The Case For God

[PeerFly]

I watched the whole thing and it seemed to me like every answer the rabbi gave was a cop out. "God isn't in the crowd, he's in that prophetic voice that challenges the crowd." While that may sound poetic, it's really just a load of shit. Tell that to the 200,000+ people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the innocent children who are raped and murdered every day around the world. God didn't want to intervene because he cares more about what the fuck you put on your sandwich.

 

[Hav3n]

Here is one of my half-baked ideas....


Now it's been awhile since I took logic so cut me some slack. Here so here are my arguments.

1) In a Utopia/Heaven/Post-Physical State of existence there would be no suffering.

2) Without suffering Empathy cannot exist

.: In a Utopia/Heaven/Post-Physical State of existence.. empathy does not exist.
One great leap further....

.: Experiencing and Learning Empathy - is the purpose of existence as a physical entity aka 'the meaning of life'



ASSUMPTIONS
Given there is a God and/or creator and/or omniscient being that is all powerful but allows evil to happen.

Given that 'God'/creator created us ignorant. Example: Adam Eve etc. Without prior 'Knowing'
There is an eventual heaven (and possible hell) and/or utopia that exists as a post physical state.


Side Issue:

Does the lack of empathy invalidate the perfection of a Utopia?




Honestly I need to write another 2 or 3 pages on this idea... but i can't be arsed.


And that is the general outline.


/discuss

 

[Hav3n]

Hmm, it's a good thought, but there's a couple of issues.

1) Without suffering, empathy can exist. The reason for this is because empathy is not strictly related to suffering, but it is instance of being able to relate with another being in terms of how they're feeling, or thinking. You can share empathy for somebody who isn't suffering.

Now, if empathy was directly related to suffering and suffering only your first 2 premises and your first conclusion would logically follow.

2) Your 2nd conclusion, that learning and experiencing empathy is the meaning of humans physical lives does not logically follow from empathy not existing in a utopia or heaven.

(Obviously don't mean to shit on your argument, just my analysis on the logic).

In my opinion, empathy is but one phenomenon on the scale of human feelings and emotions. If there is a meaning to life (which I wont argue, because my views don't align well with this), it can't be such a narrow meaning. Not to mention, I've met lots of people who never experience empathy. Not always the greatest people to hang around .

No ... like i said... half assed thought out.. BUT .... the idea has sorta stuck with me and I am just struggling to actually communicate the idea.

I also agree that it would be an extremely narrow view for 'the meaning of life'.

Better calling it a prerequisite.

Suffering and empathizing with others who are suffering that you may understand it in preparation for an afterlife (post-physical existence) with no suffering.


My favorite quote on the religion debate is.... "For Man to attempt comprehension of the afterlife, is as the tadpole trying to understand the frog."

.

 

[GreeLee]

1) In a Utopia/Heaven/Post-Physical State of existence there would be no suffering.

2) Without suffering Empathy cannot exist

.: In a Utopia/Heaven/Post-Physical State of existence.. empathy does not exist.

What about our struggles in life? Are we to assume that we would forget about that. That would surely be a source of empathy.

And I believe that in order for God to give us a completely free will, he must then let us fully suffer the consequences of any actions we take. Otherwise a true free will is not at work. That is why there is suffering. It's not because God is "allowing" the suffering, but because he has allowed us the freedom of our own free will.

Now if there is a God, and he does care about us, then how does he go about providing us a way to prevent suffering, while still allowing us a free will? He must provide a way for US to ask for help. But how does he do that without messing up the balance of free will? In other words, who will pay the consequence if we ask for help - after - messing up? Someone that is NOT the Deity (God) must pay the consequence in order for it to still be called free will. So maybe he should send an Angel down, have him take on the form of a man to pay the consequence? Well that would take care of any physical consequences, but not the emotional ones.

The only way for him then to prove that he is a Caring God and does care about our suffering, is to send his ONLY Son down to earth to take on flesh and to suffer our consequence. That takes care of every physical and emotional consequence. However.... We must still ASK for him to intervene. That's how free will works.

 

[teguh123]

The meaning of life is to reproduce.

Not reproducing means you're death. It's the worst death. We will all die. But those who fail to reproduce will be the one truly die.

Now, saying that you can't have sex outside marriage is like saying, you got to agree with all these bullshit deals and rules we make otherwise you die.

And we wonder why Beatty Chadwick "consent" to hand over his $2.5 million to an ex wife that like other man's cock.

The purpose of religion is to tell us it is not so.