Sam Harris, Profound Atheist Philosopher/writer

[Universal Mind]

This is one of his articles... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/t...ou-_b_8459.html He is a very profound writer I discovered recently, and I wanted to make him known to the folks here who might be interested in checking out his work. He wrote a book titled The End of Faith, and it is great stuff.

[JaphyR]

Have you also seen Letter to a Christian Nation? It is his collective response to all the feedback he got for writing The End of Faith. He says that his problems are not with the people who wrote back threatening him for having written such a blasphemous book, but with the source of their anger - all the bible quotes they sent him, justifying their threats.

[ExoByte]

Frankly, his article proves nothing. Its merely an opinion hes trying to pass off as fact. I don't know if God exists, and I know there is a chance that he may not. I know there is a chance that by believing in God there is a chance that I am believing in something that is not real. But I believe. All he says are the same things all atheists that just dont believe say "If God exists, why do these people suffer?" I have nothing really against Atheism, but there are certain Atheists that are a pain. Why? They only have one real argument which proves nothing, and they only have it so they say they have "evidence." That claim is almost always "If God exists, why do these people suffer?" All this guy did was take that same argument, and give it more words and make it sound smarter. If God does exist, he doesnt have to stop or start everything. Science does exist in this world, and cause and effect does exist. Which is why Christianity annoys me, they dont believe in Science. Things do happen, but just because Science exists doesnt deny the existance of God. Not to mention, if God does exist, things such as the war in Iraq are not his doing. We have freewill, we are humans. We have something called choice, and its our own doing. Those people dying in Iraq, that little girl beig raped, tortured adn killed... that is the choice of a human being. And if God exists, he doesn't mess with Free Will. His argument is specious.

[spoon]

If God does exist, he doesnt have to stop or start everything. Science does exist in this world, and cause and effect does exist. Which is why Christianity annoys me, they dont believe in Science. Things do happen, but just because Science exists doesnt deny the existance of God.[/b] Of course science doesn't a priori disprove the existance of the concept of 'god', but it does directly contradict certain religious definitions of god. Just as a god who created the world on the backs of infinite turtles is directly contradicted by science, the usual western religious idea of god is contradicted by the problem of suffering. The problem of evil, since its inception millenia ago, has drawn a simple, undeniable, contradiction in terms of the standard monotheistic defintion of god. It's true that the problem of suffering/evil does not neccessarily mean that god does not exist - but it does require a redefinition of the standard western notion of god. And I'd contend that I am an equally worthy object of worship than a god who gets around the problem of suffering. On the one hand you have god who is not able to solve the problem of suffering, but wants to - I am the same as this hypothetical entity. On the other hand you have a god who is able to solve the problem of suffering, but chooses not to. So yes, if god exists, it doesn't have to stop or start everything, but if it is a being worthy of worship, it would stop suffering. Not to mention, if God does exist, things such as the war in Iraq are not his doing. We have freewill, we are humans. We have something called choice, and its our own doing. Those people dying in Iraq, that little girl beig raped, tortured adn killed... that is the choice of a human being. And if God exists, he doesn't mess with Free Will.[/b] Ignoring the usual debate about free will's existance - the concept does not change the core of the problem of evil/suffering very much. The choice is still either god doesn't care, or god isn't powerful enough to do it. Neither seem worthy as an object of worship to me.

[Oneironaut Zero]

And I'd contend that I am an equally worthy object of worship than a god who gets around the problem of suffering. [/b] Strong words. On the one hand you have god who is not able to solve the problem of suffering, but wants to - I am the same as this hypothetical entity. On the other hand you have a god who is able to solve the problem of suffering, but chooses not to. So yes, if god exists, it doesn't have to stop or start everything, but if it is a being worthy of worship, it would stop suffering. [/b] As much as I hate getting into theist vs. atheistic arguments, I will touch on one thing: Remember, "suffering" is a relative term. A God that chooses not to stop suffering is not necessarily evidence of an uncaring God - one "not worthy of worship." As a parent, it's a lot easier a concept to understand (not assuming whether or not you're a parent, but speaking only from experience.) There are a lot of things I do, justified, of course, that the mind of a child could consider as "causing suffering," as disciplinary actions. This doesn't, to me, have to include spanking or any other kind of corporal punishment. Having certain liberties taken away, to the mind of a child, by someone who has a perception of the bigger picture, could be considered suffering. The actions of disciplining a child and "causing a relative suffering" neither means that I'm an uncaring father, unworthy of unconditional love and respect, nor that I'm an incompetent fool, incapable of stopping the child's punishment/suffering, had I a choice, because I do. It is the same as a drill sgt. in the military. Take the movie Full Metal Jacket for an example: (yes, I know it is a movie, but this is how the military works) Private Pyle hides a jelly doughnut in his footlocker. Food is not allowed in your barracks. Upon discovery of Private Pyle's Jelly doughnut, the entire platoon is sentenced to push-ups. Was it their fault? No. Do they "suffer" for it? Yes. Does this mean the drill sgt. doesn't have the power to end their suffering? Does it mean that his having the power and choosing not to use it makes him unworthy of respect and admiration? No to both questions. Why? Because Private Pyle is part of a team. (In the case of God, that team would be the human race.) The drill sergeant allows the entire platoon to suffer so that Private Pyle can see the effect that his own selfishness has on those around him. It would be just as easy for a soldier to mistake the Sergeant's perspective of the bigger picture for callousness and apathy toward the "suffering" of his platoon as it would for more understanding soldiers to realize his reason for doing so.

[spoon]

Remember, "suffering" is a relative term. A God that chooses not to stop suffering is not necessarily evidence of an uncaring God - one "not worthy of worship." As a parent, it's a lot easier a concept to understand (not assuming whether or not you're a parent, but speaking only from experience.) There are a lot of things I do, justified, of course, that the mind of a child could consider as "causing suffering," as disciplinary actions. This doesn't, to me, have to include spanking or any other kind of corporal punishment. Having certain liberties taken away, to the mind of a child, by someone who has a perception of the bigger picture, could be considered suffering. The actions of disciplining a child and "causing a relative suffering" neither means that I'm an uncaring father, unworthy of unconditional love and respect, nor that I'm an incompetent fool, incapable of stopping the child's punishment/suffering, had I a choice, because I do.[/b] If you were capable of imparting the same lessons on your child with no suffering whatsoever, would you do so? The traditional monotheistic view of god is that of an omnipotent being - omnipotence allows the lessons of suffering to be learned sans the actual suffering. If 'god' cares, but is unable to eliminate suffering (for whatever reason), then it is less than omnipotent. If it is less than omnipotent, then it is just a powerful being. Which is no more worthy of worship by us as we are worthy of worship by ants. If 'god' is omnipotent, which I would argue is a requisite part of the monotheistic definition of god, then it must not care enough to eliminate suffering. Why worship an impartial god? It would obviously make no difference whatsoever.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Ok. Keep in mind that I’m agnostic, but I’ll do my best to argue this from a theistic perspective. (and I really wanted to spare this thread a rant on beliefs, but getting a point across can be like crack, sometimes. haha. ....Not that I speak from experience on that one, though. ) If you were capable of imparting the same lessons on your child with no suffering whatsoever, would you do so?[/b] Honestly, that is not as easy a question to answer as you may think. Experience is the best teacher, is it not? Not only does experience teach the lesson through direct subjection, but it creates individuality. Each person goes through their own sets of trials and tribulations. Their own choices create the people that they are. Some choices are good, some are bad, but it is those choices that make us evolve and transcend (or descend, depending on our choices). To create us all as the same, right from the start, even if it was without suffering, would be to deny us our “free will” (or illusion thereof, whatever the case). We would be autonomous robots - each merely a reflection of the other because we would not have the catalysts of good/bad personal experiences to create the diversity that we have now. One man’s view of being denied another’s experiences (wealth, family, pancakes for breakfast, whatever) can be labeled as “suffering.” Like I said, it’s a relative term. For an “omnipotent” God (which is, in itself, a relative concept because we are relating the power He may have, to our own, which would make him seem omnipotent when, in the cosmic scheme, he may not be) to completely do away with that sort of conflict, he would have to make us the same, and eliminate choice and individuality from the universe. Think about how we, as lucid dreamers, look at the concept of Dream Characters. Many of us get completely turned off to dream character interaction, while lucid, because we realize that they are simply manifestations of our internal thoughts and desires. People get so hung up on the fact that DC’s, when controlled, will do exactly what you want, when you want. So what happens? Many of us realize how much more we value interactions with Real people with Real opinions and Real senses of self. Others (like myself) often discard the notion that I can control every DC, while lucid, should I desire to. The more I stop convincing myself that DC’s act according to my subconscious influence, the more distinct, unpredictable and realistic they become. I enjoy when everything is not under my control and it makes my experiences with them so much better. Do you not find it conceivable that God (should he exist) could be of the same frame of mind? If universal “energy” is the one True plane of existence, then our physical lives are the dream world. Suffering may seem like suffering, here. Joy may seem like Joy. But once we, as mortals, die, we may be pushed into another realm of existence where our perceptions of Joy and Pain, in the physical, were trivial to say the least. It’s only fair to consider this consider this possibility when making a choice (should you feel compelled to make a choice) between advocating or denying the existence of a God. Maybe admission into "God's light," upon death is the prize for developing morality and love for/oneness with all things (enlightenment) without the direct involvement of God. Such a thing would be a hell of an accomplishement, knowing the world we live in, don't you think? Imagine the "souls" of those who have attained this status. What it must be like to transcend to a realm where you are surrounded by such champions. If it is less than omnipotent, then it is just a powerful being. Which is no more worthy of worship by us as we are worthy of worship by ants. [/b] Now this, I definitely don’t agree with, though I understand why you feel that way. Let’s go back to the analogy of parenting. Parents are not omnipotent, but does a “good” parent, that does what they can to support and care for their child, not deserve respect, love and adoration? This is, after all, the basic meaning of the word “worship.” (I don’t believe that, if God exists, he expects our “worship” of him to include all of the subjective servitude that human religion has imposed upon followers of the faith, “in his name.”) If 'god' is omnipotent, which I would argue is a requisite part of the monotheistic definition of god, then it must not care enough to eliminate suffering. [/b] I don’t believe that our traditional definitions/interpretations/assumptions of God being wrong are evidence of an uncaring God. Remember, (should Heaven/Hell/etc exist) we are looking at existence from behind the veil of a merely mortal perspective. “Suffering” is in relation to our mortal gauge of “Joy and Pain.” Without making the assumption that we even know true Joy/Pain, to the degree that God/Angels/Demons/etc know those concepts, it’s a lot easier to concede that we may merely be misinterpreting His motives. This is the same type of thinking that causes children to rebel against even the “good” parents, when they disagree with the way the parents are disciplining them, too often (nowadays) choosing to kill the “uncaring monsters” because of an inability to understand that there may, in fact, be a method to the madness. It is concepts like this that show that there is just as much faithwork in atheism as there is logic. Now, which is it that you have the most trouble with: accepting the mainstream definitions of God because (and I agree) they simply don’t add up, or accepting the possibility of a misunderstood God, who’s apparent non-involvement makes it seem like he either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care? If your trouble is only with the mainstream definitions of God, and you concede that there may be a God out there, then you truly see why stark atheism is just as flawed as theism.

[Universal Mind]

Oneironaut, the bottom line is that the Western notion of God involves one that can do ANYTHING. That means he would be able to remove all of the problems and laws of life you mentioned and replace them with whatever he dreams up. He would be able to get every benefit he wants through any procedure he wants. He could bring about any result with no problems at all involved at any step. You don't have that power, and the Sargeant in Full Metal Jacket (awesome movie) does not have that power. Thus, Private Pyle and your child have to work under the laws of reality as they are. An omnipotent God would not have that obstacle. He would have no boundaries at all to consider. That is why I think the existence of suffering, even one skinned knee or just one split second of a negative emotion is proof that there is no being in existence that is both infinitely powerful and totally good. I have done a lot of thinking about a way around my point. Maybe this belongs in a whole new thread, but I'll mention it here for now. WHAT IF... there is an infinitely powerful, totally good God who made it where suffering would exist even though it was not at all necessary, but he made it seem 100% logical that a totally good, infinitely powerful God would not do that. What if the idea makes sense, but we were given the illusion that it doesn't. An infinitely powerful God would be able to make it where creating suffering is an act of infinite love but completely appears not to be. Wouldn't that be an evil thing to do? Logically, yes it would. But, what if our understanding of logic is an illusion because God wanted it that way? What if God made it where he could create a world full of suffering without it being anything less than an act of infinite love? By definition, an infinitely powerful being would be able to do that. My above point was designed to be, as much as possible, a loophole. However, it ends up being a reductio ad absurdum of the concept of infinite power, just like the scenario of God creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it. The creation of unnecessary suffering as an act of infinite love is completely illogical. The argument that an omnipotent being could hypothetically create such a thing is true, but the scenario shows the absurdity of the notion of infinite power as well as the absurdity of a God who does such a thing with his infinite power. The idea of unicorns running around the rings of Saturn makes much more sense.

[JaphyR]

This is my favorite part: "It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

[Oneironaut Zero]

Universal Mind: Oneironaut, the bottom line is that the Western notion of God involves one that can do ANYTHING. That means he would be able to remove all of the problems and laws of life you mentioned and replace them with whatever he dreams up. He would be able to get every benefit he wants through any procedure he wants. He could bring about any result with no problems at all involved at any step. You don't have that power, and the Sargeant in Full Metal Jacket (awesome movie) does not have that power. Thus, Private Pyle and your child have to work under the laws of reality as they are. An omnipotent God would not have that obstacle. He would have no boundaries at all to consider. That is why I think the existence of suffering, even one skinned knee or just one split second of a negative emotion is proof that there is no being in existence that is both infinitely powerful and totally good. [/b] Well, first off, I think the Western idea of God is no more credible than the interpretations from other religions, so if this is an argument against God being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I know exactly where you're coming from.. However, the question of atheism vs theism doesn't necessarily delineate exclusiveness to any one interpretation (unless I misunderstand the concepts of atheist and theist.). God does not have to be of the Western Interpretation of God, to exist. Even so, to be able to consider the possibility of a sort of “God Concept”, seriously (which I think proves harder and harder, the more a person labels himself as "one who believes no 'God' exists") one has to concede to the fact that what seems logical/illogical to us, may very well be (and often is) absolutely logical, to a being with a broader perspective. To the sane, but inexperienced, the actions of a serial killer can seem completely illogical. However, to the psychologists that study them, they are often considered to be very methodical and calculated. And, no, I'm not relating "God" to a serial killer. For some reason, I see someone trying to use that against me, in the future - I'm simply saying that, when dealing with the inspirations and motivations of cognitive entities, 2 + 2 may not always equal 4 but, when it doesn’t, it doesn’t mean the answer is wrong. A God can make a universe with no pain and suffering, but to automatically assume, off of our own logic, that any reason God would have for not doing so, by default, is so illogical that it warrants the denial of “His/Her” existence is, I think, a leap of faith that I’m just not prepared to take. You would think unicorns running around the rings of Saturn would be more logical than many things a lot of people do in life, but they still do them, and I’m not just talking about psychos and the “ill.” I also mean perfectly rational, respectful people that so often deviate from what many would consider “logical progression” and catch another train of thought, however calculated or whimsical. Without sticking to the 100% Good characterization of a Western God, that even I find illogical, it’s not such an easy task to seriously presume that you know what is or isn’t logical to another sentient being, human and “God” alike. At least when evaluating a human, though, you have the advantage of being able to relate on some level. But, again, if your beef is mainly with the characterization (and its many forms) of God, then that’s not something I’m going to argue with. If you, however, think that there is sufficient enough evidence to, unequivocally, deny the existence of an “omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient” being (and I use those terms relatively, of course) then I simply disagree.

[Universal Mind]

I think I might agree with all of that. I think the idea of an omnipotent God who is infinitely loving is just as illogical as 2 + 2 = 5, but I still leave a tiny, tiny amount of room for "what if" on everything. In fact, I am only about 99.9999999999% sure I exist. The idea of a God who is not totally good and/or not infinitely powerful is more logical than the general Western idea, but I think it is really far fetched. I don't claim to know with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as a limited God, but I see it as in a category with Saturn's unicorns.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I think the idea of an omnipotent God who is infinitely loving is just as illogical as 2 + 2 = 5, but I still leave a tiny, tiny amount of room for "what if" on everything. [/b] And that is logical skepticism - as long you mean it (which I'm sure you do). Too many "skeptics" will use that exact same line to get out of a corner in an arguement but will go right back to bashing someone who even suggests the possibility of the same phenomenoa, as if the person is an idiot, for simply entertaining the possibility. I don't claim to know with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as a limited God, but I see it as in a category with Saturn's unicorns. [/b] Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put them in the same catagory. Heh. I'd say the universe itself, theoretically, is evidence of the existence of God that the Unicorns don't have on their side.

[Universal Mind]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put them in the same catagory. Heh. I'd say the universe itself, theoretically, is evidence of the existence of God that the Unicorns don't have on their side. [/b] I don't think the existence of the universe is at all evidence of the existence of God. I think the idea of God creates more questions than answers. When people say the universe on any level suggests that God exists, the first thing I think of is how they have brought up a concept of something even more phenomenal than the universe, and I start asking where he came from. That would be an even more difficult question to answer. What if God is a unicorn who lives on Saturn?

[♥Mark]

To expand a bit on UM's point, another problem with using the existence of the universe as suggestive evidence of any given omnipotent creator is that it could also suggest literally an infinite amount of whatever other omnipotent (or at least very, very powerful) beings you could think of. I know this is a tired line, but it's equally suggestive of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus and so on. Heck, we could go even crazier and say that I made the universe. It's here, so obviously someone made it. Why is it any less plausible that I was the one that made it? How do you know that I'm not all powerful? Of course no one is agnostic about any of those beliefs. And why should they be? They're obviously myths.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I do see (both) your point. But, thinking about everything we know about cause and effect (if the Big Bang was the effect, what was the cause?) and how little we know about consciousness, and possibly taking into consideration differing theories on the substantiality (or lack thereof) of physical reality (Bohm’s Implicate/Explicate Order, Holomovement, Schroedinger’s Cat, etc.) then it becomes all the more feasible that there could very well be a conscious element governing and/or responsible for the creation of what we all experience as “the universe” – again, a lot more feasible than Unicorns trekking around Saturn, or the notion of that theoretical “Universal Mind” () being centered on that planet in the form of that mythological creature, which were both picked, at random, for a light-hearted analogy. The truth of the matter is that simplicity is not synonymous with sufficiency – especially when it comes to true science. The fact that considering a “God” raises more questions than answers is no reason to reject the notion. I think one of mainstream science’s drawbacks is a seemingly growing affinity for reductionism. That’s one main reason I don’t really subscribe to philosophies like Ockham’s Razor. I think reducing the list of possible causes for any effect to the “most simple,” however efficient, is less a search for Truth than it is a search for a Convenient Truth. It’s so easy to pass the buck by saying a concept like God raises too many questions, and decide not to consider ongoing investigations into the possibility, but what branch of science can you think of that doesn’t deal with discoveries that raise more questions than answers? I doubt we’d still be venturing further into theories put forth by 19th Century scientists if that ideology was truly dominant. Perhaps this is a factor in why quantum physics is still being met with such resistance? Ya think? There is nothing worse for someone who’s job it is to know, than to discover elements that could rewrite everything they thought they knew, rendering most everything they’ve spent their life studying and devoted to, virtually, obscure or incorrect. Who do you know that would let that happen, without a fight?

[Neruo]

pie 4 Sam Harris. :yumdumdoodledum:

[Moonbeam]

Yea^^ I think I'll order his books. And add them to the pile to be read.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Oh yeah, by the way, I thought the article was great, too.

[Universal Mind]

I do see (both) your point. But, thinking about everything we know about cause and effect (if the Big Bang was the effect, what was the cause?) and how little we know about consciousness, and possibly taking into consideration differing theories on the substantiality (or lack thereof) of physical reality (Bohm’s Implicate/Explicate Order, Holomovement, Schroedinger’s Cat, etc.) then it becomes all the more feasible that there could very well be a conscious element governing and/or responsible for the creation of what we all experience as “the universe” – again, a lot more feasible than Unicorns trekking around Saturn, or the notion of that theoretical “Universal Mind” () being centered on that planet in the form of that mythological creature, which were both picked, at random, for a light-hearted analogy. The truth of the matter is that simplicity is not synonymous with sufficiency – especially when it comes to true science. The fact that considering a “God” raises more questions than answers is no reason to reject the notion. I think one of mainstream science’s drawbacks is a seemingly growing affinity for reductionism. That’s one main reason I don’t really subscribe to philosophies like Ockham’s Razor. I think reducing the list of possible causes for any effect to the “most simple,” however efficient, is less a search for Truth than it is a search for a Convenient Truth. It’s so easy to pass the buck by saying a concept like God raises too many questions, and decide not to consider ongoing investigations into the possibility, but what branch of science can you think of that doesn’t deal with discoveries that raise more questions than answers? I doubt we’d still be venturing further into theories put forth by 19th Century scientists if that ideology was truly dominant. Perhaps this is a factor in why quantum physics is still being met with such resistance? Ya think? There is nothing worse for someone who’s job it is to know, than to discover elements that could rewrite everything they thought they knew, rendering most everything they’ve spent their life studying and devoted to, virtually, obscure or incorrect. Who do you know that would let that happen, without a fight? [/b] I see what you are saying, and I agree that raising more questions than answers is not enough basis for rejecting an idea. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying otherwise, but I guess it sounded like it. What I am getting at on the specific topic we have been discussing is that using God as an answer raises specifically the same questions and more and therefore is not proven on any level. The issue of the cause of existence is not automaticall answered by a theory of a cause even more complex and mysterious than the universe. Such answers do exist, but they are not automatically true just because in theory they can work as answers. If there is just one animal on a planet, there is the question of how it got there. Saying that an animal put it there might answer why there is one animal on the planet, but it raises the question of why there are two, and by its logic, the conclusion is that there is a third, and so on. Saying that something had to put it there never answers why there are animals at all on the planet. By the same reasoning, saying that the existence of the universe suggests God's existence requires saying that an even greater God created that one, and so on. So the existence of the universe suggests the existence of God only as much as the existence of God suggests a greater God or that God's God has a God. The argument that the existence of the universe means God exists could only logically lead to the conclusion that the existence of the universe implies an infinite heirarchy of Gods. That is why I don't think the universe's existence suggests the existence of God. It can be used to answer why this particular universe exists, but it does not work as a first cause explanation. The existence of a rock does not suggest the existence of a bigger rock that preceded it any more than the existence of the bigger rock suggests an even bigger preceding rock than that one. The argument suggests that for there to be a thing there has to be an even greater thing. Where does it stop? Was there once an infinitely big rock? Therefore, the existence of the universe does not by itself suggest the existence of God. It just passes the issue to the next level. An answer that merely raises exactly the same issue in a new form is not automatically the right answer. If the universe suggests God, then the universe suggests an infinite heirarchy. Does the infinite heirarchy suggest an even greater infinite heirarchy? There would be an infinite number of infinite heirarchies. And that set of infinite number of infinite heirarchies would suggest an even greater set of an infinite number of infinite heirarchies. If there is a stopping point somewhere, it could be the universe. In other words, the argument that the existence of the universe suggests the existence of God does not answer the big question. It just shifts the placement of a smaller and more specific form of the question, so God is not on any level the automatic explanation for the existence of the universe. (I'm sorry for being so redundant in this post. I just now realized how difficult it is to explain this when the argument goes far enough. I think this is the furthest I have ever gotten with anybody in this argument. Most people just start talking about faith and then quit. It is such a rush to get to this point. But don't let the compliment slow you down any. This is so interesting. )

[juroara]

oh man..not the suffering bit again...this gets old, real old. to argue that suffering makes God not worthy of worship or even acknowledgement, you first have to define suffering as a bad thing. As far as I am concern, suffering is necessary to teach us to love others - and suffering gets out of hand when we do not extend that love to eachother. There is a homeless man on the street, why did God made him homeless isnt the right question, the real question is why you dont really give a damn about the homeless man and why you try to ignore his gaze when you walk past him.

[Universal Mind]

suffering is necessary to... [/b] That is exactly where I think the argument fails. If you claim that God is not infinitely powerful, your argument has more legs to stand on. But if you are talking about an infinitely powerful God, then you are suggesting with the above words that he is not infinitely powerful. You are talking about the laws of reality as they are. An infinitely powerful God who created the rest of existence from scratch would be under no obligations whatsoever. He could make it where people learn whatever without suffering. He could produce any result by ANY means he chooses. When you talk about what it is necessary for God to do, you are talking about him as though he is not infinitely powerful. Which brings me back to my long repeated mantra.... An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a universe with an infinite number of organisms experiencing infinite happiness for eternity. Such a being would be able to create such a situation with absolutely NO PROBLEMS at all in the situation. So suffering would not be necessary under an infinitely powerful God. If you say that it would be, you are not really talking about an infinitely powerful God.

[Moonbeam]

As far as I am concern, suffering is necessary to teach us to love others [/b] Tell that to millions of starving kids, maybe it will make them feel better.

[juroara]

That is exactly where I think the argument fails. If you claim that God is not infinitely powerful, your argument has more legs to stand on. But if you are talking about an infinitely powerful God, then you are suggesting with the above words that he is not infinitely powerful. You are talking about the laws of reality as they are. An infinitely powerful God who created the rest of existence from scratch would be under no obligations whatsoever. He could make it where people learn whatever without suffering. He could produce any result by ANY means he chooses. When you talk about what it is necessary for God to do, you are talking about him as though he is not infinitely powerful. Which brings me back to my long repeated mantra.... An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a universe with an infinite number of organisms experiencing infinite happiness for eternity. Such a being would be able to create such a situation with absolutely NO PROBLEMS at all in the situation. So suffering would not be necessary under an infinitely powerful God. If you say that it would be, you are not really talking about an infinitely powerful God. [/b] ofcourse! I absolutely believe that is true! teehehehee, that reality of eternal happiness for everything that ever existed right down to the last microrganism - exists - and its existed for a long long long time but who says that existance is earth? I believe that God is not a man, does not think like a man, and as long as we think of God as Zeus figure we can not understand the God that hebrews and christians alike believe in, or do not believe in. And as long as we think of God as a Zeus figure it will constantly contridict science instead of accept science as being apart of Gods own being. For me, I believe that in the beginning of all beginnings God decided to let everything that can be, be. Everything that can possibly exist, exists, will exist and has existed, does exist. God doesnt say "oh...thats scary I dont want that existing" thats how humans think, we want some things to not exist and if we had a choice yucky microbes probably wouldnt exist either. But God doesnt cast such a human based opinion like that...I mean we are talking about a Creator who created poop and the dung beetle - to the dung beetle poop sure is mighty tasty and it is GOOOD, so it is good that things poop so that things like the dung beetle can eat. We cant think that God thinks like a human, or carries a human opinion, look at science, look at BIOLOGY..nothing is stranger than life. God is strange. Can the almighty God create an existance where all life never suffers for all eternity? Sure, sweetheart, me and jews call that place heaven! And if you want to argue meaning a place where you have NEVER known suffering, will..yes..heaven. We are born in heaven, not earth. We have never known suffering until we decided with our own free will to come down here and suffer. After all..would we be..UPSET if we were denied that opportunity??????? =D By understanding that God is capable of all of existances or if you like, is the sum of all existances - then its clear that God must know about darkness, evil, and sin. And....if...God is afraid of darkness, evil, sin and the suffering that comes with it then God is pathetic and weak and not all powerful, not all knowing. How can anyone be powerful if they are afraid? Fear makes you weak. Any spiritual person will tell you, you should not fear. Jesus does not fear. Budda does not fear. Martyrs do not fear. An infantely powerful being....afraid? God can't be afraid of the dark, and God cant be afraid of evil and sin and suffering. Why not let those things exist? Why not let them run amock? What harm will that do to God who is all powerful? *ps I believe we are apart of God so that includes US* Look at hell. Now, there are a lot of stories and ideas and theories about hell, everything from hell is real and hell is not real. They are all right. Hell aint real anymore than it isnt real.......! It is and it isnt. And its probably better to believe it isnt real at all but sometimes conversations get funner when you speak of it as real! There are some people who have a near-death-experience and they dont go to heaven...they go to hell. Its fire and brimstone and more horrible than ever possibly imagined. So horrible that when the person is back in the living, or their heart starts beating again, its a life altering experience! They won't give a shit if you tell them they just hallucinated during an operation. The experience was more real than anything on earth. And many cant talk about it for YEARS...I went to hell isnt a good liner for a date is it? But a lot of those people who experienced hell - also experienced something else - they saw a light that was above them and they reached out for it. In the new theory of hell, which is slowly becoming the mainstream version among many spiritual people - hell is real and it isnt. And this is why : you choose to go to hell and you choose to leave. Making hell a state of being and not a place. Its pit and its suffering is eternal, but we only use the word eternal becuase we dont understand time. Who says a moment cant be eternal? But above hell is a light, and the light never goes away. You only need to look out into the light and you are saved, forgiven, yaata,yaata, youre in heaven, youre alive. Heres the catch though, in hell you have true free will. The Godhead can not force you to look at the light. Angels can not force you to look at the light. No one can force you to look at the light. Instead you might only look at the fire burning your feet for all eternity - but you choose to. And the demons spitting fire and repeating every naughty thing you ever did - from squashing flies to being a bitch - thats YOU hating yourself. Demons arent all knowing and cant possibly know everything you ever did wrong - wrong becomes a matter of opinion - YOURS I know that it might have sounded I've derailed by talking about hell..but I think its an important subject in the belief and understanding of an all powerful God. Now..this God isnt just all powerful - but omnipresent, which is a fancy way of saying God is in you and God is in me. If I lie to you, I lie to God. If I love you, I love God..and so on and on and so on..you get the idea. All things are connected in the belief of this God. So can the all-powerful God create a place of so much suffering that it destroys souls, and slowly decays God from the inside out since all things are connected? I dont know, but that sure sounds like a good objective if there be a devil!!! And what if...what if..God really did let all possibilities exist, which is apart of Gods infinate power. So here we have an exsitance that is so terrible it can literally destroy God. Alright..lets say thats real. Hell can destroy God by slowly rotting everything that is apart of God. By slowly destroying all life, all souls, all happiness. Wow! Maybe it is possible? Maybe this is the rock that everyone keeps talking about. The mighty rock that God cant lift? Or maybe its not. Becuase that is alot of work for hell to do to try to destroy God, EXISTANCE. But if God is letting all things that are possible be, then so to is the possibility that hell will never accomplish its goal. Becuase hell could also possibly HARMLESS. One word destroys hell, HOPE. Come one...NEIL GAIMAN's SANDMAN ANYONE! No one could beat Dream's Hope - and hes a sexy character so I believe nothing can beat that. With Hope one can not even enter the doors of Hell, thus never adding to its numbers and never completing its mission of total destruction - thus ultimately destroying hell. Hell? Never heard of it. PS. I also believe this was Jesus' true purpose. To give us HOPE by telling us we are already saved, not to spread fear by telling others they are not saved. that is the infinite and all powerful God that I believe in. Not an all mighty Zeus figure, but the heart of all existance, its soul, its mind and its will. This is the existance where there is both good as there is bad. Just one existance out of many.

[juroara]

Tell that to millions of starving kids, maybe it will make them feel better. [/b] why would that make them feel better? Where did I say it would make anyone feel better? I am not sure what you are getting at. What are you getting at? You realize you are not arguing against me since I never said it would make anyone feel better. I do know that when an old friend of mine nearly died from attempted suicide, I LEARNED to value friendship as important and not something to be taken for granted.

[♥Mark]

Then why even bother with Earth? Why not just keep us in heaven? If he wanted to teach us, he can teach us there. There's no need for all this pain. Unless you are saying god doesn't care that we're in pain. The truth of the matter is that simplicity is not synonymous with sufficiency – especially when it comes to true science. The fact that considering a “God” raises more questions than answers is no reason to reject the notion. I think one of mainstream science’s drawbacks is a seemingly growing affinity for reductionism. That’s one main reason I don’t really subscribe to philosophies like Ockham’s Razor. I think reducing the list of possible causes for any effect to the “most simple,” however efficient, is less a search for Truth than it is a search for a Convenient Truth. It’s so easy to pass the buck by saying a concept like God raises too many questions, and decide not to consider ongoing investigations into the possibility, but what branch of science can you think of that doesn’t deal with discoveries that raise more questions than answers? I doubt we’d still be venturing further into theories put forth by 19th Century scientists if that ideology was truly dominant. Perhaps this is a factor in why quantum physics is still being met with such resistance? Ya think? There is nothing worse for someone who’s job it is to know, than to discover elements that could rewrite everything they thought they knew, rendering most everything they’ve spent their life studying and devoted to, virtually, obscure or incorrect. Who do you know that would let that happen, without a fight? [/b] It's not a scientist's job to know. It's his job to find out. Also, just because an answer is sufficient does not necessarily mean that it's correct. For example, one day I find my living room window broken and a rock laying inside. I might think "Some jerk threw a rock through my window!" That would sufficiently explain it, even if what actually happened was that it was kicked by the tire of a passing vehicle. Occam's Razor isn't about having the simplest answer, but rather about shaving away the unnecessary or unrelated parts of an explanation. "The sun rose and it had been several hours since I last ate. These two things caused me to be hungry." After Occam's Razor: "It had been several hours since I last ate. This caused me to be hungry." Tell that to millions of starving kids, maybe it will make them feel better. [/b] Malnutrition is love.