Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?

[Syne]

Most people who don't remotely believe in ''intelligent design'' feel like you do, that nature is happenstance, with no real purpose.

While I do remotely believe in intelligent design, I also view nature as largely happenstance. The chance involved in cause and effect are necessary for free will.

[Ostronomos]

Are you a Christian, Syne?

---

I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.

The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.

Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other. 

But, I get your point, elte!  

That was why I said -figuratively- in my comment because it means that it isn't meant to be a literally interpreted expression but rather a literary device to make writing more interesting.  The reader is hoped to see that the writer doesn't mean to imply that the mechanism of nature has a will, or even consciousness, for that matter.  I actually strongly think the opposite, even, that nature is happenstance and overall mindless, and therefore, unthinking.

Thank you for trying to understand.  I can't say I'm the best writer though I have always tried.

No worries at all, you explain yourself just fine.

I've always admired that you are tactful, and never aim low with ad homs, etc. 

Most people who don't remotely believe in ''intelligent design'' feel like you do, that nature is happenstance, with no real purpose. Would you consider yourself a nihilist?  Nihilism doesn't have to tie in with this, but just thought I'd ask since it crossed my mind.

There are two types of reality, Quantum/ metaphysical (subjective) and Classical/ physical (objective). The world which you are probably already familiar with is happenstance and given (assuming all prior conditioning). The world which must be discovered by most of humanity is far greater than this. It is the Quantum/ metaphysical (subjective) world. In this world, mind is primary and matter is secondary. While in your familiar restricted world matter is primary and mind is secondary. This is seen as a false misconception in the ultimate reality of Quantum Mechanics whereby macroscopic effects appear and MIND is universal. In other words, you are only familiar with lower order reality and ignorant about the Quantum realm.

[Leigha]

Most people who don't remotely believe in ''intelligent design'' feel like you do, that nature is happenstance, with no real purpose.

While I do remotely believe in intelligent design, I also view nature as largely happenstance. The chance involved in cause and effect are necessary for free will.

Interesting. 

Could there be any other possibility out there though, besides the two consistently debated sides (when it comes to the free will conundrum) -- determinism vs happenstance?

Determinism and happenstance are essentially...opposites. Could there be any other duo that could be a parallel set of opposites, but not so dramatically different? I ask this because determinism tends to coincide with intelligent design while happenstance coincides with atheism/agnosticism. Personally, I don't have an issue about bringing religion into the discussion, but some people completely tune out as they don't like to drag religion into what they believe is a science discussion.

[elte]

That's interesting because I view happenstance as similar to fate, both of which I see as aspects of deterministic philosophy.

[Syne]

While I do remotely believe in intelligent design, I also view nature as largely happenstance. The chance involved in cause and effect are necessary for free will.

Interesting. 

Could there be any other possibility out there though, besides the two consistently debated sides (when it comes to the free will conundrum) -- determinism vs happenstance?

Determinism and happenstance are essentially...opposites. Could there be any other duo that could be a parallel set of opposites, but not so dramatically different? I ask this because determinism tends to coincide with intelligent design while happenstance coincides with atheism/agnosticism. Personally, I don't have an issue about bringing religion into the discussion, but some people completely tune out as they don't like to drag religion into what they believe is a science discussion.

That's interesting because I view happenstance as similar to fate, both of which I see as aspects of deterministic philosophy.

Cause and effect are the basis for determinism...one cause leading inexorably to its effect.

Determinism is often contrasted with free will, but its opposite is actually indeterminism (which has more to do with chance...one cause only potentially leading to one of a number of effects). The happenstance I was referring to was more about causes being too complex to predict...but still mostly deterministic. Indeterminism and the limits of prediction are often conflated though.

[Ostronomos]

While I do remotely believe in intelligent design, I also view nature as largely happenstance. The chance involved in cause and effect are necessary for free will.

Interesting. 

Could there be any other possibility out there though, besides the two consistently debated sides (when it comes to the free will conundrum) -- determinism vs happenstance?

Determinism and happenstance are essentially...opposites. Could there be any other duo that could be a parallel set of opposites, but not so dramatically different? I ask this because determinism tends to coincide with intelligent design while happenstance coincides with atheism/agnosticism. Personally, I don't have an issue about bringing religion into the discussion, but some people completely tune out as they don't like to drag religion into what they believe is a science discussion.

That's interesting because I view happenstance as similar to fate, both of which I see as aspects of deterministic philosophy.

Cause and effect are the basis for determinism...one cause leading inexorably to its effect.

Determinism is often contrasted with free will, but its opposite is actually indeterminism (which has more to do with chance...one cause only potentially leading to one of a number of effects). The happenstance I was referring to was more about causes being too complex to predict...but still mostly deterministic. Indeterminism and the limits of prediction are often conflated though.

Exactly. People often conflate the two. Happenstance is perfectly compatible with a purely deterministic universe. In such a universe can we still say that we are masters of our own fate? Of course not. Determinism (thought a results in action A) ensures that no physical laws are broken (such as defying gravity using magical faeries). What a perfect human does, to use a paragon example, is predicts the acts of lesser human with perfect precision and uses that to control the situation in positive ways. I.e. the perfect human is beyond or transcendent. They can summon God. Geniuses aspire towards this but only hit upon it on rare occasions. How do I know? Because I am speaking from personal experience. These days I can only achieve that state for a couple seconds, but it is always worth it.

Back to determinism. Something as simple as a friend's  posture is deterministic and predictable by the perfect human. Free will is self-determinism. A closed loop whereby its arrow ends back at the beginning. In such an instance the individual does not bend towards the will of the universe (mind of God) but the will of the universe (mind of God) bends towards the individual's will.

[Leigha]

Exactly. People often conflate the two. Happenstance is perfectly compatible with a purely deterministic universe. In such a universe can we still say that we are masters of our own fate? Of course not. Determinism (thought a results in action A) ensures that no physical laws are broken (such as defying gravity using magical faeries). What a perfect human does, to use a paragon example, is predicts the acts of lesser human with perfect precision and uses that to control the situation in positive ways. I.e. the perfect human is beyond or transcendent. They can summon God. Geniuses aspire towards this but only hit upon it on rare occasions. How do I know? Because I am speaking from personal experience. These days I can only achieve that state for a couple seconds, but it is always worth it.

Back to determinism. Something as simple as a friend's  posture is deterministic and predictable by the perfect human. Free will is self-determinism. A closed loop whereby its arrow ends back at the beginning. In such an instance the individual does not bend towards the will of the universe (mind of God) but the will of the universe (mind of God) bends towards the individual's will.

If happenstance is ''compatible'' with a purely deterministic universe, would we be morally responsible for our actions? Determinism pretty much dictates that people are not responsible for their actions, because those actions were pre-determined and there is no such thing as free will. Determinism assumes that there is an outward force of some kind that has set every action we will ever do, before we do it...in motion. So, I don't know if everything could be random and pre-determined at the same time, because determinism means there is order and design to life.

[elte]

Things are considered as happening by chance because the details of the cause aren't known well enough.  It reminds me of weather forecasts that give chances of rain that become more certain as either yes or no, right up to the moment when the clouds are passing.  By that time, pretty much it usually is raining or it isn't.

[Ostronomos]

Exactly. People often conflate the two. Happenstance is perfectly compatible with a purely deterministic universe. In such a universe can we still say that we are masters of our own fate? Of course not. Determinism (thought a results in action A) ensures that no physical laws are broken (such as defying gravity using magical faeries). What a perfect human does, to use a paragon example, is predicts the acts of lesser human with perfect precision and uses that to control the situation in positive ways. I.e. the perfect human is beyond or transcendent. They can summon God. Geniuses aspire towards this but only hit upon it on rare occasions. How do I know? Because I am speaking from personal experience. These days I can only achieve that state for a couple seconds, but it is always worth it.

Back to determinism. Something as simple as a friend's  posture is deterministic and predictable by the perfect human. Free will is self-determinism. A closed loop whereby its arrow ends back at the beginning. In such an instance the individual does not bend towards the will of the universe (mind of God) but the will of the universe (mind of God) bends towards the individual's will.

If happenstance is ''compatible'' with a purely deterministic universe, would we be morally responsible for our actions? Determinism pretty much dictates that people are not responsible for their actions, because those actions were pre-determined and there is no such thing as free will. Determinism assumes that there is an outward force of some kind that has set every action we will ever do, before we do it...in motion. So, I don't know if everything could be random and pre-determined at the same time, because determinism means there is order and design to life.

Our actions still have consequences but no we are not morally responsible. We are all equals in that respect alone. This is why our response to suffering by another over the long term tends to become neutralized and heals with time. Because of this perspective. The only possible way to have determinism in a purely random universe is if it were not intelligently designed. Or not self-deterministic (free will). In such a case the individual controls reality with latent powers of creativity. Not the other way around.

Syne mentioned indeterminacy as the potential for a number of different outcomes. Contemplate that.

[Leigha]

Things are considered as happening by chance because the details of the cause aren't known well enough.  It reminds me of weather forecasts that give chances of rain that become more certain as either yes or no, right up to the moment when the clouds are passing.  By that time, pretty much it usually is raining or it isn't.

But, that's (the weather) measurable, and predictable. Fate really isn't predictable, and I tend to think of fate as being something beyond our control..like another ''life force'' is guiding it. But, how you think elte, shows that we are complex and not just robots with programmed responses to life. A person can be an atheist, yet still believe in determinism. I don't know many atheists who think like that though, because most tend to view determinism as having religious/spiritual undertones.