(November 13, 2016 at 3:35 am)Little Rik Wrote: It is rather stupid to blame me for something that I did not say.I distilled your statement to its essence. I don't even have to explain it, the comment I quoted was pretty clear.
Quote:I never said that is good for people to ............endure horrible experiences..........You asked if I had a better option if I was god, and I explained why it was better to avoid any suffering. And you've rejected the idea based on two premises:
I instead said that there are universal laws that we can not change.
1- that the laws of the universe are immutable, which does not apply to the hypothetical that YOU ASKED FOR.
2- that suffering is a way for people to learn to behave better, even though the implication you are making is at odds with your OP.
You are putting forth the idea that a reactive system of ensuring happiness is better than a reactive system of ensuring happiness. No, it isn't. It's the same, except that it means that a force or being or 'system' that is in place to ensure 'balance' doesn't work any better than NOT WORKING AT ALL.
And you don't seem to understand why that's stupid.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould