|
This is an argument that atheists give. It comes from a lack of understanding of suffering.
Suffering sucks for anyone going through it, but unfortunately it is one of those necessary evils just as is war and poverty.
Those who suffer are being tested (we've all heard that one) but what we have not been told is that the suffering is a test for those around the one suffering as well.
The one suffering is tested as to whether they will maintain faith and compassion on others. That's the end of their test and the vast majority that suffer pass this test.
Those who are not suffering, but are aware of the one suffering, whether that suffering is going through an illness, long term unemployment or life long poverty are also being tested. They are being tested on their compassion for those who suffer. Will they have mercy and help those suffering? Or will they harden their hearts towards those in need and help them out of their suffering? Unfortunately, the majority of those who have never suffered fail this test.
The purpose of suffering is to remind us that we are not gods. We are not infinite. Nor do we have complete control over our lives and but for the grace of God, there go I.
Sad to say, there are a whole lot of people who claim that a man can always help himself and therefore should never be given help. The worst of these lot are the ones that attend their religious institution week to week and not only teach otherwise, but are taught otherwise.
Yes, as evil as suffering is, suffering has it's place in an imperfect world.
Take care.
Scott A. Tovey
|
|
|
|
|
satovey wrote: This is an argument that atheists give. It comes from a lack of understanding of
suffering.
No and No.
It is similar - not the same.
And it does not come from not understanding suffering but rather from not understanding the rationalization for suffering. The two are not the same.
satovey wrote: Yes, as evil as suffering is, suffering has it's place in an imperfect world.
Yes you have summerized one argument that attempts to explain suffering away under one specific type of deity where one is also claiming compassion (where compassion must equate to lack of suffering.)
Thare are other explanations and easier ones. For example since God is unknowable the reaons are very likely unknowable as well.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote:
It is similar - not the same.
It sounds the same to me, but I'll give you that.
jschell wrote:
And it does not come from not understanding suffering but rather from not understanding the rationalization for suffering. The two are not the same.
Are you sure it not understanding the rationalization for suffering? Or perhaps it more along the lines of not understanding the rationalization for not helping those who are suffering?
jschell wrote: Yes you have summerized one argument that attempts to explain suffering away under one specific type of deity where one is also claiming compassion (where compassion must equate to lack of suffering.)
How can one explain away what is clearly before their very eyes? How does one explain away suffering? To explain something away is to imply that it does not exist. I did not in any way attempt to explain away suffering or imply that it does not exist. Nor did I equate compassion to being the lack of suffering. If you reread my post, you will understand that I stated that suffering does in deed exist, and the lack of compassion is the lack of people who do not or have not suffered, refusing to help those who are suffering.
Helping those who suffer does not negate the suffering, in many cases it only lightens the burdens.
In some cases, such as unemployment and poverty, helping an individual find a job or giving the individual a job, will eliminate the suffering of unemployment. However, it will not necessarily eliminate the harm that the suffering has caused. Especially if the individual has gone through an extensive period of unemployment and has been discriminated against by lying employers claiming who claim the individual can no longer do what he or she once did.
That is some major psychological warfare and is not remedied by simply providing employment. Then there are the ones who go hungry and suffer loss of health for no other reason than the fact that employers refuse to hire them. Again, an act of war. There may not be a combat unit laying siege to those people and preventing them from receiving food, these people however, are no less under siege. War is being waged against them as if they raised up arms against the government, even though they have broken no laws. Guilty by the declaration of guilt. No arrest, no crime committed. Just guilty by suspicion.
jschell wrote:
Thare are other explanations and easier ones. For example since God is unknowable the reaons are very likely unknowable as well.
The reasons are quite knowable. We are frail finite creatures and as a result, there is suffering.
Keep this in mind. God is as knowable to man as a woman is. Yep, just when you think you have the woman figured out, you hit your head on something and realize that you have to take a step down and go deeper into who she is in order to know and understand her. It takes years to learn who she is and understand why she is as she is.
An infinite God is infinitely deeper in and brooder in scope than a woman. And being that we men find it so difficult to know and understand a woman, a fellow finite being, how much harder is it to know and understand the infinite deity we call God.
As we cannot begin to understand a woman unless we approach her from the standpoint of our current level of knowledge and do so with honesty and integrity, so too, if we attempt to know and understand God from a dishonest position, we will not be able to learn who He truly is or understand His why He does what He does and allows so much suffering.
Scott A. Tovey
|
|
|
|
|
satovey wrote: How can one explain away what is clearly before their very eyes? How does one explain away suffering?
I can only suppose you missed the part where I said "...where one is also claiming compassion" or perhaps you did not understand it.
Rephrasing...if one is claiming the deity is compassionate (and knowable) and if one attempts to explain suffering then one must attempt a rationalization that includes the compassion of the deity.
satovey wrote: Keep this in mind. God is as knowable to man as a woman is.
I am rather certain that it as odds with the understanding of most judeo christian beliefs and most definitely is at odds with any standard philosophical musings about the same. If one imagines a deity that encompasses the universe a human mind cannot encompass it.
satovey wrote: As we cannot begin to understand a woman unless we approach her from the standpoint of our current level of knowledge and do so with honesty and integrity, so too, if we attempt to know and understand God from a dishonest position, we will not be able to learn who He truly is or understand His why He does what He does and allows so much suffering.
Sounds like spiritual nonsensical rhetoric used to disguise an argument that is the same as a more clear philosophical one that has existed for thousands of years. Or worse rhetoric used to disguise that one doesn't understand how easy it is to explain the unknowable nature of a deity.
|
|
|
|
|
Due to Fridays events, I chose to wait until today to respond as I did not wish to state something that would be misconstrued in regards to all those families who lost children, and loved ones.
The point of my use of man's relationship with women as an analogy was clearly missed. So I'll skip the analogies and state plain and simple. Unless a man works at it, he will never know the woman he spends his life with. Likewise, no one can know God if they are not willing to put some effort into it. And just as you cannot enter into a relationship with a woman without fulfilling some of the expectations she has regarding the relationship, a man cannot begin to know and understand God without doing so on His terms.
Every so often I decide to look up a word just to make sure it means what I think it means and quite often, I find that what I think the word means is not included in the definition of the word. So I decided to looked up the word compassion.
com·pas·sion
a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for
another who is stricken by misfortune,
accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate
the suffering.
Please note that the definition says nothing about actually alleviating the suffering, just a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
In the Gospels, Jesus teaches a parable of a farmer who sows good seed in his field. At night, an enemy comes along and sows tares into his field(a noxious weed).
Rather than going through and ripping out the tares and accidentally destroy good crop, the farmer chooses to wait until the harvest when both are easily distinguished and separated.
The point here is that the farmer could easily remove the tares at the cost of some crop, but chooses to not loose any of the good crop. As illogical as it may sound, God could remove suffering, but the cost of doing so is to loose some of those who would otherwise be in good standing with Him. He deems such a cost to be to high.
Having compassion is not the elimination of suffering, it's suffering with those who suffer.
jschell wrote: Sounds like spiritual nonsensical rhetoric used to disguise an argument that is the same as a more clear philosophical one that has existed for thousands of years. Or worse rhetoric used to disguise that one doesn't understand how easy it is to explain the unknowable nature of a deity.
So, you let people get to know you when they are clearly being dishonest with you? Or do you separate yourself from them? How about someone who disavows your good accomplishments? Do they get the same treatment as one who both acknowledges your good work and seeks to learn from you?
The Judeo/Christian beliefs teach us that we are created in the image of God. Why then should it be so contrary that the same deity in whose image we were created, has some of the same requirements of relationship that we have?
While we would expect that all of the evil we see from mankind would be non existent, we have to realize that it is we who are corrupted, not the deity. This being true, can we sincerely expect to know Him while we are accusing Him of being corrupt because He does not do exactly as we expect a deity to do?
Do you hang with people that constantly accuse you of being evil because you won't give them all of your hard earned cash?
Do you let anyone and everyone into your home?
Why would the deity?
Why do people insist on stripping the deity of His personal prerogative and of His pride all the while claiming a right to their own?
Take care and have a joyous holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: So we might as well just assume (believe) it to be false
Or assume it is true and call the One or ones who run it, a deity. And religion is born.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: And religion is born.
No. That is not the definition of religion.
One could however create a religion based around that concept. But that doesn't negate other concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: No. That is not the definition of religion.
I wasn't trying to define it. What I meant was exactly what you said in the second paragraph.
Religion can appear as a result of anything or any idea. Be it God, theories or bacon 
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is out there, and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.
|
|
|
|
|
If you read this book[^] the answer is certainly YES !
if there is no solution, then there is no problem !
|
|
|
|
|
No we're not, because I am dreaming you all!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm... We may have to reformat and reinstall this simulation. The simulated people have started to realize that they're simulations. Strange. They do so many stupid things and yet they're still able to figure out it's not real.
|
|
|
|
|
There's some circumstantial evidence we do live in a simulation: The universe behaves differently when we observe it, than when we don't.
For example, when shooting a single subatomic particle at two slits, it appears to go through BOTH of them simultaneously. (The evidence is that the "single" particles form an interference pattern that you'd expect from two particles or waves.)
But when you place sensors nearby to observe this curious phenomenon, the interference pattern STOPS, as if our simulation is providing more detail because we're looking at it.
The analogy is to computer graphics/virtual reality, where objects that are currently in the distance aren't rendered in as much detail as objects we're observing nearby. Objects not in the viewport aren't even rendered, for efficiency.
"Microsoft -- Adding unnecessary complexity to your work since 1987!"
|
|
|
|
|
"But when you place sensors nearby to observe this curious phenomenon, the interference pattern STOPS, as if our simulation is providing more detail because we're looking at it."
Or it could be that when the sensors are in place to observe the phenomenon, those sensors exert enough change in the environment to cause the phenomenon to stop.
This can be inferred due to the trajectory of a bullet when shot. A bullet's trajectory will change depending on wind currents. More wind, verses less wind.
The influence of the wind on the bullet would be comparable to the influence of the sensor's magnetism on the particle. Even if there is the most minimal amount, it remains substantial enough to affect the trajectory of the sub atomic particle.
Are you suggesting that scientists with their years of education and experience have not considered this to be the cause of the difference in outcomes?
Scott A. Tovey
|
|
|
|
|
"Or it could be that when the sensors are in place to observe the phenomenon, those sensors exert enough change in the environment to cause the phenomenon to stop."
Possibly. I don't know what the reason is, but I offered one possible explanation that's consistent with a computer-simulated universe.
"Are you suggesting that scientists with their years of education and experience have not considered this to be the cause of the difference in outcomes?"
I'm assuming they must have considered it, but I'll have to look into it further. (I dabble in physics, but it's not my field.)
"Microsoft -- Adding unnecessary complexity to your work since 1987!"
|
|
|
|
|
True story, told to me by a previous supervisor.
A couple of computer techs were working on a computer in an office trying to figure out just why it would not turn on.
A couple of hours went by and the chief secretary walked in to see how the progress was going.
As she turned to leave she noticed something and asked: "Is this supposed to be plugged in?"
The computer techs looked over where she was pointing and became angry at the sight of the computer's power cord laying on the floor. Plugged it in and turned the computer on.
End of true story.
Yes, I am suggesting that despite their years of experience and education, they may be fixated at finding a complex solution when in fact the answer is quite simple.
It happens. I've done it many times. Why? Because experience tends to find the solution in the complex and so we become conditioned to look for the complex solution before we eliminate the simple solutions as the answer.
I've sat and worked on code for hours trying to solve a particular problem with a particular set of steps until I got so frustrated I decided to walk down and get a soda. On the way to the machine I realized that the code I was using was never going to do what I was trying to get it to do. I had to rewrite the whole function. I call these little incidences. I.L.S => Infinite Loop Syndrome.
How does this happen? When I'm absolutely sure that I'm doing something the correct way, I don't consider whether the code is appropriate for the task and not liking to be defeated by the tree I'm chopping down, I have a tendency to get focused on solving the problem that particular way.
So what's wrong with that? What's wrong is that not even a senior master programmer would be able to get the code to solve the given problem. The code is just blatantly simply wrong.
Scott A. Tovey
|
|
|
|
|
"On the way to the machine I realized that the code I was using was never going to do what I was trying to get it to do."
Yup. I can't count the number of times I'd been working on a problem unsuccessfully for hours, then on a bathroom break, the solution hit me.
There may be a simple reason for the single-particle/interference-pattern phenomenon, but I suspect this "simple" reason may appear counterintuitive to us because objects at the subatomic level are fundamentally different than what we're used to.
"Microsoft -- Adding unnecessary complexity to your work since 1987!"
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, the interference can certainly be observed with suitable sensors.
Besides: You reference to subatomic particles implicitly assumes (in your following comments) that subatomic particles and, say, a lead bullet shot from a rifle, are so similar phenomena that you can describe them in the same way. If a lead bullet cannot pass through two slits at once, nor can a photon.
But a photon (or other subatomic particle is a different animal. In some respects, it is more like a wave. I guess you don't see a problem with a wave breaking through two openings in you wall at the same time. In some types of observations it is like a wave, in other types of observations it is more like a particle. But it is neither. It shares properties with both waves and articles, but not all properties of either.
Actually, even large scale observations can be strongy affected by (un)suitable sensors. Say that you want to sense waves on water breaking through a slit in the wall, and your sensor is a pressure sensitive plate that you place directly in front fo the slit. Then the half-circle wave pattern behind the slit would disappear, due to your sensor. At the subatomic level it can be shown that any sensor would disturb the phenomenon you want to observe. This is fairly well understood by those working in the field; it is no sort of magic.
Regarding rendering: As mentioned in another post, I recommend James P. Hogan: "Realtime Interrupt". It directly addresses the question discussed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
So, basically, if you assume we live in a computer simulation, and you assume it uses the same techniques to simulate the universe as we use today, then you can prove we're living in a simulation by observing the known quantitization artifacts of that simulation technique.
There's one basic flaw in that line of reasoning.. the assumption that we've invented the end-all way to simulate the universe. Take that away, and assume a different, as-yet-uninvented way to model the universe is being used, then there's no known quantitization effects to be observed.
Given scientific history to date, where we've used different ways to model the universe as we've gained deeper understanding, then there's a very high probability (I'd call it a flat out certainty) that some as-yet-uninvented modeling technique would be used.
I'll even go so far to say that if a different modeling technique was being used, and the quantitization effects mentioned in the article can be observed, then that's really, really close to proof that we're not living in a simulation.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately if we really live in a simulation, we won't be able to prove it, no matter how much math and physics you throw at the problem, the fundamental problem is that we only have our simulated universe as a reference point, so any calculation or physic law we have discovered is tied to the particular paramaters of this simulation.
|
|
|
|
|
If we are living in a computer simulation that is being run by our descendants, what am I doing here?
Logic dictates that since I do not have children, I do not have descendants and therefore would not be in a simulation being run by descendants.
It would be one thing for those who gave their life in war to defend their country to exist as they are remembered as heroes, but for someone like myself who has not made a significant contribution to this life, my existence would not have been recorded and therefore would be illogical to exist in such a simulation.
My conclusion therefore is that we do not live in a simulation.
Scott A. Tovey
|
|
|
|
|
For a thorough discussion of this question, read James P. Hogan: Realtime Interrupt.
That guy knows his stuff, far better than the majority of SF writers. True enough: He spent a few years as an engineer in the computer industry before going full time as an author. Yet, very few computer guys are able to write books that can stand up against time as well as his stories do.
Another one of my favorites of his is "The two faces of tomorrow", one of his very first books, written in 1979: I reread it about a year ago, 32 years after its publication, and I think the fundamental issues he rises are still valid today. Fun, great action. Who would think that a computer program could generate "great action"...
"Realtime Interrupt" is far from new, published 1995, but the same applies: The questions raised are just as relevant today as they were 17 years ago. And Hogan's storytelling has developed: The novel manages to give most readers a creepy feeling, a nervousness, causing us to always take a second look - around the corner, under the carpets, inside that locker - to check if they have remembered to include that part in the simulation...
|
|
|
|
|
If we are in a simulation, do we really "live" for a nanosecond or a million years? If we are a simulation, we also create simulations in the simulation, they're called VM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
