Do you believe in God?

[Ghost Lap]

Why can a perfect being not experience imperfection? That seems like an imperfection.

The key phrase was "in of itself" meaning that by itself it can only experience itself which is perfection. It's needs an imperfect creation in order to experience imperfection.

 

[Danoff]

The key phrase was "in of itself" meaning that by itself it can only experience itself which is perfection.

Which means that the being "in of itself" is imperfect. This shell game does not help you.

It's needs an imperfect creation in order to experience imperfection.

...and this you consider a perfect being?

It is as though you said your perfect being cannot itself experience pain, and it desires to feel pain, but since it is limited by itself in this fashion, the way it must get what it desires is to create a race of living beings that it is limited to experiencing pain through.... and this you describe as perfection.

The flaws in this argument must be apparent to you at this point.


Edit:

it can only

This describes imperfection

It's needs... in order...

This describes imperfection

 

[Roo]

The key phrase was "in of itself" meaning that by itself it can only experience itself which is perfection. It's needs an imperfect creation in order to experience imperfection.

Just for a moment, let's put aside the massive holes in the idea of this perfect being that Danoff and others are highlighting.

If the perfect being needs to experience imperfection through pain, it can create an individual to do so. Perhaps 2 or 3 to make sure the first wasn't a fluke. If it's keen on following something resembling a scientific method, maybe a few hundred, just to make sure the results are consistant. If it's really so callous as to need to make children suffer to see if their experience of pain is different to adults, then make a few dozen children to do so.

No being worth worshipping requires several billion pain-experiencing creations, including millions of children, to work out what pain feels like. You can time how long it takes me to grasp an idea with a calendar and even I'm not that slow on the uptake. There's no excuse for it.

 

[Danoff]

No being worth worshipping requires several billion pain-experiencing creations

The estimate is 109 billion humans have ever lived... and that's just the humans. Pain, of course, being experienced by many creatures.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Which means that the being "in of itself" is imperfect. This shell game does not help you.

...and this you consider a perfect being?

It is as though you said your perfect being cannot itself experience pain, and it desires to feel pain, but since it is limited by itself in this fashion, the way it must get what it desires is to create a race of living beings that it is limited to experiencing pain through.... and this you describe as perfection.

The flaws in this argument must be apparent to you at this point.

I mean it's just a possibility I laid out, I said maybe God wishes to experience imperfection through us down here. But as I also said I'm merely applying my tiny limited human logic to something that is surely way beyond any such logic we could ever comprehend or grasp.

The idea of perfection can be defined through logic but isn't something that can ever be truly known purely through logic or can it? What to you is perfection, have you ever seen or experienced perfection with your human eyes or senses? Or is it all just the limited human perception and logic of ours that as I said will probably never be able to actually grasp what perfection is. You can try to define what perfection is but can you ever truly know what perfection is experientially?

 

[TexRex]

a possibility

 

[Meythia]

What to you is perfection

Perfection is strictly related to something that can be validated to be true or false.
A perfect score in a test.
A perfect execution of a movement (least effort, highest result, whatever metric applies).

Perfection can not be found in something that is subject to opinion.
A perfect body? But perfect for what? Athletics? Looks? Bearing children? Though you could try to force all aspects of this into a single entity, this will inevitably cause contradictions, as the observer (we) have different opinions.

 

[McLaren]

Who are you to say that they don't deserve such things

What the ****? You think they do?

I've been on this forum 20 years, and this is the most brain broken take I have ever read.

 

[Danoff]

I mean it's just a possibility I laid out, I said maybe God wishes to experience imperfection through us down here. But as I also said I'm merely applying my tiny limited human logic to something that is surely way beyond any such logic we could ever comprehend or grasp.

This is what's known as an argument from ignorance. You're setting out to establish something (that God need humans for his S&M fetish), and you're trying to establish that by saying that your reasoning for it is beyond your comprehension.

It's not my job to sort this out for you. You're admitting to not following your own reasoning. This is the part where you should stop trying to rely upon it.

The idea of perfection can be defined through logic but isn't something that can ever be truly known purely through logic or can it? What to you is perfection, have you ever seen or experienced perfection with your human eyes or senses? Or is it all just the limited human perception and logic of ours that as I said will probably never be able to actually grasp what perfection is. You can try to define what perfection is but can you ever truly know what perfection is experientially?

Suddenly defining perfection is my problem? This was a central pillar of your argument. The entirety of the human species is CAUSED by the inherent flaws in perfection according to your argument. And now I'm the one defining and defending the concept of perfection for you? This is your thesis, it's what you think the whole of our species was created to fulfill. I'd think you'd be the one telling me all about perfection and why a perfect God can NEED something from us.

 

[Ghost Lap]

This is what's known as an argument from ignorance. You're setting out to establish something (that God need humans for his S&M fetish), and you're trying to establish that by saying that your reasoning for it is beyond your comprehension.

It's not my job to sort this out for you. You're admitting to not following your own reasoning. This is the part where you should stop trying to rely upon it.

Except I don't follow my own reasoning when it comes to God but rather do all that anyone can do which is just rely on faith. I gave my flawed human reasoning to your questions on here which is all you can ever expect when it pertains to matters of God when a human attempts to understand God's ways through his own. You can use all the logic and rationale you want but at the end of the day it really does all come down to faith, which is like kryptonite for you guys on here which is why you'll be at the question of God until the end of time. We can speculate and ponder all that we want but at some point logic just becomes pretty void of usefulness when it comes to the big questions.

"Suddenly defining perfection is my problem? This was a central pillar of your argument. The entirety of the human species is CAUSED by the inherent flaws in perfection according to your argument. And now I'm the one defining and defending the concept of perfection for you? This is your thesis, it's what you think the whole of our species was created to fulfill. I'd think you'd be the one telling me all about perfection and why a perfect God can NEED something from us."

The answer to why a perfect God would create imperfection of any kind is again an open ended debate as old as debates began. You even eluded to the possibility that God might have withheld something from us to which I agreed that could be possible, who really knows?

Some people might conclude that God must be bored and thus created the universe, others might conclude that he must be evil and various other curse words for creating such a universe (not hinting at the fact that this may include various members of this thread at all).

At the end of the day I believe and have faith in God and that's where I draw the line, you can call it whatever like but that's where I stand. I understand that such a stance really does go over the heads of some of you guys on here. But then again some of us can see the obvious limitations of our logic and look to something beyond logic altogether and be willing to face whatever mockery or persecution comes from it as a consequence.

 

[JDM_GT7]

Except I don't follow my own reasoning when it comes to God but rather do all that anyone can do which is just rely on faith. I gave my flawed human reasoning to your questions on here which is all you can ever expect when it pertains to matters of God when a human attempts to understand God's ways through his own. You can use all the logic and rationale you want but at the end of the day it really does all come down to faith, which is like kryptonite for you guys on here which is why you'll be at the question of God until the end of time. We can speculate and ponder all that we want but at some point logic just becomes pretty void of usefulness when it comes to the big questions.

"Suddenly defining perfection is my problem? This was a central pillar of your argument. The entirety of the human species is CAUSED by the inherent flaws in perfection according to your argument. And now I'm the one defining and defending the concept of perfection for you? This is your thesis, it's what you think the whole of our species was created to fulfill. I'd think you'd be the one telling me all about perfection and why a perfect God can NEED something from us."

The answer to why a perfect God would create imperfection of any kind is again an open ended debate as old as debates began. You even eluded to the possibility that God might have withheld something from us to which I agreed that could be possible, who really knows?

Some people might conclude that God must be bored and thus created the universe, others might conclude that he must be evil and various other curse words for creating such a universe (not hinting at the fact that this may include various members of this thread at all).

At the end of the day I believe and have faith in God and that's where I draw the line, you can call it whatever like but that's where I stand. I understand that such a stance really does go over the heads of some of you guys on here. But then again some of us can see the obvious limitations of our logic and look to something beyond logic altogether and be willing to face whatever mockery or persecution comes from it as a consequence.

Is your god omnipotent and all powerful?

 

[Exorcet]

It is a logical paradox but remember that God is surely beyond all logic and so we can't really expect to apply our limited logic to God and gain any real understanding of God's ways. The existence of the universe without a higher source of creation is a logical paradox yet it still exists and we seemingly all accept that.

You're favoring a specific outcome here. If we can't understand the origin of the universe, then why do you claim to know what caused it to be? Why does the origin have to be a god? When we formulate an idea that contradicts logic, the usual response is to reject that idea on the grounds that logic is what allows us to understand the world. If the rules that we follow don't actually mean anything then there is no way to tell what is real. Going "beyond" logic doesn't narrow anything down.

The universe doesn't need a higher source. It is self evident that it exists because we're here. We can study it in an attempt to find facts which can help us rule out explanations of its origin and mechanisms that don't work. The same would go for a creator.

I believe everything is as it is because God allows it to be so and so I'm not really in any position to question God or God's ways as being wrong on the matter. Maybe God being ever perfect wishes to experience imperfection through us down here, we'll never really know but it's always good to be open minded and discuss such things instead coming to a logical dead end on the matter.

You can absolutely question the hypothesis of divine creation. Many people have done this. It can start with a simple question like, "Does this make sense?"

For better or worse we don't know everything. There is room for belief, but the problem is when those beliefs negatively impact people. I feel like religion contributes to this when it asserts to be truth. It is one thing to consider the idea of a creator, but another to be convinced of it and to also give it authority over people, which really amounts to giving the believer (imaginary) authority over people if their beliefs aren't true.

Except I don't follow my own reasoning when it comes to God but rather do all that anyone can do which is just rely on faith. I gave my flawed human reasoning to your questions on here which is all you can ever expect when it pertains to matters of God when a human attempts to understand God's ways through his own. You can use all the logic and rationale you want but at the end of the day it really does all come down to faith, which is like kryptonite for you guys on here which is why you'll be at the question of God until the end of time. We can speculate and ponder all that we want but at some point logic just becomes pretty void of usefulness when it comes to the big questions.

As above, faith isn't necessary. It only becomes necessary when you assume the answer ahead of actually looking for the answer.

"Suddenly defining perfection is my problem? This was a central pillar of your argument. The entirety of the human species is CAUSED by the inherent flaws in perfection according to your argument. And now I'm the one defining and defending the concept of perfection for you? This is your thesis, it's what you think the whole of our species was created to fulfill. I'd think you'd be the one telling me all about perfection and why a perfect God can NEED something from us."

The answer to why a perfect God would create imperfection of any kind is again an open ended debate as old as debates began. You even eluded to the possibility that God might have withheld something from us to which I agreed that could be possible, who really knows?

Pointing out that imperfect creations of a perfect being would have to be intentionally limited was an attempt to bring to the surface a contradiction in common religious belief. Something being possible doesn't make it an explanation for something, there are an infinite number of possible explanations. If you want to find the real explanation, or at least try to, you need to look for contradictions to rule out some of the possibilities. So while it may be possible that the universe was created, and the creator make us as we are to suit whatever needs that creator had, there is nothing that supports that as fact.

Some people might conclude that God must be bored and thus created the universe, others might conclude that he must be evil and various other curse words for creating such a universe (not hinting at the fact that this may include various members of this thread at all).

At the end of the day I believe and have faith in God and that's where I draw the line, you can call it whatever like but that's where I stand. I understand that such a stance really does go over the heads of some of you guys on here. But then again some of us can see the obvious limitations of our logic and look to something beyond logic altogether and be willing to face whatever mockery or persecution comes from it as a consequence.

Again it is not about ridicule. It's about the Bible condemning homosexuality and then having Christians trying to make homosexuality illegal which leads to suffering. It's about the Quran making women subservient to men and then seeking to make that so by force. These are things that happen when belief in supreme beings is involved. Someone, somewhere will try to say that something that is perfectly acceptable is wrong and then truly believe that the authority of the universe is on their side. Or someone who doesn't believe will try to manipulate those who do and those people are less likely to realize this if they are convinced that the manipulator is a believer or an agent of the supreme being.

I cannot find anything valuable in religion, but some people do. That doesn't bother me as long as their beliefs don't push them to harm other people. Unfortunately there are religious beliefs that encourage that. I just want it to stop.

 

[Danoff]

Except I don't follow my own reasoning when it comes to God but rather do all that anyone can do which is just rely on faith. I gave my flawed human reasoning to your questions on here

I know that you think this wraps up the bow nicely and that you can just put your pencil down with "I have faith" and call it a day. But what you're saying is that you actually have no idea why babies have to suffer and that you have faith that they do need to. Which is... not a great position to be in is it?

Not every religious person seems to take your position on it. For example:

God did not create human beings because He needed them. As God, He needs nothing. In all eternity past, He felt no loneliness, so He was not looking for a “friend.” He loves us, but this is not the same as needing us. If we had never existed, God would still be God—the unchanging One (Malachi 3:6). The I AM (Exodus 3:14) was never dissatisfied with His own eternal existence.

It kinda meanders around the circular idea that he wants (there's that problem again) to bring himself pleasure by creating beings that give him pleasure, and then kinda pretends that he's aloof and actually doesn't care. It needs to do this because it needs to be explanatory for the creation of man (god liked it), but then try not to bother the image of god being perfect (but it's not like he wasn't already perfectly happy). Existence was perfect, but it needed people in it. You see the problem I'm sure.

Another problem with this line of reasoning (besides being circular) is that it doesn't account for suffering, which is why you went the route you did. Because suffering is a real fly in the ointment of God being pleasured while babies die of disease. Your route tries to account for suffering, but it unfortunately requires that god isn't perfect.

The reality is that none of this has any explanatory power over suffering, and it's a real genuine problem for why suffering exists in the view of Christianity. It's not enough to have faith, because at the same time religious people like to pretend that religion answers the question of where we came from. It turns out that when the word "we" includes suffering and babies dying of disease, it doesn't answer anything. The answer is "uh... I have faith that babies need to suffer".

It wouldn't bother me very much that this is a problem, and I'd just leave you to your faith. But then religious people like to claim moral superiority and and understanding of the origin of human beings. These non-answers to basic questions actually say that religion has NO moral superiority (really? babies just need to suffer?) and NO real explanatory power. So how did your faith get earned again?

it really does all come down to faith, which is like kryptonite for you guys on here which is why you'll be at the question of God until the end of time.

Somehow your answer (aside from the kryptonite remark) is actually true. Faith is the reason we'll be at the question of God until what seems like the end of time. It's because for some inexplicable reason, people convince themselves that they should have faith, and the rest of us try to talk them out of what is obviously irrationality that doesn't belong.

Faith is just shorthand for belief in something that you have insufficient reason to believe. It's an emotional decision made by your animal brain because something about faith is comforting to you and makes your brain feel better. That's about it. It's not the kryptonite trump card you think it is, it's just you saying "my mind is shut on this issue because I like it that way". That's what I hear when I hear "I have faith". Far from kryptonite, it is admitting that you're wrong, but also admitting that you don't have the fortitude to face it. If anything, "faith" is kryptonite to the religious. It is what holds you down.

The answer to why a perfect God would create imperfection of any kind is again an open ended debate as old as debates began.

That is not exactly the question. Unless you're generalizing human (or animal) suffering to "imperfection".

But then again some of us can see the obvious limitations of our logic and look to something beyond logic altogether and be willing to face whatever mockery or persecution comes from it as a consequence.

The limitation in this case being that it doesn't give you the answer you wanted to hear.

 

[Ghost Lap]

I know that you think this wraps up the bow nicely and that you can just put your pencil down with "I have faith" and call it a day. But what you're saying is that you actually have no idea why babies have to suffer and that you have faith that they do need to. Which is... not a great position to be in is it?

Not every religious person seems to take your position on it. For example:

Why does anyone have to suffer at all? At the end of the day I have no idea and neither does anyone else, that's how it always goes when it comes to the big questions. We can ponder all we want but I truly know nothing and neither does anyone else, that's probably how it's supposed to be which is why faith is a crucial part of having a positive outlook amidst life's seemingly doom and gloom. By the way what makes you think that I'm strictly religious, I'm someone of faith in a greater power in general.

It wouldn't bother me very much that this is a problem, and I'd just leave you to your faith. But then religious people like to claim moral superiority and and understanding of the origin of human beings. These non-answers to basic questions actually say that religion has NO moral superiority (really? babies just need to suffer?) and NO real explanatory power. So how did your faith get earned again?

Somehow your answer (aside from the kryptonite remark) is actually true. Faith is the reason we'll be at the question of God until what seems like the end of time. It's because for some inexplicable reason, people convince themselves that they should have faith, and the rest of us try to talk them out of what is obviously irrationality that doesn't belong.

Faith is just shorthand for belief in something that you have insufficient reason to believe. It's an emotional decision made by your animal brain because something about faith is comforting to you and makes your brain feel better. That's about it. It's not the kryptonite trump card you think it is, it's just you saying "my mind is shut on this issue because I like it that way". That's what I hear when I hear "I have faith". Far from kryptonite, it is admitting that you're wrong, but also admitting that you don't have the fortitude to face it. If anything, "faith" is kryptonite to the religious. It is what holds you down.


The limitation in this case being that it doesn't give you the answer you wanted to hear.

You keep bringing up babies suffering as if there's something ultimately wrong with it (emotional reasoning) and that your viewpoint of it being somehow wrong is ultimately correct. Things are the way that they are, you may not like how some things are but reality is what it is. Reality doesn't need to change itself to please you or anyone else, reality simply is and it doesn't care about what little old you or me thinks of it opinion wise, this is the part you seem to be struggling to accept. There is nothing ultimately wrong with reality, reality doesn't make any mistakes and if you think that there's something wrong with how reality is then you need to assess your own viewpoint because you're in the delusion of thinking there's something wrong with it.

It's actually rationality that comes from your animal brain which is why you predictably react as animals would do when someone brings up the cold hard truths of reality in a manner of just being real about things. Faith comes from something deeper than the brain, it comes from a place within yourself that is beyond the limited scope of understanding or desire to control what can't and needn't be controlled. In what way am I wrong when I say that suffering is an inevitable part of the human experience which applies to anyone of any age, you may not like to hear that fact but it is simply a fact of reality that's better to be accepted than resisted.

You say that faith doesn't belong but who are you to say that and make the rules of what does and doesn't belong, sounds like you're trying to play God to me and you're not the first one I've come across here with such a stance.

Your last line exposes where you're coming from in that it's not the answer you personally want to hear, but it's just the truth that reality doesn't care about what you want to hear or to please you in any kind of way, which is kind of how reality works. This is because reality knows how things should be a lot better than you or I ever could.

 

[Scaff]

when someone brings up the cold hard truths of reality in a manner of just being real about things

You 100% haven't done that at all, so I wouldn't be in quite the rush to be so self-congratulatory.

Your argument basically boils down to...

1. God wants to know what imperfection feels like
2. God creates humans and makes them suffer to achieve this

Now a truly all-powerful god could achieve this without going down option 2, and that's without the fact that none of the above is part of some cold-hard truth of reality.

This is because reality knows how things should be a lot better than you or I ever could.

Citation on reality being a conscious entity if you wouldn't mind.


You seem so wrapped up in the idea that this is all the plan of some god, that you are missing any other explanation (ones based on verifiable, repeatable evidence), which once again makes the claim of 'cold hard truth' massively ironic.

 

[Meythia]

Things are the way that they are, you may not like how some things are but reality is what it is.

Im going to twist this as hard as I can to still fit it into what your faith dictates:
there is no free will, everything we do and what happens naturally happens by gods intention.
This means all we do right now is not because we "want" but because we have an innate "urge to do" it, like keeping connected to this thread for reason x, where x is either faith, curiousity, entertainment, or anything else.

But it also means every crime commited is by gods intention, because we cant willingly do it when gods urge is making us do it.
This puts in question why the 10 commandments needed to be put in place, when we dont willingly follow or not follow them based on gods urge into us.

Or frankly speaking: god doesnt make any sense.
Not because we dont understand, but because there is simply not a shred of logic to follow on to try to understand.

Coming back onto the paradox of impotent omnipotence.
Also adding: why grieving for the dead when actually we should be happy for everyone who died of anything but suicide as all of them would be welcome to paradise (according to Christian believes at least, as far as I remember from involuntarily being taught as a child).

 

[Ghost Lap]

You 100% haven't done that at all, so I wouldn't be in quite the rush to be so self-congratulatory.

Your argument basically boils down to...

1. God wants to know what imperfection feels like
2. God creates humans and makes them suffer to achieve this

Now a truly all-powerful god could achieve this without going down option 2, and that's without the fact that none of the above is part of some cold-hard truth of reality.

Who cares about my argument or personal ideas, like I said they're just some personal pondering's that shouldn't be taken with any serious merit or credential. The fact is things are as they are, if you struggle to accept reality as it is then it's because there's an internal conflict within yourself that needs to be resolved to be more in alignment with how reality is.

You seem to be lost in strong emotional reasoning when it comes to the topic of human suffering, all we know for sure is that humans suffer and it's just a fact of reality. Reality (or God or whatever you wish to label it as) doesn't make mistakes, if we as humans with our own subjective interpretation don't like how a particular thing is we label it as a mistake and that's where the true problem lies.

 

[Scaff]

Who cares about my argument or personal ideas, like I said they're just some personal pondering's that shouldn't be taken with any serious merit or credential.

You do, or you wouldn't be exposing it publicly.

The fact is things are as they are, if you struggle to accept reality as it is then it's because there's an internal conflict within yourself that needs to be resolved to be more in alignment with how reality is.

I'm not the one conflating belief with reality.

You seem to be lost in strong emotional reasoning when it comes to the topic of human suffering, all we know for sure is that humans suffer and it's just a fact of reality.

I've only stated that you are excluding other options on the cause, I've not added emotional reasoning into this at all, you have by aligning it to being needed as part of some higher plan.

Reality (or God or whatever you wish to label it as) doesn't make mistakes,

You've missed a rather critical step in your reasoning here, you first need to establish what reality is and that it is a conscious entity, I've already pointed this out and you have ignored it.

if we as humans with our own subjective interpretation don't like how a particular thing is we label it as a mistake and that's where the true problem lies.

Which is exactly what you are doing, I've not.

 

[Exorcet]

Why does anyone have to suffer at all? At the end of the day I have no idea and neither does anyone else, that's how it always goes when it comes to the big questions. We can ponder all we want but I truly know nothing and neither does anyone else, that's probably how it's supposed to be which is why faith is a crucial part of having a positive outlook amidst life's seemingly doom and gloom. By the way what makes you think that I'm strictly religious, I'm someone of faith in a greater power in general.

Until you get to faith, what you said sounds reasonable. Saying that no one knows anything is a bit much, but there is no doubt that human knowledge is limited. Then you bring up faith, and I don't see why. Reality isn't always pleasant and deities don't change that, at least not when they can't even be confirmed to exist and don't seem to want to intervene.

You also do very much come across as religious. You don't have to be a member of an established religion to be religious. You have a strong belief in a creator that has some plan which apparently involves the suffering we see around us. I can't agree with the first part of that, there is no evidence for a creator, but that by itself is fine. The other aspects of that belief are similar to the aspects of religion that I mentioned in my last post which can be problematic.

You keep bringing up babies suffering as if there's something ultimately wrong with it (emotional reasoning)

It's not emotion. Suffering makes people unhappy, so it's something that people shouldn't experience. Also remember that suffering was brought up with respect to the existence of a god. If there is a being that can do literally anything and that knows literally everything, that being must want suffering to exist. This is at odds with a being that cares for humanity.

Things are the way that they are, you may not like how some things are but reality is what it is. Reality doesn't need to change itself to please you or anyone else, reality simply is and it doesn't care about what little old you or me thinks of it opinion wise, this is the part you seem to be struggling to accept.

People aren't arguing with that or struggling to accept it. It is specifically the idea that a good being with the power to stop suffering would allow it to exist that people are pushing back against.

There is nothing ultimately wrong with reality, reality doesn't make any mistakes and if you think that there's something wrong with how reality is then you need to assess your own viewpoint because you're in the delusion of thinking there's something wrong with it.

Reality can't mistakes because it has no agency. Agency comes from beings like humans. While reality can't be wrong, it can differ from what we would like it to be. We have the ability to shape reality to a degree, and we will exercise that ability as we have since before history. That is fine and it's inevitable. It doesn't require any kind of higher power or the approval of one.

It's actually rationality that comes from your animal brain which is why you predictably react as animals would do when someone brings up the cold hard truths of reality in a manner of just being real about things. Faith comes from something deeper than the brain, it comes from a place within yourself that is beyond the limited scope of understanding or desire to control what can't and needn't be controlled. In what way am I wrong when I say that suffering is an inevitable part of the human experience which applies to anyone of any age, you may not like to hear that fact but it is simply a fact of reality that's better to be accepted than resisted.

Why do you oppose rational thinking so much? Even if there were a god, would rational thought not be one of the things created by that god? Why can't religion just look at rationality as the tool we have to learn about the world? That seems to fit much better than faith.

Your assertion that faith is deeper than the brain has no support behind it and it opens the door to human fallibility. Every aspect of human behavior that we know of comes from the body. That knowledge is useful because it allows us to care for and understand ourselves. Introducing the idea that there is something else means that someone, probably in a time of desperation, will try to interact with that thing to solve a problem instead of looking for a solution that has a better chance of succeeding.

You say that faith doesn't belong but who are you to say that and make the rules of what does and doesn't belong, sounds like you're trying to play God to me and you're not the first one I've come across here with such a stance.

It can be shown that faith is unfounded. Trying to discern what is real is not playing god. It's very human.

Your last line exposes where you're coming from in that it's not the answer you personally want to hear, but it's just the truth that reality doesn't care about what you want to hear or to please you in any kind of way, which is kind of how reality works. This is because reality knows how things should be a lot better than you or I ever could.

Reality can't know things without a mind. The implication that it knows how things should be, which is unfounded, also leads down the path of moral policing. This is why people here disagree with you. The world doesn't care, fine. The world is the way it is and much of that is beyond our ability to change, including the things we don't like, fine. That doesn't mean the world is the way it should be or that we can't try to change it.

Who cares about my argument or personal ideas, like I said they're just some personal pondering's that shouldn't be taken with any serious merit or credential.

People act on their ideas, so they very much can matter. Also if you really thought your ideas had no merit I don't see why you would defend them.

The fact is things are as they are, if you struggle to accept reality as it is then it's because there's an internal conflict within yourself that needs to be resolved to be more in alignment with how reality is.

This applies to faith more than anything else.

You seem to be lost in strong emotional reasoning when it comes to the topic of human suffering, all we know for sure is that humans suffer and it's just a fact of reality. Reality (or God or whatever you wish to label it as) doesn't make mistakes, if we as humans with our own subjective interpretation don't like how a particular thing is we label it as a mistake and that's where the true problem lies.

Mistake doesn't fit because reality has no agency, and I don't see people claiming that suffering is a mistake outside of responding to claims of agency in reality (ie god). When we look at what is actually around us, a world with no apparently purpose, there are no mistakes. There are however, problems that we can address to make our time here better. I can't see why anyone would oppose that.

 

[Ghost Lap]

It's not emotion. Suffering makes people unhappy, so it's something that people shouldn't experience. Also remember that suffering was brought up with respect to the existence of a god. If there is a being that can do literally anything and that knows literally everything, that being must want suffering to exist. This is at odds with a being that cares for humanity.

Again trying to play God, suffering is a part of reality and you're basically saying that it shouldn't be which is just arguing with reality which is the most futile endeavor possible.

A while back I said that nuclear war was wrong, people here have said that human suffering is wrong, but which of us is right? The answer is neither I or they are right here because we're both coming from our own subjective viewpoints in each case. Any subjective viewpoint is ultimately flawed, reality is what it is and it doesn't need a human with their subjective logical and emotional reasoning to try and tell it what it is on top of what it already is. The ultimate truth of reality is one of complete peace with what is, until one has reached such a state then they're still stuck within the confines of their own subjective and ultimately flawed perception of it.

I personally believe that physical reality exists merely as a means to an end, that end ultimately being for the greater good of all spiritual growth for each sentient being. Life dishes out exactly what each being needs according to the needs of their spiritual growth, I come to this conclusion because as I said reality has no mistakes and thus I conclude that everything that happens does so because it was always meant to happen for a greater spiritual purpose, otherwise it simply would not happen. I don't have any scientific proof that will satisfy your logical minds for any of this but that's just my subjective take on it all.

This can be argued against all day long because it is my subjective view and will ultimately be flawed, but to argue with reality as it is itself is totally futile which is all you are doing when you say things like people shouldn't have to experience suffering. On what grounds should humans not have to experience suffering other than the grounds of your own human reasoning which tries to oppose how reality actually is? Notice how when you make such claims that humans shouldn't have to suffer you likely experience an inner emotional conflict of anger or resentment, that conflict is there to show you that your perception is not in alignment with how reality truly is.

 

[Exorcet]

Again trying to play God, suffering is a part of reality and you're basically saying that it shouldn't be which is just arguing with reality which is the most futile endeavor possible.

An all powerful god doesn't have to deal with what ifs. I'm playing the role of a human because I am one. The world is the way it is and I can try to influence it to the degree that I am able.

People have said there should be food readily available all year round and now there is. People have said that during the summer heat it should be possible to stay cool and comfortable and air conditioning was made. People have wanted to go beyond the Earth, which the human body would not allow, and they went to the Moon. This is the human experience.

Suffering doesn't serve a purpose and it should go. We haven't gone all the way there yet, but we have been working toward that goal.

A while back I said that nuclear war was wrong, people here have said that human suffering is wrong, but which of us is right?

Human suffering is not consistent with an all powerful and caring god. That's the point of contention. As for determining what is right and wrong and subjectivity, that is nothing new. We have an entire thread on it.

The answer is neither I or they are right here because we're both coming from our own subjective viewpoints in each case. Any subjective viewpoint is ultimately flawed, reality is what it is and it doesn't need a human with their subjective logical and emotional reasoning to try and tell it what it is on top of what it already is. The ultimate truth of reality is one of complete peace with what is, until one has reached such a state then they're still stuck within the confines of their own subjective and ultimately flawed perception of it.

At this point we're starting to go in circles so I'll only say that accepting reality for what it is is a good thing, at least if one wants to try to deal with the limitations of reality. The thing is, belief isn't really accepting it. It can range from hoping that reality is a certain way, which isn't so bad, to pretending that it is a certain way, which can cause problems.

I personally believe that physical reality exists merely as a means to an end, that end ultimately being for the greater good of all spiritual growth for each sentient being. Life dishes out exactly what each being needs according to the needs of their spiritual growth, I come to this conclusion because as I said reality has no mistakes and thus I conclude that everything that happens does so because it was always meant to happen for a greater spiritual purpose, otherwise it simply would not happen. I don't have any scientific proof that will satisfy your logical minds for any of this but that's just my subjective take on it all.

That sounds like a stance that leads to not opposing the suffering of others, at least in some cases. That's not a good thing.

This can be argued against all day long because it is my subjective view and will ultimately be flawed, but to argue with reality as it is itself is totally futile which is all you are doing when you say things like people shouldn't have to experience suffering. On what grounds should humans not have to experience suffering other than the grounds of your own human reasoning which tries to oppose how reality actually is? Notice how when you make such claims that humans shouldn't have to suffer you likely experience an inner emotional conflict of anger or resentment, that conflict is there to show you that your perception is not in alignment with how reality truly is.

Ingrained beliefs can be very deeply rooted. This very well could go on forever, but I think it's important to confront what I perceive as bad ideas. Suffering serves no purpose, so I'm going to oppose it. I'd like to convince you to do the same for the benefit of you, me, and everyone else. The idea of a god as comforting is something that I can understand as much as I see no value in it, but accepting flaws around us that we can do something about? That's not going to help people.

 

[Danoff]

Why does anyone have to suffer at all? At the end of the day I have no idea and neither does anyone else, that's how it always goes when it comes to the big questions.

Animals experience pain as a feedback mechanism within their brain to prevent them from taking certain actions. Pain is a logical consequence of natural selection. Animals that feel pain survive better. Sometimes that pain is totally unhelpful, and natural selection doesn't give a rat's ass. The reason is because generally pain helps animals survive to pass on genes. When an animal is suffering in death because of it, that doesn't affect the likelihood of procreation, so natural selection doesn't select it out. It would be nice, it would be VERY nice if we didn't feel any pain that we didn't need to. And with some medication we're able to do that. But natural selection didn't build it into us because it's not a benevolent god. Natural selection doesn't care about animal suffering needlessly, so animals suffer needlessly.

This is the "harsh reality" that you're avoiding with your benevolent god that has a reason for all suffering (but which you can't understand and don't know).

which is why faith is a crucial part of having a positive outlook amidst life's seemingly doom and gloom

This is going to come as a surprise to you, but it turns out that atheists are not all doom and gloom. We live happy lives.

You keep bringing up babies suffering as if there's something ultimately wrong with it (emotional reasoning) and that your viewpoint of it being somehow wrong is ultimately correct. Things are the way that they are, you may not like how some things are but reality is what it is. Reality doesn't need to change itself to please you or anyone else, reality simply is and it doesn't care about what little old you or me thinks of it opinion wise, this is the part you seem to be struggling to accept.

Actually I think it's you who are struggling to accept it.

Babies suffering is easy to explain in light of natural selection. It happens, and we should try to prevent it from happening because we understand what it feels like to suffer and know that we'd want someone to help us. We help people to prevent suffering because we're empathetic, not because we can't accept reality. Because we CAN accept reality and accept that we CAN do something about it.

None of this is problematic at all from an understanding perspective. It doesn't become problematic until you claim that a benevolent all powerful god needs babies to suffer. Then it becomes a problem. In short, this is not a problem until you introduce something like Christianity, and then it becomes a massive problem for Christians.

Faith comes from something deeper than the brain, it comes from a place within yourself that is beyond the limited scope of understanding or desire to control what can't and needn't be controlled.

It's emotional.

A while back I said that nuclear war was wrong, people here have said that human suffering is wrong, but which of us is right? The answer is neither I or they are right here because we're both coming from our own subjective viewpoints in each case.

Not all suffering is bad, but a lot of it is totally unnecessary and awful. So we should try to mitigate it out of empathy for those who suffer. WWJD

Any subjective viewpoint is ultimately flawed

You say that as though it is somehow objective.

Life dishes out exactly what each being needs according to the needs of their spiritual growth, I come to this conclusion because as I said reality has no mistakes and thus I conclude that everything that happens does so because it was always meant to happen for a greater spiritual purpose, otherwise it simply would not happen.

The idea that babies need to die a horrible death in early life in order to grow spiritually is laughable (and that's being kind). You throw your hands up not being able to explain it. Why does god need babies to suffer? You have no idea. But you just assume that it is needed.

Reality might not make something that can be considered a "mistake" when you understand the process that makes it. For example, our eyes are horribly arranged with blood vessels in FRONT of the vision and giant holes in our eyesight. It would be trivial to make a better eye than the one we have, but when you understand the process that made our imperfect eye (natural selection), you understand that none of the imperfections and flaws in our eyes were "mistakes". They came about because of a natural process.

But that's not the same thing as saying that we need to keep it that way. And it's for sure not compatible with the idea that we were directly created by an all-knowing creator. Because while natural selection might make an eye that seems stupid from our perspective, a God really shouldn't be doing that.

The same is true for the suffering of a dying animal. It's not a "mistake" because it arises through a natural process (natural selection). But it is pointless and unnecessary and keeping it that way is sadistic. It's not a problem from the perspective of natural selection, but it is a massive problem if an all-knowing creator designed it that way out of some kind of sadistic desire for suffering babies.

but to argue with reality as it is itself is totally futile

The only one arguing with reality is the religious person. The rest of us accept it and want to do what we can.

On what grounds should humans not have to experience suffering other than the grounds of your own human reasoning which tries to oppose how reality actually is?

On what grounds do you make any tool or plant any crop or kill anything or burn anything or move a single rock. Are you trying to oppose how reality actually is?

No. You're part of reality, and your ability to make changes is part of reality too, which means that your ability to mitigate suffering is part of reality, not opposed to it.

Notice how when you make such claims that humans shouldn't have to suffer you likely experience an inner emotional conflict of anger or resentment, that conflict is there to show you that your perception is not in alignment with how reality truly is.

You experience anger or resentment not out of a conflict with reality, but out of a part of your brain that motivates to you to act in response to stimulus. It has been honed by natural selection to make you do things without thinking about them, and sometimes it motivates you (all of us) to do stupid things. Anger especially does that a lot. Natural selection doesn't care if you do stupid things, if your anger overall results in you being more likely to pass on genes, it gets kept - stupid things and all.

 

[McLaren]

You keep bringing up babies suffering as if there's something ultimately wrong with it (emotional reasoning) and that your viewpoint of it being somehow wrong is ultimately correct.

What a wildly unhinged thing to say.


One can accept life is not fair & we can't do anything about it, and at the same time, believe it is wrong for youth to suffer from something out of their control. But, yes, there is something ultimately wrong with babies suffering or else a foundation like St. Jude's would not exist to combat that. According to this person's God, though, St. Jude's is spitting in the face of his all-knowing plan.

 

[Scaff]

Again trying to play God, suffering is a part of reality and you're basically saying that it shouldn't be which is just arguing with reality which is the most futile endeavor possible.

No one is making that claim but you.

What we are saying is that if a god exists then their creation of suffering makes no sense.

No one is saying that suffering isn't a part of reality, as such stop making strawman arguments. We accept that suffering exists, and do all we can to try and alleviate it (well, rational people do, right now you don't fall into that camp).

 

[GBO Possum]

I mean it's just a possibility I laid out, I said maybe God wishes to experience imperfection through us down here. But as I also said I'm merely applying my tiny limited human logic to something that is surely way beyond any such logic we could ever comprehend or grasp.

So the universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each consisting of hundreds of billions of stars with an even greater number of planets, and an even greater number of moons and a yet even greater number of comets, asteroids etc, was constructed to house two humans with the intention that they and their offspring could "experience imperfection" (such as cancers, famine, sexual abuse etc) on behalf of this universe creator. Right. Got it.

And having invented such a creator, the escape clause is that this creator is beyond human understanding. Right. Got it.

Also, this "universe-creator" capability has been attributed to maybe hundreds (if not thousands) of such gods which have come into (and out of) fashion over the centuries. Right. Got it.

@Ghost Lap, I have a galaxy or two I could sell you, for a special GTP member price. You may be wondering how I got to own a collection of galaxies, well, many struggle to "comprehend or grasp" this. You are not alone.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention that these "perfect beings" have the imperfection of being unable to communicate directly with most of humanity and have to do so through human intermediaries who are somehow recipients of special "knowledge" about their particular god and why all the other gods making the same claim are not valid gods. Right. Got it.

 

[McLaren]

@Ghost Lap, I have a galaxy or two I could sell you, for a special GTP member price. You may be wondering how I got to own a collection of galaxies, well, many struggle to "comprehend or grasp" this. You are not alone.

You have to change your name to "God Possum" if he accepts, though.

 

[Imari]

Well suffering is an inevitable part of life in the flesh is it not? Do you think that life down here is all about simply having a good time and enjoying pleasure after pleasure and escaping suffering altogether?

What kind of growth or value would one gain from such an experience void of any kind of suffering, have you ever just embraced your own suffering (in moderation) out of curiosity like any good scientist would supposedly do?

Rape generally gets written off under the "God must have known that they needed to be raped to grow as a person or learn some lesson" so it wouldn't surprise me to hear someone pull that here too.

Did I call it or did I call it?

Barely worth bragging about considering how predictable a response to atrocious acts it is. It's the Christian version of "boys will be boys".

I truly do feel in my heart that this momentary life has it's trials and tribulations but that the true rewards for it all are waiting for us on the other side, Corinthians 4:17 comes to mind.

Do you not then feel it's your duty to create as much suffering as possible? It seems like by your logic you would be making everyone's lives better in the long run if you were to hurt as many people as possible, and people like Josef Fritzl should be praised for helping Elisabeth find her best self.

Who are you to say that they don't deserve such things, you're doing what you typically do which is trying to play God and intersect your own personal opinion onto reality, basically trying to argue that reality is wrong which works out to have a 100% fail rate.

You seem to believe in this strongly enough that it seems incredible that you're not taking matters into your own hands. There are people out there in the world actively trying to prevent child abuse and misery. Do you not feel that you are compelled to stop them from interfering with God's plan? Are you not complicit in their undermining of God's will if you don't at least try?

Or is your morality a Cartman-esque "I do what I want, and whatever I do is what God wanted me to do"?

The existence of the universe without a higher source of creation is a logical paradox yet it still exists and we seemingly all accept that.

It's really not. There is stuff that is unknown there, but it's not a paradox. We have strong reasons to suspect that time and space are not absolute. You cannot have creation in any meaningful sense without time.

What went on before what we call the "start" of the universe? We don't know. But it's not a paradox unless you reject the unknown so entirely that you substitute making things up.

...it's always good to be open minded...

Rofl. I've got a kettle you should meet.

Things are the way that they are, you may not like how some things are but reality is what it is.

Said with the air of someone who doesn't want to be responsible for the disgusting things that they have done to others.

If you think unnecessary suffering just is and doesn't matter, that's actual psychopath talk. If you don't care at all about the unnecessary suffering of yourself or others and just think it's something to be tolerated or ignored, you have serious mental problems that are an real threat to those around you.

 

[UKMikey]

Today I learnt that Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible down to around 200 pages by excluding the fabulous parts. Perhaps using the unedited version as a justification to try and curtail the rights of others is the problem?

 

[Ghost Lap]

So the basic gist I'm getting from here is that suffering is bad and thus God can't be all powerful and loving and that it serves no purpose. To say suffering is bad is a subjective opinion, suffering is just a part of life and is inescapable and should just be accepted as part of the design of the universe. To argue that suffering shouldn't exist is to literally argue against how the universe works and I'd say that the universe as it is works fine without the opinion of a human saying what should and shouldn't exist (trying to play God as if you as a human are some kind of authority on how the universe should or shouldn't be).

To say suffering serves no purpose has to be put into a context, how does suffering serve no purpose? You're basically saying that it serves no purpose that pleases you or gives you pleasure and is therefore useless, but the fact is that it exists and it must exist for a reason (if you're not limited to the viewpoint of pure materialism). If you are limited to the viewpoint of materialism then who cares anyway, from this viewpoint nothing really serves a greater purpose and everything is ultimately pointless, either way you can't really get around the matter. You're just baffling on about how you don't like suffering and are trying to use your human logic to reason why something that exists in reality shouldn't exist purely because you don't like it.

 

[Meythia]

against how the universe works and I'd say that the universe as it is works fine without the opinion of a human

The universe actually works just fine without any human at all, or without a god to begin with.
It doesnt need opinions, trust, faith, all it needs is matter and the lack of it, all combined by the binding laws of physics.