Does God take humanity seriously?

[Road Warrior]

what i said about religious stories being a way to understand what mankind doesn't understand is that the religious stories we have today have evolved into new meanings because we thought we knew, we didn't.

In some cases that is exactly true and we've adapted. Well, some have. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad to see the very same people who quote Leviticus regarding gays are also stuffing themselves with a pulled-pork sandwich. The Bible discusses slaves since that was a reality of time but, as a race, most of our world has matured past the point of keeping slaves. There are other parts of the Bible (and other religious texts) which are obviously dated or, more likely IMO, misinterpreted by modern religious leaders such as Creationism.

 

[839311]

And just as God "might exist," God "might have created the universe."

Sure, God might have created the universe. Zeus might have created the universe. Tlaloc might have created the universe. I might have created the universe, but then decided to clear my memories and be born here on earth In which case, pain and suffering 'might' be my fault :run:

Why the double standard? Why do I have to provide evidence and you do not?

What do you want me to provide evidence for? I didn't think I was making any claims that needed evidence...

You don't have to provide evidence. But it would help your case out a lot if you would

 

[839311]

It's a big wasp (with the second most painful sting in the insect world), that specifically hunts out tarantulas. What it does is, it finds a tarantula, and stings it, which paralyzes the tarantula for life. Then it drags the tarantula back to its own burial hole, and lays an egg on its abdomen. The egg hatches, and the larva begins feasting on the still-alive tarantula for a number of weeks, avoiding vital organs. Eventually the tarantula dies, and the new tarantula hawk leaves to complete the cycle.

The proposition of perfection usually hinges on some unseen promise, and even then, typically does a poor job of taking into account the intricacies of suffering or suboptimal design.

I've come across a similar example in The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. That one also has a wasp that lays its eggs inside a caterpillar. The caterpillar is alive and used as food for the young until it dies. In both of these examples, it is extremely difficult to imagine that a being who cares about life on earth would allow this to happen. Or, that he would care about what food we eat or who we sleep with, and in what position, but would allow wasps to lay eggs in spiders and caterpillars, the hungry to starve to death, people to be gang-raped and murdered, or imprisoned and abused for decades, or driven to suicide by bullys.

 

[George-ananda]

This whole thread sounds like the old Problem of Evil debate.

I look at it this way.....creation is a like a long, long pamaramic painting from the big bang to its end. To really understand the painting you have to be able to see it in grand perspective.

All we can see in our lifetime is one one-billionth slice of the painting. So, in looking at the one one-billionth slice we think we can judge and critique the painting and the painter. It's obviously impossible for us to grasp.

Our souls are immortal. All we can do in this one lifetime is live the best we can with the hand we're dealt.

 

[Penumbra]

It seems to me that most defenses of suffering of humans and other species, that is, defenses of the problem of evil or suffering, explicitly hinge on either a) a history which disagrees with consensus scientific opinion (like the earth got corrupted or whatever due to human sin, despite mass extinctions, and hunting and the hunted, occurring before humanity ever existed), or b) some rather un-evidenced proposition that there exists a meaningful afterlife that not only makes up for, but specifically benefits from, suffering in this life. In other words, few would say that this life is all there is, and this life is perfect. The proposition of perfection usually hinges on some unseen promise, and even then, typically does a poor job of taking into account the intricacies of suffering or suboptimal design.

This whole thread sounds like the old Problem of Evil debate.

I look at it this way.....creation is a like a long, long pamaramic painting from the big bang to its end. To really understand the painting you have to be able to see it in grand perspective.

All we can see in our lifetime is one one-billionth slice of the painting. So, in looking at the one one-billionth slice we think we can judge and critique the painting and the painter. It's obviously impossible for us to grasp.

Our souls are immortal. All we can do in this one lifetime is live the best we can with the hand we're dealt.

^The old answer to the old Problem of Evil debate, albeit one without evidence or support.

Requiring un-evidenced promises and claims, though at least a willingness to admit that one does not know.

 

[839311]

people fight each other by his own think more you clear on this site according Struts2 JQuery

For your first post on RF, this was of an exceptional quality. Welcome to RF

 

[839311]

I look at it this way.....creation...

Starting off with calling it creation is already unjustified. Maybe God does exist, but hasn't created anything at all. He just exists according to his own nature, and allows the natural forces free reign over matter.

...is like a long, long pamaramic painting from the big bang to its end. To really understand the painting you have to be able to see it in grand perspective.

Its interesting how the study of geology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, paleontology - and Im sure many other ologys and onomys - have filled in much of the painting of the last 14 or so billion years, and given us a grand perspective. Looking at this painting, it doesn't look good for the idea that there is a caring God out there. As much as I'd like there to be a good, caring God, theres no evidence for it anywhere we look. The painting looks exactly as one would expect it to look if there was no God.

 

[Revoltingest]

For your first post on RF, this was of an exceptional quality. Welcome to RF

Now, now...be nice to the newbies who wrestle with our abominably difficult language.
Greetings, Nishad!

 

[839311]

Now, now...be nice to the newbies who wrestle with our abominably difficult language.
Greetings, Nishad!

I greeted him and said his message was of an exceptional quality!... I think your seeing things that aren't there

 

[sojourner]

You said prove that its possible. I did that.

Imagining something and proving that it's possible are two different things. You need to prove that such states are possible in reality -- not just imaginable.

Also, think about your own life and the moments or experiences you've had that you could honestly say were perfect. Two come to mind for me, and thats just off the top of my head. That is not only proof that perfection is possible, but that it exists.

Perfection by whose definition and from whose point of view?

 

[839311]

Imagining something and proving that it's possible are two different things. You need to prove that such states are possible in reality -- not just imaginable.

Genetically engineering life so that people have no sadness, no anger, no pain, etc., is possible. If you don't think so, fine. But I think the correlation between genetics and what form and qualities life has is clear. Genetic engineering = possibility of perfection. All you wanted is a possibility. You have it. Unless you disagree that genetic engineering provides a means of attaining perfection?

Perfection by whose definition and from whose point of view?

For now its subjective, though that might not always be the case. I'm fine with that either way. People are different, but thats not a bad thing. Quite the opposite really. If everyone was exactly the same I think that would be really lame.

 

[sojourner]

Genetically engineering life so that people have no sadness, no anger, no pain, etc., is possible.

Is it?
And if so, why would we want to? Sadness is a deep emotional response. So is contentment. Anger and pain are safety markers. Or perhaps you'd rather just let us get beat up by our enemies and leave our hand on that hot stove top? How is that "perfection?"

Genetic engineering = possibility of perfection.

Genetic engineering = "treading on dangerous ground." Our foibles with Chernobyl and Japan are clear indicators of that.

Unless you disagree that genetic engineering provides a means of attaining perfection?

The paradigm that brought forth the human race was chance. how does "engineering" improve on that paradigm? Can "engineering" produce life? No.

For now its subjective

Why do you get to decide?

 

[839311]

Sadness is a deep emotional response.

If I was give the choice between having a body that experiences sadness and one that doesn't, I would choose the one that doesn't without a moments hesitation. What choice would you make?

So is contentment.

Contentment is good.

Anger and pain are safety markers.

Anger and pain have served the human race well. But in a perfect world, these would be undesirable.

Or perhaps you'd rather just let us get beat up by our enemies and leave our hand on that hot stove top? How is that "perfection?"

We could do without anger in a perfect world. Our receptors for things like heat and cold could be replaced by other types of receptors that don't cause us discomfort, but alert us just as effectively.

Genetic engineering = "treading on dangerous ground." Our foibles with Chernobyl and Japan are clear indicators of that.

I don't see what chernobyl or fukushima have to do with genetic engineering.

The paradigm that brought forth the human race was chance. how does "engineering" improve on that paradigm?

Because engineering is directed. We don't have to wait for evolution to produce improvements. We can make them ourselves. If we wait for chance to produce a perfect being, we would be waiting a very long time - maybe forever.

Can "engineering" produce life? No.

Yes. Genetic engineering has already created life. This is old news. By now Im sure they have made additional progress and are getting closer to producing a significantly more complex organism.

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form | Science | The Guardian

Why do you get to decide?

I decide for myself, because its my life.

 

[sojourner]

If I was give the choice between having a body that experiences sadness and one that doesn't, I would choose the one that doesn't without a moments hesitation. What choice would you make?

To be able to experience deep emotion.

Anger and pain have served the human race well. But in a perfect world, these would be undesirable.

The world isn't perfect -- and never will be, for creation itself is based upon random chance, not careful orchestration.

We could do without anger in a perfect world. Our receptors for things like heat and cold could be replaced by other types of receptors that don't cause us discomfort, but alert us just as effectively.

I don't think so.

I don't see what chernobyl or fukushima have to do with genetic engineering.

I forgot about Fukushima. I was talking about Hiroshima. What it has to do with is messing around with stuff we really don't have very good control over. Like genetics.

Because engineering is directed. We don't have to wait for evolution to produce improvements. We can make them ourselves. If we wait for chance to produce a perfect being, we would be waiting a very long time - maybe forever.

What makes you think we know enough to know what "improvements" to make?

Yes. Genetic engineering has already created life.

On a very limited basis -- nothing like the complexity of nature.

I decide for myself, because its my life.

First of all, theologically that's not true. Second, why do you get to decide for everyone else?

 

[839311]

The world isn't perfect -- and never will be

Maybe not this world, but reality may be perfect.

What it has to do with is messing around with stuff we really don't have very good control over. Like genetics.

I'm all for careful research. Realistically, though, care isn't always a priority. Money is king on our world.

What makes you think we know enough to know what "improvements" to make?

I never said we did. But we can find out through research.

On a very limited basis -- nothing like the complexity of nature.

Give it time, sojourner. Assuming humanity doesn't blow itself up and science keeps progressing, I think we'll get there :yes:

First of all, theologically that's not true.

Nor deterministically. I keep those possibilities in mind. Though, I often speak through a free will framework. But nevermind.

Second, why do you get to decide for everyone else?

I didn't know I had that power

Like I said, its subjective. My version of perfection is different than the next persons. Maybe there is an ultimate form of perfection that is objective, and which could only be understood as such by highly evolved D)...ahem...highly 'advanced' beings. But, the reality is we live in a subjective world. If you don't agree with my version of perfection, or atleast some part of perfection, then thats too bad for you!

 

[sojourner]

Maybe not this world, but reality may be perfect.

This world is reality -- unless, of course, you've been tainted by Platonic theory.

I'm all for careful research. Realistically, though, care isn't always a priority. Money is king on our world.

as long as that's the case, we have no business delving into it.

I never said we did. But we can find out through research.

so far, technology and science has been unable to stop our rampant depletion of resources. I hold far less optimism for research.

Give it time, sojourner. Assuming humanity doesn't blow itself up and science keeps progressing, I think we'll get there

we'll run out of air and water first.
As long as humanity continues the hubris that we're the owners of creation, we will continue to be poor stewards of what God has handed us.

Nor deterministically. I keep those possibilities in mind. Though, I often speak through a free will framework. But nevermind.

Theologically, your life is God's.

I didn't know I had that power

Like I said, its subjective. My version of perfection is different than the next persons. Maybe there is an ultimate form of perfection that is objective, and which could only be understood as such by highly evolved D)...ahem...highly 'advanced' beings. But, the reality is we live in a subjective world. If you don't agree with my version of perfection, or atleast some part of perfection, then thats too bad for you!

OK, but this isn't the world according to you. Or me. Or any other one, two, or a thousand people. The reality is that subjectivity is overblown.

 

[George-ananda]

Its interesting how the study of geology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, paleontology - and Im sure many other ologys and onomys - have filled in much of the painting of the last 14 or so billion years, and given us a grand perspective. Looking at this painting, it doesn't look good for the idea that there is a caring God out there. As much as I'd like there to be a good, caring God, theres no evidence for it anywhere we look. The painting looks exactly as one would expect it to look if there was no God.

You are only seeing the surface (physical) level of the painting with all these 'ologys and 'onomys. You seem to be assuming a materialistic paradigm. Consider that the painting may have many, many spiritual dimensions as part of it.

When I say you need a grand perspective you need to see all dimensions of the painting before you can have an accurate opinion of the painting and the painter.

It might be the total painting shows how TEMPORARY evil was in the end an accelerator of spiritual advancement.

 

[839311]

This world is reality -- unless, of course, you've been tainted by Platonic theory.

Our world could just be a simulation.

Theologically, your life is God's.

Thats debatable, even assuming God's existence. Though, Im guessing your going to fall back on unfalsifiable truth claims.

The reality is that subjectivity is overblown.

I couldn't say. Maybe some degree of subjectivity is a good thing, maybe not. I'd have to experience what its like to live in a completely objective world, and worlds of varying degrees of objectivity/subjectivity before I would consider trying to rate which one is the best.

 

[George-ananda]

Seems some people here are wondering that if there is a God that is loving and all=powerful why is there seemingly unfair suffering in the world. And why can't we all live suffering-free lives.

Isaac Asimov (who was an atheist) once pointed out the problem with the convential concept of heaven. A static-state perfect existance lasting an eternity would actually be a hell. Think about it; no challenges to overcome; no new things to learn; no new experiences to have; nothing to think/debate about; nothing to wonder about.......etc.

I think the creator knows we need to struggle/grow/struggle/grow etc. to be happy. With the overall trajectory of spiritual advancement.

 

[Thief]

Seems some people here are wondering that if there is a God that is loving and all=powerful why is there seemingly unfair suffering in the world. And why can't we all live suffering-free lives.

Isaac Asimov (who was an atheist) once pointed out the problem with the convential concept of heaven. A static-state perfect existance lasting an eternity would actually be a hell. Think about it; no challenges to overcome; no new things to learn; no new experiences to have; nothing to think/debate about; nothing to wonder about.......etc.

I think the creator knows we need to struggle/grow/struggle/grow etc. to be happy. With the overall trajectory of spiritual advancement.

Finally...someone who might be on to it.

So from God's perspective....
Humanity would be that so important distraction from a creation otherwise devoid of conversation.