evidence or come up with interpretations that allow them to hold to their beliefs despite mounds of contrary evidence.

Like the unicorn case, perhaps much of this, or even all of this, can be solved by clarifying the context and applicability of the belief and separating the beliefs from the goal. I just don't think a goal is a belief, and I think you are extending to goals aspects of beliefs, when a goal is more the start of seeking out and obtaining beliefs which we may then consistently apply as knowledge.

As for the structure, all it needs is another draft review. You can tell you're thinking as you type, and you repeat a few things unnecessarily. I do it too, so I recognize it. =) As for the order, I think its mostly the introduction of doubt and definitions when you imply in your introductory paragraph that you're going to start with consistency and applicability. Again, absolutely no judgement. The paper that I wrote is 20 pages, but when I first wrote it, it was over 100. Lastly, my mention of it being a draft was to show that I was not going to word pick, but that I was looking at its overall concepts. Which, is still pretty good!

Pain is an emotional tool to help you avoid doing harm to yourself, and those around you. It is a vital part of being a functioning person. Would we like to be fully functioning people and also avoid emotional pain? Sure, I would like to fly and shoot lasers from my eyes as well. Unfortunately, despite what we want, it isn't happening.

Jack, this is more a theology question then a philosophy question. A philosophy question would be more along the lines of, "Is there a wrong that humanity can commit that is unforgivable?"

That being said, according to many interpretations, the holy spirit is God, and God is the truth. If you deny God, then you deny the truth, and you will not be forgiven on the day of judgement.

Again, to take this the more philosophical route you could ask questions like, "How does one know the truth? How does one know God?"

As for your personal fears about theological hell, I am sorry to hear you have suffered over it. While I do believe this should remain in the vein of philosophy, feel free to message me if you would like to discuss the theology of hell more in depth. I went through my own search in Christianity at one time in my life, and I do not mind offering to share what I learned.

Hello again Josh, no worry on the timeframe, we all have lives here!

First, I want to agree with you that Christianity is an exclusive religion. That being said, let me examine your argument for the apostle's beliefs to see if we can conclude they must have been correct.

1. The apostles of Jesus Christ believed that Jesus Christ physically resurrected from the dead.
2. If the Apostles had no evidence to base their belief off of, then their belief is irrational.
3. There is evidence on which the Apostles based their belief.
4. Therefore, the Apostles’ belief is rational. — Josh Vasquez

Since we're doing philosophy, lets adjust the above to be clearer.
1. Assume the apostles of Jesus Christ believed that Jesus Christ physically resurrected from the dead.
2. If the Apostles had no evidence to base their belief off of, then their belief is irrational.
3. If There is sufficient and reasonablee evidence on which the Apostles based their belief, the Apostles’ belief is rational.

Just some nitpicks above, and I think we're good to continue.

1. Jesus Christ either physically resurrected from the dead or he did not.
2. If Jesus Christ didn’t physically resurrect, then there must be alternate hypotheses / theories that
explain the Apostles belief
3. All other alternate hypotheses / theories fail in comparison to the physical resurrection hypothesis
4. Therefore, the explanation for the Apostle’s rational belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is that
Jesus Christ physically resurrected — Josh Vasquez

1 is sound.
2 is sound.
3 and 4 need an adjustment.

3. Assume all other alternate hypotheses / theories to Jesus' resurrection the apostles could think of were explored by the apostles and failed.
4. Therefore, the apostles rationally believed that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead.

As you see, the changes I made clarified a few implicit assumptions. They also take the view point of the apostles, and not ourselves. After all, we can come up with crazy theories I'm sure the apostles never thought of.

This leaves us with a problem however, Just because the apostles were being rational with what they knew, it does not mean they understood the truth. Back again to the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth. Prior to an understanding of space, this was perfectly rational. Yet, its not the truth.

We also have no evidence that the apostles were very rational people. They could have been, but they could also as easily not have been. There is a lot of assuming going on here either way.

So I think a rational conclusion we can make from this, is we cannot conclude the disciples rationally believed in Jesus resurrection, but even if we did, it would not conclude that what they rationally believed was true. I will note however, this is just from this evidence alone. Perhaps there is more out there. But within the confines of what we are proposing, I can see no other conclusion.

Still, the God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism). — DrOlsnesLea

And the non-God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the non-soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism).

The only conclusion is that anything could have been the first cause. As such, we cannot use what we know post origin, to explain the origin. Post origin does not need a God, and it does not need a universe without a God either. Either are viable options, but cannot be precluded from the post origin results we currently understand.

In short, there is nothing necessary to explain anything, except what actually exists.

I just came by to say I have not forgotten! I will have this answered at least by Sunday.

One of the most difficult acts of the individual to achieve is the total abandonment of any type of morality - which are chains that make it impossible for the individual to be fully potentialized — Gus Lamarch

Ugh, no. There are clearly moral and immoral actions. Perhaps we don't understand which one's are which as journey onto old age, but that is where we test and ask other people.

OP, you have to learn how to handle other people. The clerk might think he's just having fun with you. Its unlikely he would want to drive a customer away after all. Have you tried playing along? Throwing some lines back in good humor? If he responds positively, you'll know it wasn't serious. If he responds negatively? He'll probably stop. Take it one step at a time.

Morality does not only apply to other people. It applies to you too. It is not about superiority and inferiority, it is about living your life to the fullest with minimal negative impact to those around you. If it bothers you, the worst thing you can do about it is nothing.

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.