Of course, how could I know for sure? All I can think is that if life developed on other planets it could well progress somewhat as life has progressed on this, which would involve suffering from disease etc.That is interesting to me.
You only have personal experience with 1 of the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe....
And based on that experience you believe "a lot" of the rest of the universe is also "experiencing distress".
I can't say much more than I've said above, but that life would have come about on other planets and they not had disease, earthquakes etc seems unrealistic to me. There is also the possibility of life and civilisations developing only to be wiped out by a nearby star going nova, or a large meteor colliding. I wonder how many times that has happened.
I think frustration is part of it but not the full picture. If I develop some awful disease not only would the effects be frustrating but I would have to suffer the symptoms both physical and the psychological effects.P.S.
As I said before, I believe the main problem people struggle with is frustration (things not going the way they want). And I think the effect of frustration is to "experience distress".
But for clarification...
Do non-sentient living organisms "experience distress"? For example, do bacteria "experience distress" in your view?
If they can't physically feel, then no.
That there is so much suffering to such a terrible degree on this planet alone where there didn't have to be, belies your point.I am asking to try to determine what percentage of living things you think "experience distress".
If 0.000000000000000000000001% of living things experience distress, then the fact that suffering occurs is NOT the reason there is no God, it is the fact that I am suffering that there must not be a God.
Oh dear. I see you have ignored my point about evidence.I expect that is the main reason people are atheist IMO. But it is a bit self-centered as well IMO.
I think i have made the point that if the universe is natural, it can't be down to chance.In full disclosure...
Personally, the world is not the way I would make it (based on what I know). And the world is not the way random chance* would make it (based on what I know).
This is a false dichotomy. There is another option, at least. To explain, you are making here an argument of common sense logic about a universe that the more we find out about goes against our prima facie ideas of common sense logic. Relativity gives good examples that i could describe if you like. You are ignoring the possibility that there could naturally be a reason why there is something rather than nothing that is beyond out current understanding. Here is a quote to illustrate the point...So I think there are only two options...
A) there is something (matter) that has always existed
B) there is someone who has always existed (who can create matter)
“Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. That is the reason why I have no philosophy myself, and must be my excuse for dreaming.” JBS Haldane.
The universe is turning out to be a stranger place than you can imagine, yet here you are saying what must be the way of it.Which means...
A) by random chance*, matter changed to something I would not expect
B) by design, a Creator made a universe that I would not expect
I think B, since there are many things people design that I would not design (but they end up being right). If a simple person can do that, a supreme being's designs would have to be way above my reasoning.
*random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision
*chance: the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design