Theoretically speaking, can we even say for certain that some people receive God's help while others don't receive any help at all?
… moreIf you're implying that everyone receives God's help, I'd like to hear your argument for how the grace of God has helped this child. If you're implying that no one receives God's help, then we are in agreement.
In general, I would say it all points back again to the fact that we were created in an imperfect world where things like this can arise, specifically when you think of the science behind some of these problems.
But the fact that these things that go directly against what you proposed as the purpose behind the creation of the imperfect physical world means that that can't be the actual purpose. You can't say that the world needs to be the way it is in order to "offer us perspective, passion, and a place where we have uninfluenced choice and the ability to develop through free will" wh… [view original content]
I'm just going to go ahead and copy and paste what I said last time, as it still stands.
So what you're saying is that God may have helped that child at some other point in her life, but then at some later point, despite not ignoring her and despite knowing that she would end up in that condition without his intervention, thought "You know what? That's enough help. I'll leave her for the vultures."
Feel free to rewrite the laws of our physical creation and come up with something better while still operating within what could be physically/ scientifically attainable.
The whole point of this argument was to question why God would force himself to work within physical laws. He is beyond it. His agenda is beyond it. If he wanted to he could, as you said, wave his magical wand and make it so no child ever got cancer. Doing so would make this world closer to preserving his agenda of letting humans develop as people before letting them into heaven. So why not do it? Your original justification to this was that he wanted to keep this world operating under physical rules (which he sometimes (but very rarely!) breaks). And your justification for that was that the physical world is meant to serve the agenda of providing us with the opportunity to develop as people. But, as I just pointed out, a world that isn't completely restricted to physical laws would be better at achieving that agenda. So...why...not...do it?
For whatever reason, you're stuck on the idea that the purpose has to shine through by example with each and every single being that comes into existence, when logically that makes no sense. Why you think this needs to be an all or nothing type of scenario is beyond me.
Because that's how fairness works. A creator who only intervenes to help some of his creations grow and experience life while relegating the rest to an incomplete existence is unfair and capricious, not perfect and just.
Just as there is no reason to believe that one does not exist, either. Unless you're totally avoiding forming an opinion on the matter, you're taking a leap of faith as well considering there is nothing to back up your personal opinion.
If you were to ask someone "Is there a purpose to this?" and they respond with "I can't think of one," would it make more sense to interpret that as a yes or a no?
And while I may not be able to use it as legitimate proof for my opinion in regards to trying to sway others, my personal experiences with the matter certainly provide evidence for myself, and they are certainly a factor for why I happen to believe what I do on this topic.
Great. That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of your personal experiences, whether they be about God, ghosts, UFOs, bigfoot, whatever. Perhaps if I had the experiences you had, I too would be a believer. That not being the case, though, I can only rely on the world that I've seen. And what I've seen is a world that is indicative of chaos, not care.
If you can look at that picture and honestly think to yourself "this is a child who has been helped by God," then you're right that there is… more nothing else to be said.
I'm just going to go ahead and copy and paste what I said last time, as it still stands. "Simply because poor situations exist and bad things happen to people this does not mean that these same people are not given help at any point in their lives. In regards to the picture you posted, obviously we can't begin to discern if that child has ever received God's help or not. There is absolutely no conversation of substance to be had there. Just because that child is living in poor conditions does not mean he is being ignored by God. There is really nothing else to be said there."
I expect the agenda to be 100% because that agenda was supposedly the reason why the physical laws needed to exist. What you're suggesting is that God came up with an agenda and then created a … [view original content]
So why did you respond to my post instead of the post that you felt was trolling? I didn't say anything that lacked respect.
That thread that you mentioned wasn't trashing your religion, it just stated that they didn't believe in God, heaven and hell, and that they believed in science. That's their right to believe that, and it's their right to discuss it as well. People discussing their lack of religious faith isn't trolling, and it's definitely not an attack, it's stating a difference of opinion. They have every right to not believe in religion as you do to believe in religion. There is no double standard here. The posts that said that religious prayer is stupid are trolling and were removed. The posts that said that they don't understand religious prayer were not, as they are legitimate discussion.
Both people posting that they believe strongly in religious prayer are allowed in this thread, and people posting that they don't believe in religious prayer are allowed as well, and neither have been removed. That's the exact opposite of a double standard.
now i'm going to have to find that thread...
A couple days ago there was another thread where there was a post with a picture, that tra… moreshed my religion. I made a comment saying that if i made a positive religion thread that it would be trolled, etc etc. I was right, we can't have nice things.
We have what is called this double standard. To be honest, i knew this would happen, and i don't blame anyone, it's just know how these boards are.
One could extrapolate that to theorize that these instances of mass suffering are necessary in order for human beings to advance as a more compassionate society. If our universe was created by a higher power that could forsee future events, it would seem compassionate to not step in on these matters, as doing so would just lead to a more cruel and vicious human race.
Interesting proposal. I have a few questions.
So let's say for the sake of argument that all the suffering in the world contributes to it being more compassionate. Would you then say that the world would be better with more suffering, since that would lead to more compassion? Would you consider a person who does nothing while an elementary school burns down in front of him to be "compassionate" if his reason for doing so was wanting to have his community grow more compassionate in its mourning? What about a doctor who purposely lets a wealthy couple's child die so that they would donate their fortune towards finding a cure to the disease? Would you say that she has done something good and moral?
And do you think it's in fact true that all the suffering in the world was necessary for it to be as compassionate as it is now? If 1 million fewer people had died in the Holocaust, would our compassion be any less? Would humanity be so much more cruel and vicious if cancer only ever affected anyone over the age of 18? What about times when suffering leads to cruelty? When a mother dies and her child is forced to turn to crime to survive? When a child is abused in their youth and develops a pathology that makes them victimize others when they grow up? When a child falls on his head and loses his ability to control his violent impulses?
@DomeWing333 wrote:
So let's say for the sake of argument that all the suffering in the world contributes to it being more compassionate. Would you then say that the world would be better with more suffering, since that would lead to more compassion?
Not necessarily. There have been numerous instances of near death experiences where people have come out with a more compassionate outlook on life. Sometimes things do seem like they had to have happened in the past in order to prevent greater evil from happening in the future, but sometimes when bad moments are averted they turn out alright as well (and a being who has foresight into the future would be able to tell which events are necessary to prevent humankind from becoming more corrupt and which do not).
@DomeWing333 wrote:
Would you consider a person who does nothing while an elementary school burns down in front of him to be "compassionate" if his reason for doing so was wanting to have his community grow more compassionate in its mourning? What about a doctor who purposely lets a wealthy couple's child die so that they would donate their fortune towards finding a cure to the disease? Would you say that she has done something good and moral?
In normal circumstances, absolutely not. However, if this person had foresight into the future and saw that an event would happen in the future that would lead to many more deaths because the elementary school didn't burn down, or the doctor who had foresight into the future saw that was the only way to get the cure for a disease that would kill billions of more people over the course of time, then yes, it would a compassionate and good thing to do.
Take the film "Frequency" for example. The main character communicated with his father in the past to tell him how to save his life. However, in doing so he caused his mother, a nurse, to not leave the hospital, and she noticed that a patient was about to accidentally be given a drug that he was allergic to, which would kill him. This patient was a serial killer, and ended up killing people who were not originally killed before the main character saved his father's life. There can be unforeseen consequences to most people regarding something that seems like a simple choice, and someone with foresight into the future would be able to see those consequences. Granted, the scenario in the film is not as far reaching as the scenarios brought forth here, but a being that had foresight into the future would be able to see those awful scenarios and determine which ones would lead to the "serial killer" scenario on a global scale, and which ones would simply lead to a happy outcome.
@DomeWing333 wrote:
And do you think it's in fact true that all the suffering in the world was necessary for it to be as compassionate as it is now? If 1 million fewer people had died in the Holocaust, would our compassion be any less?
It's hard to say for sure, but it's likely that would be the case. There were a lot of countries before the Holocaust that agreed with the Nazi regime that the Jewish people were subhuman, and there were a lot of nations who were doing their own eugenics programs. Sadly, it was the sheer horror of the holocaust, in all of its magnitude, that caused these nations to look inward towards their own countries and make the necessary changes towards compassion.
@DomeWing333 wrote:
Would humanity be so much more cruel and vicious if cancer only ever affected anyone over the age of 18?
This is hard to say too, but it's possible. Childhood illnesses generally get more awareness and funding than adult illnesses. The funding for childhood illnesses will in turn, and in some cases, already has, help adults affected with the diseases as well. Without childhood diseases, it's conceivable that humanity's urge to donate towards a cure and/or improved treatments would be much, much lower than what it is now (and it's certainly plausible that without widespread support of telethons like the Jerry's Kids telethon for muscular dystrophy, Red Nose Day, or Children in Need, public perception of charity would not be favorable, at least not as it is now).
@DomeWing333 wrote:
What about times when suffering leads to cruelty? When a mother dies and her child is forced to turn to crime to survive? When a child is abused in their youth and develops a pathology that makes them victimize others when they grow up? When a child falls on his head and loses his ability to control his violent impulses?
Often times this has a butterfly effect too. The child who turns into a criminal or abuses other people because they were abused could be rescued by a social worker later, and then becomes a social worker themselves later to help children who are affected by the loss of their parents, or by parents who abuse them, so they don't go down the same path. Or, if the child dies in that life of crime, they could inspire a police officer to devote their lives to helping children who were abused or who have turned to a life of crime so that the same fate doesn't happen to them. The child who loses the ability to control their impulses could inspire their parents to start a charity that will eventually lead to a cure, or inspire a doctor who eventually leads a team that works on a treatment that will help to increase mobility in those affected with brain damage. There are a lot of ripple effects from one event that can't be seen by those without foresight into the future. They seem like they are pointless deaths, but it's very possible there actually is a purpose to them.
One could extrapolate that to theorize that these instances of mass suffering are necessary in order for human beings to advance as a more c… moreompassionate society. If our universe was created by a higher power that could forsee future events, it would seem compassionate to not step in on these matters, as doing so would just lead to a more cruel and vicious human race.
Interesting proposal. I have a few questions.
So let's say for the sake of argument that all the suffering in the world contributes to it being more compassionate. Would you then say that the world would be better with more suffering, since that would lead to more compassion? Would you consider a person who does nothing while an elementary school burns down in front of him to be "compassionate" if his reason for doing so was wanting to have his community grow more compassionate in its mourning? What about a doctor who purposely lets a wealthy couple's child die so that… [view original content]
Your persecution complex is absurdly strong. Religion is trolled, yes. As are all view points. In our age of information things are put to scrutiny and things that don't hold up are called on it, hell even things that actually do hold up to scrutiny are called out on things (nowhere near as much as the former though.)
You, specifically are "trolled" (as you put it) because you put up your views and are entirely unable to defend them. You'll resort to calling people names or saying they simply can't handle your views when it's actually the fact you simply cannot defend them. We can have nice things, as long as they are actually nice.
Tl;dr Things are scrutinized. The things you post don't hold up. You claim persecution.
now i'm going to have to find that thread...
A couple days ago there was another thread where there was a post with a picture, that tra… moreshed my religion. I made a comment saying that if i made a positive religion thread that it would be trolled, etc etc. I was right, we can't have nice things.
We have what is called this double standard. To be honest, i knew this would happen, and i don't blame anyone, it's just know how these boards are.
Sometimes things do seem like they had to have happened in the past in order to prevent greater evil from happening in the future, but sometimes when bad moments are averted they turn out alright as well (and a being who has foresight into the future would be able to tell which events are necessary to prevent humankind from becoming more corrupt and which do not).
Then it follows that every bad event that did occurred in the past and wasn't averted was in fact necessary to prevent a greater evil from having occurred. And furthermore, that every bad event that will be allowed to occur in the future instead of being averted will be necessary to prevent some greater evil from eventually occurring. So the man watching the school burn down wouldn't need foresight into the future to justify letting those children suffer and die, just his belief in God.
In normal circumstances, absolutely not. However, if this person had foresight into the future and saw that an event would happen in the future that would lead to many more deaths because the elementary school didn't burn down, or the doctor who had foresight into the future saw that was the only way to get the cure for a disease that would kill billions of more people over the course of time, then yes, it would a compassionate and good thing to do.
So you're taking a utilitarian view on things? The point of allowing human suffering to occur isn't to create more compassion just for the sake of creating compassion, but to create more compassion in order to reduce human suffering in the future? But wouldn't the most utilitarian thing be to make it so that none or almost none of the suffering occurs at all? God doesn't have to choose between 30 children dying now and 50 children dying later. He can choose 0 children dying now and 0 children dying later.
The child who turns into a criminal or abuses other people because they were abused could be rescued by a social worker later, and then becomes a social worker themselves later to help children who are affected by the loss of their parents, or by parents who abuse them, so they don't go down the same path. Or, if the child dies in that life of crime, they could inspire a police officer to devote their lives to helping children who were abused or who have turned to a life of crime so that the same fate doesn't happen to them.
So assuming that the utilitarian calculations in all of these cases all work out for the better (which, I have trouble envisioning), you don't see anything wrong or unjust about making one life much worse in order to enrich other lives? To use an economic analogy, if I take the last $500 from a poverty-stricken family, double it, then pass it along to another family, it's true that I have increased the net wealth of the world, but isn't it also true that I have committed a grave injustice towards the first family (especially when I, in my infinite power could just give the second family whatever I want without depriving the first of anything)?
@DomeWing333 wrote:
So let's say for the sake of argument that all the suffering in the world contributes to it being more compassionate.… more Would you then say that the world would be better with more suffering, since that would lead to more compassion?
Not necessarily. There have been numerous instances of near death experiences where people have come out with a more compassionate outlook on life. Sometimes things do seem like they had to have happened in the past in order to prevent greater evil from happening in the future, but sometimes when bad moments are averted they turn out alright as well (and a being who has foresight into the future would be able to tell which events are necessary to prevent humankind from becoming more corrupt and which do not).
@DomeWing333 wrote:
Would you consider a person who does nothing while an elementary school burns down in front of him to be "compassionate" if his reason for doing so … [view original content]
So what you're saying is that God may have helped that child at some other point in her life, but then at some later point, despite not ignoring her and despite knowing that she would end up in that condition without his intervention, thought "You know what? That's enough help. I'll leave her for the vultures."
There is a difference between giving help every now and then and totally controlling someone's life to the extent that nothing bad ever happens to them, or that they never meet their end. We've already discussed this point, and it extends unto children as said before. It wouldn't make sense if children were just inexplicably and miraculously invincible.
I'll say again just in case it isn't already clear, controlling someone's life to keep them from harm down the road is not the same thing as the kind of help that I believe God gives us. Our lives were not meant to be dictated.
The whole point of this argument was to question why God would force himself to work within physical laws. He is beyond it. His agenda is beyond it. If he wanted to he could, as you said, wave his magical wand and make it so no child ever got cancer. Doing so would make this world closer to preserving his agenda of letting humans develop as people before letting them into heaven. So why not do it? Your original justification to this was that he wanted to keep this world operating under physical rules (which he sometimes (but very rarely!) breaks). And your justification for that was that the physical world is meant to serve the agenda of providing us with the opportunity to develop as people. But, as I just pointed out, a world that isn't completely restricted to physical laws would be better at achieving that agenda. So...why...not...do it?
I thought this line of thought had already been hashed out, but I'll try and clear it up. As was said earlier in this conversation, our lives are meant to be finite. Physical is a finite form. The spiritual world is thought to be undying. We were purposely put into the world that we are in as a means for us to grow. We can make sense of this world (because it's physical opposed to spiritual), and God's presence is more subtle rather than blatant, giving us uninfluenced choice to choose right from wrong, ect. Since we can't live forever, we learn to place value on the time that we have, and learn compassion for others as their lives go through their own motion. We adopt a carpe diem sort of mentality. If the human race had just been placed into the spiritual world from the very beginning of our creation, it could be debated that there would be no room for the growth or perspective offered by the physical world. The spiritual world is instead, meant as a place for the human race as they transcend out of the physical existence. That supposed perfect place does theoretically exist in the afterlife/ Heaven. There is simply another life to be lived before reaching that destination. (I would add that the idea of an afterlife could be a totally separate debate of it's own, though)
Because that's how fairness works. A creator who only intervenes to help some of his creations grow and experience life while relegating the rest to an incomplete existence is unfair and capricious, not perfect and just.
This has already been touched on as well. We're dealing with an imperfect world here. It's not that God relegates any certain people to an "incomplete" existence, it's just a byproduct of our world. God may even have separate plans for people who have their opportunities cut short.
If you were to ask someone "Is there a purpose to this?" and they respond with "I can't think of one," would it make more sense to interpret that as a yes or a no?
I would interpret it closer to a "no". If we're being honest here though, you're going beyond simply saying that you don't know what the potential purpose behind our type of existence would be. You wouldn't be debating the matter with me, trying to give your own rationale for your own opinion if you were simply going no farther than conceding that you can't think of what the factual answer might be. I would just as readily admit that I don't have a factual answer. What both of us are doing is forming an opinion, along with personal rationale for that opinion, and then going forward from there. Also, as I mentioned in my last post, my own personal experiences add substance to the opinion that I have.
Perhaps if I had the experiences you had, I too would be a believer. That not being the case, though, I can only rely on the world that I've seen.
I'm just going to go ahead and copy and paste what I said last time, as it still stands.
So what you're saying is that God may have … morehelped that child at some other point in her life, but then at some later point, despite not ignoring her and despite knowing that she would end up in that condition without his intervention, thought "You know what? That's enough help. I'll leave her for the vultures."
Feel free to rewrite the laws of our physical creation and come up with something better while still operating within what could be physically/ scientifically attainable.
The whole point of this argument was to question why God would force himself to work within physical laws. He is beyond it. His agenda is beyond it. If he wanted to he could, as you said, wave his magical wand and make it so no child ever got cancer. Doing so would make this world closer to preserving his agenda of letting humans develop as people before lett… [view original content]
Then it follows that every bad event that did occurred in the past and wasn't averted was in fact necessary to prevent a greater evil from having occurred. And furthermore, that every bad event that will be allowed to occur in the future instead of being averted will be necessary to prevent some greater evil from eventually occurring. So the man watching the school burn down wouldn't need foresight into the future to justify letting those children suffer and die, just his belief in God.
Even if the hypothesis that every event that has occurred or will occur needs to in order to advance the compassion of humankind does end up being true, doing nothing if you don't have foresight wouldn't be justified or compassionate as that person wouldn't know that for a fact. There's a big difference between having faith in something and being reckless with that faith.
Even if someone without precognition does believe that everything happens for a reason, that doesn't mean that it's alright to not help if given the chance. Even if inaction would lead to the inevitable anyway, that doesn't justify it. It's just as likely that that person will fail if that event really is necessary, but that's not that person's decision to make if that person is a compassionate person. The whole hypothesis of this is that humanity becomes more compassionate over time, a human being without foresight into the future not helping wouldn't be compassionate at all, and would be working in the opposite direction.
So you're taking a utilitarian view on things? The point of allowing human suffering to occur isn't to create more compassion just for the sake of creating compassion, but to create more compassion in order to reduce human suffering in the future? But wouldn't the most utilitarian thing be to make it so that none or almost none of the suffering occurs at all? God doesn't have to choose between 30 children dying now and 50 children dying later. He can choose 0 children dying now and 0 children dying later.
I would never make a distinction like this myself, as I can't foresee future events, but a being with foresight into the future would have to make distinctions like this. If it's a difference between 30 and 50, it's possible that distinction had already been made (as not every disaster turns to tragedy), but if it's the difference between 30 and 30 thousand, which then could have a butterfly effect to millions of more deaths over time and for humanity to be more cruel as a result (such as that school bringing up a terrorist, who kills everyone in the city including everyone in the school, which then leads to copycat crimes, leading to more deaths, and in addition the school burning down would lead to laws reforming building codes preventing fires in the future, leading to millions of people not dying in fires over time who would have, and the law making the people of the town value lives over cost, which leads to a boost in humanity becoming more compassionate in the process, and that being can foresee that that wouldn't have happened without that event) that would be a distinction that would be compassionate to make.
If there were no deaths and no suffering, or few deaths and few suffering, human beings would be a cruel and cowardly lot. As awful as it seems, as evidenced by our evolution in kindness over time, we do need suffering in order to be compassionate.
So assuming that the utilitarian calculations in all of these cases all work out for the better (which, I have trouble envisioning), you don't see anything wrong or unjust about making one life much worse in order to enrich other lives? To use an economic analogy, if I take the last $500 from a poverty-stricken family, double it, then pass it along to another family, it's true that I have increased the net wealth of the world, but isn't it also true that I have committed a grave injustice towards the first family (especially when I, in my infinite power could just give the second family whatever I want without depriving the first of anything)?
A being with insight into the future would have to make distinctions unless that being didn't care about the people at all, if complete non-interference would lead to total death and complete interference would lead to a cruel and vicious species.
If that being with insight can see that these deaths lead to millions or billions of more deaths over the course of time because they didn't die, then, as sad as it seems, it would be compassionate to not interfere (especially if that being saw that the only way for humanity to be able to get past an issue would to have a specific amount of people die, and that not having the issue exist at all would have caused humanity to be cruel, such as the above hypothetical scenarios regarding World War II).
This scenario is not comparable at all to taking money, as it's not an active act, but purposeful non-interference due to precognition. It's a case of seeing all of the possible future events and then not acting in cases that are necessary in order for the path to happen that is most beneficial to the human race.
Sometimes things do seem like they had to have happened in the past in order to prevent greater evil from happening in the future, but somet… moreimes when bad moments are averted they turn out alright as well (and a being who has foresight into the future would be able to tell which events are necessary to prevent humankind from becoming more corrupt and which do not).
Then it follows that every bad event that did occurred in the past and wasn't averted was in fact necessary to prevent a greater evil from having occurred. And furthermore, that every bad event that will be allowed to occur in the future instead of being averted will be necessary to prevent some greater evil from eventually occurring. So the man watching the school burn down wouldn't need foresight into the future to justify letting those children suffer and die, just his belief in God.
In normal circumstances, absolutely not. However, if this person had foresight into… [view original content]
All the time. I pray when I am seeking guidance, strength, or forgiveness, I pray in times of hardship and despair, and in times of happiness and joy, I pray for the safety and well being of my family and friends, as well as for strangers, and I also often pray just to talk with God. My relationship with God is very important to me for a multitude of reasons. My life could have went down a very different road had it not been for Him being there with me and my family through it all. I try my best to count my blessings and thank God for them everyday, as well as never take anything or anyone for granted, because it's impossible to know for sure what will happen tomorrow.
I had written a more detailed response, but I think the crux of our debate can actually be settled right here in this part:
You wouldn't be debating the matter with me, trying to give your own rationale for your own opinion if you were simply going no farther than conceding that you can't think of what the factual answer might be. I would just as readily admit that I don't have a factual answer.
And yet I'm not supposed to interpret that as a "no." Despite both of us admitting that we can't come up with an answer, and despite your admission that you would normally interpret that as a "no" to the question, in this particular case, your answer is actually "yes." And your justification for this is your own personal experience. My reason for debating this is simply to show that for those of us who can't come up with an answer and who haven't had your personal experiences, the only interpretation that makes sense for us is "no." As long as we have an understanding of that, I think we can put this very long debate to rest. Good talk.
So what you're saying is that God may have helped that child at some other point in her life, but then at some later point, despite not igno… morering her and despite knowing that she would end up in that condition without his intervention, thought "You know what? That's enough help. I'll leave her for the vultures."
There is a difference between giving help every now and then and totally controlling someone's life to the extent that nothing bad ever happens to them, or that they never meet their end. We've already discussed this point, and it extends unto children as said before. It wouldn't make sense if children were just inexplicably and miraculously invincible.
I'll say again just in case it isn't already clear, controlling someone's life to keep them from harm down the road is not the same thing as the kind of help that I believe God gives us. Our lives were not meant to be dictated.
The whole point of this argument was to qu… [view original content]
It's funny but I have a far greater understanding of Judaism than my relatives who still consider themselves Jewish. It's such a misnomer that non-theists have no spirituality.
I never really got prayer, even when I was still a Christian. If God is omnipotent, shouldn't he already know what we need?
The concept … moreof having a personal relationship with god always seemed a little silly to me, and I imagine it also does to people from other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Islam. In Islam particularly, God is seen as terrific (in all senses of the word) and unknowable. Muslims only praise God, they never ask him for help or try to chat with him. To do so would be considered childish at best and very disrespectful at worst. That system makes more sense to me.
Ironically, I'm always chosen to say prayer at Thanksgiving and allegedly do a bang-up job of it.
Sorry, somehow I had forgotten to respond to this.
And yet I'm not supposed to interpret that as a "no." Despite both of us admitting that we can't come up with an answer, and despite your admission that you would normally interpret that as a "no" to the question, in this particular case, your answer is actually "yes."
I don't believe that I had said that I would normally interpret it as a "no". I had only said that I would interpret it "closer" to a "no", and I only said that much because you had asked me an either-or type of question, with my answer not really being either of the alternatives that you had given me. I wasn't arguing for either "yes" or "no", as I didn't believe your comparison fell in line with how our conversation had played out. That's what I was trying to detail.
Anyway, just thought I'd clear that up a little.
I think we can put this very long debate to rest. Good talk.
I think so. Either way, I think we know where we stand on this, and if nothing else we can just agree to disagree on a few points, recognizing that we each have our own rationale for believing what we do. Good talk.
I had written a more detailed response, but I think the crux of our debate can actually be settled right here in this part:
You wouldn… more't be debating the matter with me, trying to give your own rationale for your own opinion if you were simply going no farther than conceding that you can't think of what the factual answer might be. I would just as readily admit that I don't have a factual answer.
And yet I'm not supposed to interpret that as a "no." Despite both of us admitting that we can't come up with an answer, and despite your admission that you would normally interpret that as a "no" to the question, in this particular case, your answer is actually "yes." And your justification for this is your own personal experience. My reason for debating this is simply to show that for those of us who can't come up with an answer and who haven't had your personal experiences, the only interpretation that makes sense for us is "no." As l… [view original content]
I do pray. Every night if I am not too tired. Praying something that some people may find stupid but to me, it makes me feel calm. And sometimes the things that I prayed may not happen but I still belive in it.
Praying is not talking to a magic genie to grant your wishes - it's just a way of communication. Like having a distant friend you never call - you'd be still technically friends, but not very good. And calling God only when you need Him is a guarantee to fail. I'm thankful for what I have.
I haven't checked this thread for a long time.
To be honest, I had actually forgotten about it!
Anyway I started going over some of the new comments that have been left, and I just got through reading yours.
I must admit that your appreciation for prayer, is very unusual in this day and age, when so many do not believe in God.
I have to admit that I am very impressed!
If I may please ask you, without being to personal: What helped you to have such strong beliefs?
I ask because I'm starting to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I was wondering if you have any tips on how to prove to yourself that what you believe is in fact true?
I talked to a priest a while ago about it, but he wasn't able to give me any real answer.
If you would please get back to me, you'd surely be helping me.
All the time. I pray when I am seeking guidance, strength, or forgiveness, I pray in times of hardship and despair, and in times of happines… mores and joy, I pray for the safety and well being of my family and friends, as well as for strangers, and I also often pray just to talk with God. My relationship with God is very important to me for a multitude of reasons. My life could have went down a very different road had it not been for Him being there with me and my family through it all. I try my best to count my blessings and thank God for them everyday, as well as never take anything or anyone for granted, because it's impossible to know for sure what will happen tomorrow.
Anyway I started going over some of the new comments that have been left, and I just got through reading yours. I must admit that your appreciation for prayer, is very unusual in this day and age, when so many do not believe in God. I have to admit that I am very impressed!
Haha, well, thanks, but I honestly don't think it's that unusual. There are lots of people whose faith is stronger than mine, I think that what's really happening is that people are just quite a bit more apprehensive to speak up about their faith in public nowadays.
If I may please ask you, without being to personal: What helped you to have such strong beliefs? I ask because I'm starting to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I was wondering if you have any tips on how to prove to yourself that what you believe is in fact true?
Hmm, that's kind of difficult to explain, I must admit. As I said before, there have just been several times throughout my lifetime where things could have (and realistically should have tbh) turned out very, very badly for me and my family, and many a time the very opposite has happened. Some would say it was just luck, but I know for certain that it was nothing short of a miracle.
However, that doesn't mean there aren't times where I find myself feeling far away from God. We're only human, I think it is normal for us to question every now and then. I also think those are the times where He is testing us, and that is when we need to reach out to God, and immerse ourselves in our faith and scripture more than ever. After all, relationships of any kind require a lot of time, work and effort to keep the bond strong, this applies to a relationship with God, too. I've found that reading my bible and the works of C.S. Lewis, as well as getting involved in public outreach/missionary programs helps me a lot in times of doubting. I've also recently read Creation V. Evolution by Daniel A. Biddle, which has reinforced my beliefs a great deal.
I wish I had more advice to give you, but that's all I got, hopefully it helps a little. God bless you, and I hope you have a merry Christmas.:]
I haven't checked this thread for a long time.
To be honest, I had actually forgotten about it!
Anyway I started going over some of the… more new comments that have been left, and I just got through reading yours.
I must admit that your appreciation for prayer, is very unusual in this day and age, when so many do not believe in God.
I have to admit that I am very impressed!
If I may please ask you, without being to personal: What helped you to have such strong beliefs?
I ask because I'm starting to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I was wondering if you have any tips on how to prove to yourself that what you believe is in fact true?
I talked to a priest a while ago about it, but he wasn't able to give me any real answer.
If you would please get back to me, you'd surely be helping me.
Anyway I started going over some of the new comments that have been left, and I just got through reading yours. I must admit that your appre… moreciation for prayer, is very unusual in this day and age, when so many do not believe in God. I have to admit that I am very impressed!
Haha, well, thanks, but I honestly don't think it's that unusual. There are lots of people whose faith is stronger than mine, I think that what's really happening is that people are just quite a bit more apprehensive to speak up about their faith in public nowadays.
If I may please ask you, without being to personal: What helped you to have such strong beliefs? I ask because I'm starting to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I was wondering if you have any tips on how to prove to yourself that what you believe is in fact true?
Hmm, that's kind of difficult to explain, I must admit. As I said before, there have just been several times throughout my lif… [view original content]
Comments
[removed]
So what you're saying is that God may have helped that child at some other point in her life, but then at some later point, despite not ignoring her and despite knowing that she would end up in that condition without his intervention, thought "You know what? That's enough help. I'll leave her for the vultures."
The whole point of this argument was to question why God would force himself to work within physical laws. He is beyond it. His agenda is beyond it. If he wanted to he could, as you said, wave his magical wand and make it so no child ever got cancer. Doing so would make this world closer to preserving his agenda of letting humans develop as people before letting them into heaven. So why not do it? Your original justification to this was that he wanted to keep this world operating under physical rules (which he sometimes (but very rarely!) breaks). And your justification for that was that the physical world is meant to serve the agenda of providing us with the opportunity to develop as people. But, as I just pointed out, a world that isn't completely restricted to physical laws would be better at achieving that agenda. So...why...not...do it?
Because that's how fairness works. A creator who only intervenes to help some of his creations grow and experience life while relegating the rest to an incomplete existence is unfair and capricious, not perfect and just.
If you were to ask someone "Is there a purpose to this?" and they respond with "I can't think of one," would it make more sense to interpret that as a yes or a no?
Great. That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of your personal experiences, whether they be about God, ghosts, UFOs, bigfoot, whatever. Perhaps if I had the experiences you had, I too would be a believer. That not being the case, though, I can only rely on the world that I've seen. And what I've seen is a world that is indicative of chaos, not care.
So why did you respond to my post instead of the post that you felt was trolling? I didn't say anything that lacked respect.
That thread that you mentioned wasn't trashing your religion, it just stated that they didn't believe in God, heaven and hell, and that they believed in science. That's their right to believe that, and it's their right to discuss it as well. People discussing their lack of religious faith isn't trolling, and it's definitely not an attack, it's stating a difference of opinion. They have every right to not believe in religion as you do to believe in religion. There is no double standard here. The posts that said that religious prayer is stupid are trolling and were removed. The posts that said that they don't understand religious prayer were not, as they are legitimate discussion.
Both people posting that they believe strongly in religious prayer are allowed in this thread, and people posting that they don't believe in religious prayer are allowed as well, and neither have been removed. That's the exact opposite of a double standard.
Interesting proposal. I have a few questions.
So let's say for the sake of argument that all the suffering in the world contributes to it being more compassionate. Would you then say that the world would be better with more suffering, since that would lead to more compassion? Would you consider a person who does nothing while an elementary school burns down in front of him to be "compassionate" if his reason for doing so was wanting to have his community grow more compassionate in its mourning? What about a doctor who purposely lets a wealthy couple's child die so that they would donate their fortune towards finding a cure to the disease? Would you say that she has done something good and moral?
And do you think it's in fact true that all the suffering in the world was necessary for it to be as compassionate as it is now? If 1 million fewer people had died in the Holocaust, would our compassion be any less? Would humanity be so much more cruel and vicious if cancer only ever affected anyone over the age of 18? What about times when suffering leads to cruelty? When a mother dies and her child is forced to turn to crime to survive? When a child is abused in their youth and develops a pathology that makes them victimize others when they grow up? When a child falls on his head and loses his ability to control his violent impulses?
Not necessarily. There have been numerous instances of near death experiences where people have come out with a more compassionate outlook on life. Sometimes things do seem like they had to have happened in the past in order to prevent greater evil from happening in the future, but sometimes when bad moments are averted they turn out alright as well (and a being who has foresight into the future would be able to tell which events are necessary to prevent humankind from becoming more corrupt and which do not).
In normal circumstances, absolutely not. However, if this person had foresight into the future and saw that an event would happen in the future that would lead to many more deaths because the elementary school didn't burn down, or the doctor who had foresight into the future saw that was the only way to get the cure for a disease that would kill billions of more people over the course of time, then yes, it would a compassionate and good thing to do.
Take the film "Frequency" for example. The main character communicated with his father in the past to tell him how to save his life. However, in doing so he caused his mother, a nurse, to not leave the hospital, and she noticed that a patient was about to accidentally be given a drug that he was allergic to, which would kill him. This patient was a serial killer, and ended up killing people who were not originally killed before the main character saved his father's life. There can be unforeseen consequences to most people regarding something that seems like a simple choice, and someone with foresight into the future would be able to see those consequences. Granted, the scenario in the film is not as far reaching as the scenarios brought forth here, but a being that had foresight into the future would be able to see those awful scenarios and determine which ones would lead to the "serial killer" scenario on a global scale, and which ones would simply lead to a happy outcome.
It's hard to say for sure, but it's likely that would be the case. There were a lot of countries before the Holocaust that agreed with the Nazi regime that the Jewish people were subhuman, and there were a lot of nations who were doing their own eugenics programs. Sadly, it was the sheer horror of the holocaust, in all of its magnitude, that caused these nations to look inward towards their own countries and make the necessary changes towards compassion.
This is hard to say too, but it's possible. Childhood illnesses generally get more awareness and funding than adult illnesses. The funding for childhood illnesses will in turn, and in some cases, already has, help adults affected with the diseases as well. Without childhood diseases, it's conceivable that humanity's urge to donate towards a cure and/or improved treatments would be much, much lower than what it is now (and it's certainly plausible that without widespread support of telethons like the Jerry's Kids telethon for muscular dystrophy, Red Nose Day, or Children in Need, public perception of charity would not be favorable, at least not as it is now).
Often times this has a butterfly effect too. The child who turns into a criminal or abuses other people because they were abused could be rescued by a social worker later, and then becomes a social worker themselves later to help children who are affected by the loss of their parents, or by parents who abuse them, so they don't go down the same path. Or, if the child dies in that life of crime, they could inspire a police officer to devote their lives to helping children who were abused or who have turned to a life of crime so that the same fate doesn't happen to them. The child who loses the ability to control their impulses could inspire their parents to start a charity that will eventually lead to a cure, or inspire a doctor who eventually leads a team that works on a treatment that will help to increase mobility in those affected with brain damage. There are a lot of ripple effects from one event that can't be seen by those without foresight into the future. They seem like they are pointless deaths, but it's very possible there actually is a purpose to them.
Your persecution complex is absurdly strong. Religion is trolled, yes. As are all view points. In our age of information things are put to scrutiny and things that don't hold up are called on it, hell even things that actually do hold up to scrutiny are called out on things (nowhere near as much as the former though.)
You, specifically are "trolled" (as you put it) because you put up your views and are entirely unable to defend them. You'll resort to calling people names or saying they simply can't handle your views when it's actually the fact you simply cannot defend them. We can have nice things, as long as they are actually nice.
Tl;dr Things are scrutinized. The things you post don't hold up. You claim persecution.
Then it follows that every bad event that did occurred in the past and wasn't averted was in fact necessary to prevent a greater evil from having occurred. And furthermore, that every bad event that will be allowed to occur in the future instead of being averted will be necessary to prevent some greater evil from eventually occurring. So the man watching the school burn down wouldn't need foresight into the future to justify letting those children suffer and die, just his belief in God.
So you're taking a utilitarian view on things? The point of allowing human suffering to occur isn't to create more compassion just for the sake of creating compassion, but to create more compassion in order to reduce human suffering in the future? But wouldn't the most utilitarian thing be to make it so that none or almost none of the suffering occurs at all? God doesn't have to choose between 30 children dying now and 50 children dying later. He can choose 0 children dying now and 0 children dying later.
So assuming that the utilitarian calculations in all of these cases all work out for the better (which, I have trouble envisioning), you don't see anything wrong or unjust about making one life much worse in order to enrich other lives? To use an economic analogy, if I take the last $500 from a poverty-stricken family, double it, then pass it along to another family, it's true that I have increased the net wealth of the world, but isn't it also true that I have committed a grave injustice towards the first family (especially when I, in my infinite power could just give the second family whatever I want without depriving the first of anything)?
There is a difference between giving help every now and then and totally controlling someone's life to the extent that nothing bad ever happens to them, or that they never meet their end. We've already discussed this point, and it extends unto children as said before. It wouldn't make sense if children were just inexplicably and miraculously invincible.
I'll say again just in case it isn't already clear, controlling someone's life to keep them from harm down the road is not the same thing as the kind of help that I believe God gives us. Our lives were not meant to be dictated.
I thought this line of thought had already been hashed out, but I'll try and clear it up. As was said earlier in this conversation, our lives are meant to be finite. Physical is a finite form. The spiritual world is thought to be undying. We were purposely put into the world that we are in as a means for us to grow. We can make sense of this world (because it's physical opposed to spiritual), and God's presence is more subtle rather than blatant, giving us uninfluenced choice to choose right from wrong, ect. Since we can't live forever, we learn to place value on the time that we have, and learn compassion for others as their lives go through their own motion. We adopt a carpe diem sort of mentality. If the human race had just been placed into the spiritual world from the very beginning of our creation, it could be debated that there would be no room for the growth or perspective offered by the physical world. The spiritual world is instead, meant as a place for the human race as they transcend out of the physical existence. That supposed perfect place does theoretically exist in the afterlife/ Heaven. There is simply another life to be lived before reaching that destination. (I would add that the idea of an afterlife could be a totally separate debate of it's own, though)
This has already been touched on as well. We're dealing with an imperfect world here. It's not that God relegates any certain people to an "incomplete" existence, it's just a byproduct of our world. God may even have separate plans for people who have their opportunities cut short.
I would interpret it closer to a "no". If we're being honest here though, you're going beyond simply saying that you don't know what the potential purpose behind our type of existence would be. You wouldn't be debating the matter with me, trying to give your own rationale for your own opinion if you were simply going no farther than conceding that you can't think of what the factual answer might be. I would just as readily admit that I don't have a factual answer. What both of us are doing is forming an opinion, along with personal rationale for that opinion, and then going forward from there. Also, as I mentioned in my last post, my own personal experiences add substance to the opinion that I have.
And I can certainly understand that.
Even if the hypothesis that every event that has occurred or will occur needs to in order to advance the compassion of humankind does end up being true, doing nothing if you don't have foresight wouldn't be justified or compassionate as that person wouldn't know that for a fact. There's a big difference between having faith in something and being reckless with that faith.
Even if someone without precognition does believe that everything happens for a reason, that doesn't mean that it's alright to not help if given the chance. Even if inaction would lead to the inevitable anyway, that doesn't justify it. It's just as likely that that person will fail if that event really is necessary, but that's not that person's decision to make if that person is a compassionate person. The whole hypothesis of this is that humanity becomes more compassionate over time, a human being without foresight into the future not helping wouldn't be compassionate at all, and would be working in the opposite direction.
I would never make a distinction like this myself, as I can't foresee future events, but a being with foresight into the future would have to make distinctions like this. If it's a difference between 30 and 50, it's possible that distinction had already been made (as not every disaster turns to tragedy), but if it's the difference between 30 and 30 thousand, which then could have a butterfly effect to millions of more deaths over time and for humanity to be more cruel as a result (such as that school bringing up a terrorist, who kills everyone in the city including everyone in the school, which then leads to copycat crimes, leading to more deaths, and in addition the school burning down would lead to laws reforming building codes preventing fires in the future, leading to millions of people not dying in fires over time who would have, and the law making the people of the town value lives over cost, which leads to a boost in humanity becoming more compassionate in the process, and that being can foresee that that wouldn't have happened without that event) that would be a distinction that would be compassionate to make.
If there were no deaths and no suffering, or few deaths and few suffering, human beings would be a cruel and cowardly lot. As awful as it seems, as evidenced by our evolution in kindness over time, we do need suffering in order to be compassionate.
A being with insight into the future would have to make distinctions unless that being didn't care about the people at all, if complete non-interference would lead to total death and complete interference would lead to a cruel and vicious species.
If that being with insight can see that these deaths lead to millions or billions of more deaths over the course of time because they didn't die, then, as sad as it seems, it would be compassionate to not interfere (especially if that being saw that the only way for humanity to be able to get past an issue would to have a specific amount of people die, and that not having the issue exist at all would have caused humanity to be cruel, such as the above hypothetical scenarios regarding World War II).
This scenario is not comparable at all to taking money, as it's not an active act, but purposeful non-interference due to precognition. It's a case of seeing all of the possible future events and then not acting in cases that are necessary in order for the path to happen that is most beneficial to the human race.
All the time. I pray when I am seeking guidance, strength, or forgiveness, I pray in times of hardship and despair, and in times of happiness and joy, I pray for the safety and well being of my family and friends, as well as for strangers, and I also often pray just to talk with God. My relationship with God is very important to me for a multitude of reasons. My life could have went down a very different road had it not been for Him being there with me and my family through it all. I try my best to count my blessings and thank God for them everyday, as well as never take anything or anyone for granted, because it's impossible to know for sure what will happen tomorrow.
I had written a more detailed response, but I think the crux of our debate can actually be settled right here in this part:
And yet I'm not supposed to interpret that as a "no." Despite both of us admitting that we can't come up with an answer, and despite your admission that you would normally interpret that as a "no" to the question, in this particular case, your answer is actually "yes." And your justification for this is your own personal experience. My reason for debating this is simply to show that for those of us who can't come up with an answer and who haven't had your personal experiences, the only interpretation that makes sense for us is "no." As long as we have an understanding of that, I think we can put this very long debate to rest. Good talk.
It's funny but I have a far greater understanding of Judaism than my relatives who still consider themselves Jewish. It's such a misnomer that non-theists have no spirituality.
Sorry, somehow I had forgotten to respond to this.
I don't believe that I had said that I would normally interpret it as a "no". I had only said that I would interpret it "closer" to a "no", and I only said that much because you had asked me an either-or type of question, with my answer not really being either of the alternatives that you had given me. I wasn't arguing for either "yes" or "no", as I didn't believe your comparison fell in line with how our conversation had played out. That's what I was trying to detail.
Anyway, just thought I'd clear that up a little.
I think so. Either way, I think we know where we stand on this, and if nothing else we can just agree to disagree on a few points, recognizing that we each have our own rationale for believing what we do. Good talk.
I do pray. Every night if I am not too tired. Praying something that some people may find stupid but to me, it makes me feel calm. And sometimes the things that I prayed may not happen but I still belive in it.
Praying is not talking to a magic genie to grant your wishes - it's just a way of communication. Like having a distant friend you never call - you'd be still technically friends, but not very good. And calling God only when you need Him is a guarantee to fail. I'm thankful for what I have.
I haven't checked this thread for a long time.
To be honest, I had actually forgotten about it!
Anyway I started going over some of the new comments that have been left, and I just got through reading yours.
I must admit that your appreciation for prayer, is very unusual in this day and age, when so many do not believe in God.
I have to admit that I am very impressed!
If I may please ask you, without being to personal: What helped you to have such strong beliefs?
I ask because I'm starting to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I was wondering if you have any tips on how to prove to yourself that what you believe is in fact true?
I talked to a priest a while ago about it, but he wasn't able to give me any real answer.
If you would please get back to me, you'd surely be helping me.
I like praying. It makes me feel closer to God every time.
Today is also الجُمُعَة.
Haha, well, thanks, but I honestly don't think it's that unusual. There are lots of people whose faith is stronger than mine, I think that what's really happening is that people are just quite a bit more apprehensive to speak up about their faith in public nowadays.
Hmm, that's kind of difficult to explain, I must admit. As I said before, there have just been several times throughout my lifetime where things could have (and realistically should have tbh) turned out very, very badly for me and my family, and many a time the very opposite has happened. Some would say it was just luck, but I know for certain that it was nothing short of a miracle.
However, that doesn't mean there aren't times where I find myself feeling far away from God. We're only human, I think it is normal for us to question every now and then. I also think those are the times where He is testing us, and that is when we need to reach out to God, and immerse ourselves in our faith and scripture more than ever. After all, relationships of any kind require a lot of time, work and effort to keep the bond strong, this applies to a relationship with God, too. I've found that reading my bible and the works of C.S. Lewis, as well as getting involved in public outreach/missionary programs helps me a lot in times of doubting. I've also recently read Creation V. Evolution by Daniel A. Biddle, which has reinforced my beliefs a great deal.
I wish I had more advice to give you, but that's all I got, hopefully it helps a little. God bless you, and I hope you have a merry Christmas.:]
Thank you for taking the time to answer my inquiry.
I really do appreciate it!
Godspeed!
Bruh... me too.
LoL. I could never make prayer habitual.