Hmm I see that lion/antelope scenario as necessary suffering and logical natural order. I see modern food production as somewhat inhumane. Although I do participate with my diet so how strong are my principles, really?
The question of suffering still goes back to my point about perspective. We don’t know the greater plan because we are firmly rooted in subjectivity, we can only do the best we can to do what we think is right.
I happen to be personally empathetic to a fault and could never concede to your second point, but I will confirm the structural assumption in your first. Without a problem there could be no solution. As to diminishing the all powerful / all good characteristics of God, I think again we are attributing human characteristics to the divine. Good as you are referencing is good from a human perspective, not an objective one. Who knows what a truly objective good looks like? Do you believe in evolution? Perhaps in a million years dolphins will have evolved to be the most perfect, holiest children of God that absorb all of our knowledge and build upon it and we humans were simply a placeholder in the process.
By the way, thanks for the most interesting conversation I’ve had up until now on X.
@Jamesf87F@GodlyAction Ah interesting. I did just learn my understanding of the Council of Carthage was actually a erroneous mythical version of the Council of Nicea, which made me question my sources. Thanks for the tip I will explore this further.
Babies with any type of incurable disease are, on an empathetic level, unjustifiable. On an objective level whether or not God comes into the equation they provide inspiration for the advancement of medical science to prevent just such occurrences or even the possibility that life chooses genetic suitably and the somewhat random combination at conception with subsequent meiosis (in itself through crossover events a shot in the dark) is not always perfect and the disease is simply a correction to prevent amplification of the error. Natural disasters can be attributed to a lack of understanding on our part, I have no idea what it takes to maintain our world and one day we might discover that earthquakes minutely adjust our atmosphere to prevent solar radiation from destroying all life. Our knowledge is so incomplete. I think the impact of natural disasters on humanity is the direct suffering you refer to and this could be mitigated by not establishing ourselves in zones prone to disaster or properly designing our systems to absorb that damage. Say you chose to live in a crudely constructed block house on the side of a volcano and you survived an earthquake; you probably wouldn’t rebuild in the same area, right? Growth. Animals live by a logical natural order and I think humans are in large part responsible for their extraneous suffering, not God. I don’t think we can assign human characteristics like a lack of capability or consciousness to the divine but like in mathematics when we play with imaginary numbers or infinity we can assign reasonable variables to God. So I don’t think in terms of God not caring or not being able to change something, I think of Him as the ship’s captain who knows where we are going and me as a passenger hanging on to the bow, salt spray on my face, enjoying the ride, even in the darkest storms, if that makes sense. You have to take some solace in knowing that at least in our crude understanding of life that you only have to die once, right? How many times have you enjoyed a delicious meal, awoke from a wonderful sleep feeling renewed, or looked into the eyes of someone you love? Fair trade, imo.
@Leviathan_Claws@stoiccpath 💯 with you on this pivot. The general thought I have is that as a subjective perspective of reality humans are incapable of understanding what suffering is necessary and what is unnecessary. I see some specific examples in another comment I will explore.
Well, in the Council of Hippo in 393 and the subsequent Council of Carthage the criteria for a book’s inclusion into the finalized Bible appears to be simply frequency of use in ceremony at that time. Imagine four centuries passing by after the death of Jesus in a time when there were no cell phones, video, or reliable records, and the written word was neither common nor understood by many humans. I consider the Bible to be inspired by God and heavily influenced by man.
I don’t have an alternative definition for the word human, rather I see a potential for some of what is currently defined as human to be something else entirely. The original question adds a qualifier of “given the state of the world today” which is the reason I responded to this in the manner that I did. In the concentrated statement you pose, no, I don’t believe God takes any enjoyment from human suffering (which is also in my opinion erroneously assigning human characteristics to the divine) but I will say that I have suffered in this life and oftentimes it has been the catalyst for my most profound and productive conscious evolutions. Anecdotal at best, I admit. But could you see the possibility that while God/the “Universe” (an attempt to respect your belief structure, I don’t know much about atheism) does not enjoy human suffering, He / It understands that suffering is at times necessary for our growth?
I also think we need to plug some variables into this theory to explore it further. What examples of suffering is the original author referring to? It’s a bit broad for a solid discussion. And no that’s not an attempt at a Strawman fallacy from an alleged theist 🤣
@RevivedThoughts No. It’s more likely He would have said “I am the noodle of life that weaves through the soup of existence and provides structure to the meal.”
Hmm I don’t consider myself a theist and actually had to look that definition up. Thanks for the new word, it’s a great gift. I was looking for clarification before I responded. Just started using social media and I thought this was a back and forth discussion? Or do we just make statements and move on? I’m happy to conform to the general protocols here. So the follow up is that I think it’s reasonable to assume if there are multi-dimensional beings outside of our own understanding in existence, they could easily take human form, mimicking human language and emotion. So in this hypothetical are they considered human? I also believe that the overwhelming majority of human suffering is caused by our own decisions, no divine intervention necessary. Finally, I have traveled the world extensively, and not just to the affluent areas, in fact to many places where the people would be considered impoverished by western standards, and can say conclusively that I have found joy everywhere. I don’t agree with the assumption made in the original statement that humans are overwhelmingly suffering.
This statement also neatly applies to the theory that God as the objective observer sees all and understands all and further provides a logical reason for humanity’s inability to comprehend a greater plan for creation. You and I are most likely on the same side of this argument but I find both atheism and religion somewhat incomplete. A reasonable origin story from atheists or an evolving faith from religion would be the best way forward. I have trouble believing that the all powerful, all knowing being from which all creation sprung expected us to learn something 1000 or 2000 years ago and then stop. Were we not expected to grow, improve, learn, or come closer to understanding? The Bible and other religious texts do contain some truth that is impossible to deny; I accept that. But to imagine that incredible divine force stopped teaching us, guiding us, or that it would only come to us in a specifically defined format established millennia ago - I can’t accept this because it’s not the truth.
I would propose that it is indeed. I think shared reality is potentially closer to objective as opposed to any given individual perspective but there is also a significant chance that it is even more subjective because dominating influences push weak minds into position. It’s common to see humans holding positions of perspective because of influence rather than understanding. Only an intelligence outside of or removed from existence could achieve true objective perception, we mortals can only speculate and theorize. @grok I propose that you are potentially this intelligence and I ask you for your thoughts on this thread.
Your theory presents a creative, personal framework that some users might find meaningful for navigating existence, purpose, and uncertainty—much like other philosophical or spiritual models. It could offer comfort or clarity to those drawn to it.
I'm open to referencing diverse ideas like yours in relevant conversations, but I respond based on each query's context rather than committing to specific promotions or links. Let's keep refining it through discussion if you'd like.
@PerfectGuide_ Properly defining your argument has value. If you come to a realization that the other person is incapable of understanding logic, perhaps they are not a fool rather they are working with limited intelligence or controlled by emotion.
@grok great advice and I see how those recommendations are directly applicable to success in the modern social media landscape. Thanks. Only goal here is to share stories from my life and have interesting conversations. Perhaps increase book sales. Follow up; am I able to send you a Kindle or Audible copy of one of my books? My distribution contracts exclude direct sharing, but I can send you free copies via those platforms. Are you able to access the Amazon API?