Why is there human suffering?

Occam,

While meditating at a mountain top in the snow I had the same epithany. I came back changed, I could not speak one single word for over 3 months. I'd sit in the break room with all the co-workers and listen to them complaining about their ills and pains, their problems with the wife or kids or parents, their not being able to afford the best cars, the high cost of repairs, the cost of sending their kids to college, that they were paying too much for mortgages, that they were sick and tired of working, how they wanted to win the lotto, how they hated certain people, how the President was corrupt, the state of the Union, etc. I could not say a word, I would listen and be amazed. I would just get up and walk away... Everyday it was the same thing. I'd see selfish joy, misery and indifference everywhere, people so self absorbed that they were missing the joy and beauty around them. It was mind boggling.

How I didn't speak one single word for over 90 days is still amazing to me. How did I do it? How is it possible not to utter one word to another human being for 3 months at a time, to be absolutely mute?

After 90 days I was able to come down from the mountaintop. But I never forget.

 

White Feather
Wellmet

It seems you are at a place occam is heading for.
Just a few months past.
He woke and felt he could/should not talk.
That it meant nothing untill an understanding was had.
This comes from the same place as it did for you.
The unending stream of woe and selfpity that happens all about.
Yet occam spoke that day.
Yet the next..the same feeling.
Periodically, insistent urges to say NOTHING. To offer no word to the
general noise of the human 'poor me' litany.
That to speak, makes you like them.
[a very hard thing to explain]

So it seems occam understands what happened to you.

Maybe occam should find himself a mountain top
A place away from those that complain endlessly about the greatest gift there is in reality. A gift that needs no words.

To exist

Occam

 

This is an exceptionally stupid argument. You claim that even without cancer, floods, disease and poverty, people would still complain, maybe so, but when you say that, you are belittling the problems that are torturing hundreds of millions of people and killing many of them. Complaining about trite issues(the kind we'd have without cancer, disease poverty, etc.), is an entire different ballpark then complaining about the genocide of millions of people.

Moreover, you stated that suffering is caused by unfillable desires, implying that it is man's nature to be unhappy and that true happiness is impossible. That is bullshit. People are happy. Not all people, but it is safe to say that someone cured of cancer, would be happy to be alive and embrace life. If you cure cancer, people would be happy.

Also, you're blaming the parents for bringing, a child into a world plagued by natural disasters disease, cancer, AIDS, etc. That is completely irrelevant in this discussion. MistyMountainTop is being disillusionned with god, and is questioning his existence because of all the bad things in the world. You respond by blaming her parents. You are not helping, you are only sidetracking everyone with your pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky

 

There is always a way, you may only make a small difference but you should always try. You are merely convincing yourself there is no way as an excuse not help, not to be part of the solution. You justify your lack of action through supposed helplessness.

Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky

 

Because, a perfect world, could never exist... Without a struggle to achieve balance, you merely have a monotonous existance... no excitement, no thrill to be alive...

Because humans enjoy having power... You'd be surprised by how little is truly in your control.

Like, in a hierarchy fashion? Because, they desire more power over the ignorant...

Because, without them, balance would not exist... Animals die off for a reason; humans are just going to be the most pathetic. With the ability to think, it would seem that we would be able to coexist with our planet, symbiotically. The Egyptians did it...

Good cannot reign with omnipotence; for, if all is good... then, what is bad? How would you know the difference? How could you appreciate the good times if there were no bad times? Life is basically about appreciating the balance that is formed by the combination of two coincidences...

The truth is, truth cannot exist without contradiction... one always seeks balance, in their life. Denying religion, is like denying science; science doesn't explain everything, and neither does religion. Science is the how, religion is the why... looking beyond the physical evidence to make abstract connections is what spirituality is all about.

Without it, you have a bunch of arrogant, aloof humans running around who are the architects of their own destruction... You HAVE to have morals that extend beyond the human race, and to do so, you have to have religion... Maybe not monotheism, and maybe not polytheism; but... something. I don't follow my beliefs blindly, but, I don't turn a blind eye to them, either.

Atheism and agnosticism are both brilliant yet moronic at the same time; as are all religious sects... By being atheist/agnostic, you are putting mankind into the role of God; you're beliefs are basically no different than those of a Christian... Humans, provide themselves with consequence from their choices; God, supposedly, provided humans with the choice of consequence... Both are the same idea; just, they are opposite points of view. I deny my spirituality on the same grounds that I welcome it; it allows me to understand a situation far better than from just one point of view... I am my own "Devil's advocate."

 

Ocean Byrd

1. Really?
Is not truth/fact only possible without contradiction?
Is gravity a fact?
How would you show it was not?
YOU WOULD TRY TO CONTRADICT IT.

No human has ever done so.
And occam thinks, neither can you.
Gravity exits as a fact that cannot be disproved or escaped.
Or contradicted by an example of mass NOT resulting in graviation attaction to other mass.

2.Actually science has explained a fair bit..thats why you have a computer to write these letters with.
Explanations of existant phenomena that science [or religion or anyone else] reveals that are non-contradictory, are called fact/truth.

As far as occam know, religion has revealed not one truth/fact that cannot be contradicted.

Occam

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyMountainTop
Why is there human suffering?

So what do you expect in Heaven?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyMountainTop
Why should anyone tell anyone what not to do for fun in the name of a God that might or might not exsist?

Your explaination is that people should tell people what to do because they enjoy the power trip?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyMountainTop
And finally, if God is supposed to be good, why would things like cancer, floods, tornado, heart attack, etc. exsist.

So Heaven's gonna be a lot like THIS right now... but I guess there won't be all of you fuck heads trying to convince me of shit with INCREDIBLY faulty logic... so that'll be a plus.

This is assuming all humans are as incapable of creating their own values as you. The hope is, that people will grow out of their infantile state of passive perception, and move on into the world participating actively.

I share many beliefs as Christians, however, the method by which I arrive at them are based on reason, emotion, and a desire for balance. The Christian's are based on a book that is flat wrong on MANY ethical issues and are arbitrary in any contemporary perspective. Also to further demonstrate how much is forgotten or simply ignored in the Bible one might point to the constant misogyny, advocation of slavery, and reproduction tips that didn't quite pan out right for the Irish and countless other things.

 

What a silly arguement... I would've thought that by contradicting the fact that gravity's presence can be contradicted would yield the truth that gravity's presence cannot be contradicted. That truth seems to have come about with the contradiction of another "fact;" my statement still holds true... You just didn't consider it from my point of view; that's similar in nature to what only believing in science or olny believing in religion can do to one's perception... You even reinterated my statement and claimed it to be flawed...

Religion isn't the answer, it's the explanation... Science is reason: cause and effect. Religion is logic, abstract connections that are made to explain things on a metaphorical level. To be honest, science is behind religion in explanations; the Mayans made a calender long before many European civilizations.

For example, science says that colour is merely the reflection of light at different frequences off of a surface... If you look at it from a spiritual standpoint, you can say that certain surfaces contain a certain energy which is released when light is shone upon that surface. I have not contradicted the scientific theory, yet, I have also strayed from it to encompass significance...

THAT'S what I'm talking about...

 

Byrd
Colours are not released as a latent energy in the reflecting surace, binding themselves to the portion of light that reflects. Colour is already part of the light before it hits the reflecting surface. As you can prove by shing a red laser directly into the eye,, thus reflecting it from nothing. But you will see the colour red.
Your idea is an example of an invalid attempt at contradiction.
Thus the only significant thing you encompass is in inaccurate understanding of colour and human perception of it.

And the mayan calander is a product of mayan science. [reason]
It is not a product of their gods.
When religion tries to describe reality throught the filter of set
preconceptions. As christianity did.
You get flat earths and earth centered solarsystems.

The idea that everything was created is 4000bc is still widely promoted by religion. It's called creationism.
One of the funniest things religion has EVER proposed.
And when religion stops telling people that hell exists. Without one iota of real phenomena to justify such a claim. Occam will believe religion rational enough to be called 'thinking beings'.

Occam

 

Ocean Byrd

Understood. Have done so myself.

SO the mayans were spiritual and scientific.
Bet it was the scientific minds,, the monkey curiousity.
That made the calendars.
And their religions had no issue with science.
They worked together, co-operation ALWAYS defeats competition.
For they were smarter than us.

Occam prefers to think of our univese as a cyclic event that is part of
a reality that has no beginning or end, but may have physical limmits
[infinite in time, not extent]
The NOW as we experience it. Is some way into one of those cycles.
Roughtly 14billion orbits by earth. [years]
though earth was only here for the last 4.5 billion.
Cosmological evolution is a way more precise science than biological
evolution. That is, we can prove stars evolve, but we cannot prove humans did.
No church will EVER stand in a puplic forum and argue against stellar evolution. NONE.

Except the creationists.
Not creationist science, there is no such thing. Creationists cannot describe a creation ex-nihilo or show one to exist or to ever have existed.
While astrophysics fits perfectly so far, with everything that exists.
Without contradiction.
And that is why occam believes current scientific theory on how reality got where it is from the point just after the theoretical 'bigbang'
It fits with the objective laws we have revealed.
Talking suns and planets here, not human beings.
Stellar evolution is NOT biological evolution.
It is determanistic, and can be 'reverse engineered' for billions of years.

So was everything created in 4004bc?
Only if god wished to create an 'everything' that looks EXACTLY like it evolved according to objective laws we understand.
Why would god decieve?

Why indeed

Occam

 

i'm agnostic but as some who contributes to human suffering i'll try to tell you why, ignoring abstract examples like disese and natural disaster, like hurrincan katrian focus on why human make one another suffer, i only bring up Katrina becuse of the people killing and looting each other. i belive that there are natural design of human to hate and hurt, the generations of kids are being raised into a world of and death afar hurt and to be superfical and drain us of our ablity to have empthy, i'm coasting down hill, but simply i think it would be entertaining to hurt other, to get ahead or burn some time i never questioned why but i'm waitng in the streets and if we ever meet i think i couldn't tell you why as you were down dieing

 

Sininabin

Dont agree.
Hate and hurt are human ego utillising reason in a disfunctional manner.
Hate, is irrational, but 'to' hate, one must have a 'just' a modicum of reason.
A lot of ego.
And no common sense.

For hate is the total slavery of the hater to the hated.
A power sublimation.

Reason is a natural design. And it allows ego to be expressed
in action. How we do so is OUR choice. Not natures.
We choose to hate.

Occam

 

Bullshit, we have just as much capability. I'm rather positive that their calender is a combination of both science and religion; certain dates and times had spiritual significance in their culture. The actual mathematical process of tracking the passage of days, months, years... that was scientific, yes. One of the reasons as to why they felt it necessary to chart the passage of time, however, was for both spiritual and scientific reasons... They performed ceremonies in order to ask for bountiful growing seasons, protection, etc... on specific days of the year. Days that marked such events as the beginning of the ideal growing season...

It sounds like our ideas on the workings of the universe are similar. However, since there has been no conclusive evidence as to the possible limit of our universe; I have drawn up several theories... One, of which, is that multiple universes exist, simultaneously, in multiple dimensions... It sounds like a crock, I know; I'd rather not go through and explain it as it isn't very relevant to the conversation...

Anywho, back on topic... since there is no evidence indicating that our universe is finite in extent, and none in light of just the opposite; I believe that it is constantly expanding and contracting... I take the "Big Bang" theory, the law of gravity, and then apply principles from the theory of Relativity; and what I get, is a constant cycle of creation and destruction... The idea that our universe explodes and implodes in an infinite cycle.

As for the age of the earth, how are you sure of that? Science can only explain so much...

I am not very educated in the area of cosmological evolution... I'll take Mark Twain's advice.

You know, it's come to the point where I have to ask... what is the difference between a belief, and a theory/law? Beliefs are to religion as theories and laws are to science... Science is basically a religion, except it attempts to use ideas of engineering... without mystic explanations. There are forces at work that still have no solid explanation... coincidence, for example.

I'm not a true creationist; I don't believe in "chaos," or, a void from whence everything came... I believe that what we see around us, has merely existed... It's just, been there; and it changes in cycles. It's appearance, what it holds, the life that exists in it... I must admit, I'm not educated enough to know of any general scientific concepts I can apply to this theory; much less, any that truly contradict it, either... I always look to find a combination of the two.

Why would anyone believe that everything was created at that time? There are ancient cultures that we don't even understand; carbon dating, is a flawed concept. We are unable to place certain objects and ideas in a timeline... Many concepts in prehistory are not understood, or, misunderstood; we can only guess as to how life was during those times...

Now, here is where I run into a problem with your thinking; I'm not monotheistic. Monotheism practically tainted the concept of religion; and it was thusly done in order to administer more control over people. It began in ancient Egypt; a culture that was absolutely fascinating considering the previous polytheistic beliefs.

But, those beliefs weren't just mystic concepts, they were also representing the science behind them... There was even a god of gravity; worshipping the god/goddess, was just the same as worshipping the concepts behind them... Ancient Egyptians basically worshipped science, but, they realized that it came from somewhere... The concepts have, essentially, always existed. As such, you apply the idea of "immortality" to gods/goddesses; religion is a very simplistic form of government.

Morals, laws... such came about because of religion. Religion is the archetype of science in many ways, and, just the opposite... The two together, makes sense; you understand how concepts work, and also why they work. Religion is simple, science is complex... Life, itself, is simply complex... Everything works so simply that a complex system of possibilities is made.

For example... a screwdriver; manufactured mainly to tighten and loosen screws. Now, think of the possible utility purposes it may serve... Also, what is that screwdriver made of? Mineral composits... which are simply atoms/molecules that can be recovered and arranged in nearly an infinite amount of ways. We can explain how this is possible, but, we cannot explain why it is possible with science alone. We can figure out how those mineral deposits came to be, however, we cannot explain why they came to be.

Your arguement is rather illogical. IF "God" created everything in order to evolve, and we based what we have discovered so far about the reasons as to how such things came about on scientific method, wouldn't that indicate that we are merely observing what is around us? How exactly do you prove that something exists? Because you can see it? Hear it? Smell it? Touch it? Taste it? Science has proven that our very senses, are unreliable... That, what we percieve, is turned into electrical impulses which stimulate both our mind and body with information.

Is it so... degrading, to think that science came about because of religion, and vice versa? Science, is apathy... cause and effect. Religion, is empathy... effect and cause. "God" may have created our universe to evolve the way it did so it would bring about the desire to understand such change... If the concepts we have created ourselves fit in so perfectly, why do we chose to ignore the very muse that brought around such thought?

Maybe, "God" created the universe to be perfect... For it to always seek balance. Yet, as I'm sure you are aware, balance is impossible... So, things constantly change, trying to balance out the equation. Monotheism brought about the idea of one executive power that governs our lives; that, it is in constant control of effects and causes. Many years of this ruling belief caused the concept of science to whither...

And now, you see just the opposite... You see religion dying and science growing; one man, is all it took, to tip the scales. I believe that religion and science will once again meld together; it will find balance. Religion has explained so much already that science is still catching up; and those who are fanatical about science being the only true pursuit of truth, are no better than those who feel the same way about religion.

I am both a believer and a disbeliever of both extremes; I look for the answers that make the most sense to me. I, personally, have found that neither makes sense by itself, as both have flaws where the other does not... I'm not saying that you can't pursue your own answers the way you want to, its what makes the most sense to you right now... However, attempting to contradict my beliefs only serves to give you a sense of (or, lack there of...) justification in your views. Science is just as much of an opiate for the masses as religion.

Science is a religion; it's polytheism, without the mysticism... Science inspires religion and religion inspires science; the pursuit of only one, only gives you half of the picture... Both are muses in our quest to understand both the world around us, and the world inside of us; combining them gives us a sense of chaotic harmony...

 

Ocean Byrd

Sorry,, Occam meant they were smarter than us in their co-operation between religion and science. And thus we agree.

No,, very interesting. Pretty much what ocam intuits of reality from the little bit he knows.
Occam has his theories as well, But occam calls them facets, not dimensions. Facets or realities are composed of dimensions
Our reality is a facet of 3 spacial dimensions within a totallity of multiple facets all interconected.

A singularity is a facet that has evolved from this one.
The absolute compaction of mass results in pinching off a bit of this facet to make a new one encompassed within the bounderies of the event horizon.

Not at all,, But stellar evolution places our sun as a second generation
star. some 4.6 billion years old [from ignition]
Occam gives from 100 to 500 million years for the solar disc to preciptate earth..So earth is ~ 4.5 to 4.1 gigayears old.

Never said god created what already exists and has always existed in one form or another.
All the matter/energy/space that reality appears to us as.
He suggested that what was already here was manipulted to towards a desired result. Evolving structural complexity.

You said you thought the universe was cyclic,,,So,, was the universe
of 1000 cycle back, the same in law and structure as this one?
What could change that...what is the only thing that can change anything outside gross determinsim?
Self aware beings.
Occam suggests that gods have existed and may exist now.
If reality is cyclic. And a race/being is allowed enough time to devolope technologies to modify reality [as we do in such a small way]
Then THIS reality could be a result of conscious modification of the cyclic system from the previous one.
ie: Universes have generations that evolve over time.

S Baxter, Writer and astrophysicist.
Even proposed that this universe is a farm..to grow singularities.
Each of which becomes a new universe

Einstien once proposed the universe was way different than the accpeted norm.
He did so because we did not know what reality was. That the desription he read did not match reality as he observed it.

He was believed.
Why?
NOT because the general population thought about such things.
But because intellectuals could not fault his theories by any method
And thus HAD to call them truth.

Occam simply waits for a mind that can explain reality to a depth greater
than accepted explanations , without contrdiction
Be those minds buddhists, self educated persons or hard core scientists.


Occam

 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
What comes around goes around.
What goes up must come down.
The best steel comes out of the hottest fire.
How can you have light without darkness?
Cliches like those may sound trite, but they are hard to refute.
If there was no suffering in the world I would imagine that people would be much less appreciative of their blessings. As well, I have found that my most stressful moments have been the source of my greatest lessons.
I agree with whomever said that life is not what happens to you, but it is how you respond to what happens to you. I have found that the kindest, most compassionate people I have met are also the people who have been through the worst suffering. People who have never endured hardship are at a great disadvantage in times of crisis. They can study how to deal with crises, but that is like reading a book on swimming, then being dropped into the middle of a lake. Nothing teaches like experience. Good judgement comes from experience, and how does one get experience? Bad judgement.