What would an unloving, unjust, unfair God be like?

Great Debates
281

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Minimized? Justified is more like it. Once the non-human-explainable suffering is pointed out, we get either the god’s plan argument, the “it isn’t really suffering or isn’t significant” argument or the “that’s a good question” response.
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s the" isn’t significant " part that is seen as minimizing suffering. As I mentioned before, it’s very hard to look from a linear time based , physical reality and use that to judge what a timeless non physical based reality might be like.

We might agree that quality of life is worth more than physical comfort and absence of pain. Can we extrapolate that and relate to words like eternal, or a non duality based existence?

When we use the parent analogy we ca see it with a scraped knee but the conversation always goes to suffering that is much worse by comparison. Are we sure the comparison is even valid? Still, I think the questions are valid and since believers don’t have that answers perhaps a simple, honest “I don’t know” is better.

Justified?? Thats not how I see it. All the speculation doesn’t change the fact that such suffering exists and must be addressed regardless of how it might relate to a supposed eternity.

282

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
What’s been shown is that it’s very hard to discuss the topic without it appearing that human suffering is being minimized to support belief.

That’s not the case , but it always seem to come round to that.
[/QUOTE]
It’s also been shown in other places that it’s very hard to discuss the topic of 1+1 without it appearing that the sum of those numbers is 2. Of course, that’s because 1+1 is 2.

I don’t believe that any argument can be constructed that states that the amount of actual human suffering that has occured and is occuring is justified, without simultaneously minimizing it. If you have such an argument, feel free to present it. Absent such an argument, I have no choice but to think that, in the pirsuit of justifying the suffering, it is being minimized, all in the support of belief.

283

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think it’s the" isn’t significant " part that is seen as minimizing suffering. As I mentioned before, it’s very hard to look from a linear time based , physical reality and use that to judge what a timeless non physical based reality might be like.

We might agree that quality of life is worth more than physical comfort and absence of pain. Can we extrapolate that and relate to words like eternal, or a non duality based existence?

[/quote]

It’s easy to quibble about what minimize means here. I don’t consider someone admitting great suffering but saying that since it is short it is okay as minimizing it. But that’s just a personal opinion.

I don’t see how you can separate quality of life from absence of pain. My wife had severe back pain for months before they saw fit to operate - bad enough that she was pretty much confined to bed. I’d much rather live in my hovel pain free than live in a mansion with that kind of pain.

I almost put in something about how “I don’t know” is the most honest response.

This is from a book called Jesus Christs from the late '60s, which had several retellings of the story, the latest set in a modern commune. The first and shortest goes like this (from a 35 year old memory).

Jesus met a traveler walking through the desert.
“Lord, why is there pain and suffering?” the traveler said.

Jesus stood there for five minutes and then said, “if you will give me your name, and number, I will get back to you.”

284

[QUOTE=begbert2]
It’s also been shown in other places that it’s very hard to discuss the topic of 1+1 without it appearing that the sum of those numbers is 2. Of course, that’s because 1+1 is 2.
[/QUOTE]
Does that seem relevant to you? It seems totally irrelevant to me.

I don’t think it has anything to do with justifying it or minimizing it. Believer or not it exists and we choose how we address it.

285

[QUOTE=Voyager]
It’s easy to quibble about what minimize means here. I don’t consider someone admitting great suffering but saying that since it is short it is okay as minimizing it. But that’s just a personal opinion.

I don’t see how you can separate quality of life from absence of pain. My wife had severe back pain for months before they saw fit to operate - bad enough that she was pretty much confined to bed. I’d much rather live in my hovel pain free than live in a mansion with that kind of pain.
[/QUOTE]

I see. Not what I had in mind. I was thinking that sometimes we have to deal with painful things. If we avoid dealing with them because we want to avoid physical or emotional pain we can diminish our quality of life.

And he will too :smiley: Thats funny.

In the same way I accept that I may be totally wrong I also accept that there’s lots and lots left for me to understand. In the concept of YinYang opposites are part of the greater whole. I lean toward that belief.

286

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Does that seem relevant to you? It seems totally irrelevant to me.
[/QUOTE]
It seems relevent to me because I read this:

As trying to imply that this appearance is at odds with the reality, an implication that was supported by the sentence following the above quote as well.

Your tactic seems to have been: 1) engage in discussion to prove your point. (I was among those you had this discussion with, if you recall). 2) Fail to prove your point. 3) abandon argument. 4) return later, here, claiming that the argument failed due to being ‘difficult to discuss’. 5) and claim that your position in it was correct, nonetheless.

This seems vaguely tricky to me. Regardless, I feel that you’re still stuck at step 2: you’ve yet to prove the point you’re asserting.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t think it has anything to do with justifying it or minimizing it. Believer or not it exists and we choose how we address it.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s pretty clear that this discussion is, at least in part, about whether suffering is justified, whether that can be done without diminishing it, and whether unjustified suffering is compatible with belief in a non-unloving, non-unjust, non-unfair God. Such questions are, vaguely, in the scope of this thread’s topic, and as such may merit discussion here.

How we as people address the issue of suffering in life is an entirely different subject, irrelvent to this thread. I don’t feel like discussing it here.

287

I think it’s easier to accept the idea of a good, loving God who chooses not to intervene in our lives 100% of the time, rather than a good, loving God who intervenes only some of the time, depending on his whim. At least the first kind of God has consistency on his side and is impartial. If a good God does exist, I have to believe that he is completely hands-off and doesn’t “save” others while letting others suffer horribly.

The gratitude that the faithful show when God spares their house from the tornado’s path (and similar situations), while understandable, always bothers me. Doesn’t praising God when things go right for us suggest that the appropriate emotion to feel when things go wrong is scorn and resentfulness? How do believers reconcile these conflicting emotions? If everything is part of God’s plan, then praising him for letting the cards fall where they may seems to be only self-serving.

288

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I think it’s easier to accept the idea of a good, loving God who chooses not to intervene in our lives 100% of the time, rather than a good, loving God who intervenes only some of the time, depending on his whim. At least the first kind of God has consistency on his side and is impartial. If a good God does exist, I have to believe that he is completely hands-off and doesn’t “save” others while letting others suffer horribly.

[/QUOTE]

I agree that the 100% non-interfering God is a bit more morally justifiable, but still poses a big problem for believers. If he is bi-omni, he designed the world fully knowing people would suffer from his design. An omnipotent god could do better. If God can rescue people, but doesn’t, he may be just if he rescues no one, but he isn’t loving. I don’t know if a man who decides not to rescue any drowning child he sees is better than one who picks and chooses, but neither are anything to emulate or respect.

289

[QUOTE=begbert2]
It seems relevent to me because I read this:
As trying to imply that this appearance is at odds with the reality, an implication that was supported by the sentence following the above quote as well.

Your tactic seems to have been: 1) engage in discussion to prove your point. (I was among those you had this discussion with, if you recall). 2) Fail to prove your point. 3) abandon argument. 4) return later, here, claiming that the argument failed due to being ‘difficult to discuss’. 5) and claim that your position in it was correct, nonetheless.

This seems vaguely tricky to me. Regardless, I feel that you’re still stuck at step 2: you’ve yet to prove the point you’re asserting.
[/QUOTE]

Since the argument is pure speculation and tossing about ideas and concepts what is there to prove or disprove?

  1. I was never trying to prove anything since the topic prohibits that.
  2. I never returned to claim my position was correct. It’s been speculation from the get go.

I said we lack the perspective to really come to any conclusions. I maintain thats true. If someone asked me, “What’s it like to be a African American?” I could only speculate because I can’t truly speak from that perspective. I saw that I can’t answer the questions and more than that I saw how you and others were responding to my particular speculation and made the judgment call that continuing that discussion was useless.

I returned because I didn’t agree with the specific post I responded to.

okay. When it’s clear to me that any suggestion I make is regarded as nonsense then I see no point in continuing. I accept that your argument is sincere. So is mine.

also okay.

290

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Since the argument is pure speculation and tossing about ideas and concepts what is there to prove or disprove?

  1. I was never trying to prove anything since the topic prohibits that.
  2. I never returned to claim my position was correct. It’s been speculation from the get go.

I said we lack the perspective to really come to any conclusions. I maintain thats true. If someone asked me, “What’s it like to be a African American?” I could only speculate because I can’t truly speak from that perspective. I saw that I can’t answer the questions and more than that I saw how you and others were responding to my particular speculation and made the judgment call that continuing that discussion was useless.

I returned because I didn’t agree with the specific post I responded to.
okay. When it’s clear to me that any suggestion I make is regarded as nonsense then I see no point in continuing. I accept that your argument is sincere. So is mine.
also okay.
[/QUOTE]
Just because nobody can drag their god down and get him to do a press conference on the subject doesn’t mean that you can’t reach valid conclusions about proposed explanations of things. Heck, I think this ‘god’ stuff is just bad fiction, but even fiction can be assessed for its reasonableness and internal consistency, and for what things may be extrapolated from the inital presumptions. Proofs can reasonably be made about such things, pretty much regardless of topic.

I have no doubt that your argument is sincere; however I doubt that it’s sound. It can be the first without being the second.

If you feel that you lack the interest to defend your position, that’s one thing. If your position is indefensible, that’s another, I’d think. I admit being curious which it is, beucase if there is actually a solution to the problem of evil that retains the notion that God cares one whit about the suffering of us mortals and doesn’t accomplish this by trivializing that suffering, I’d be interested in hearing it.

291

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Not really. I mean, I get what you’re saying - but that doesn’t mean i’m not right. You’ve had two personal experiences which contradict each other. You can’t claim personal experience as surefire proof.

I mean, i’m assuming that when you said you weren’t coming back to post you truly meant it. Something later changed your mind, apparently. And hence, personal experience changed.

Actually, out of interest - what was it that changed your mind?
[/QUOTE]

Post #256

292

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Just because nobody can drag their god down and get him to do a press conference on the subject doesn’t mean that you can’t reach valid conclusions about proposed explanations of things. Heck, I think this ‘god’ stuff is just bad fiction, but even fiction can be assessed for its reasonableness and internal consistency, and for what things may be extrapolated from the inital presumptions. Proofs can reasonably be made about such things, pretty much regardless of topic.
[/QUOTE]
As I’ve already said, we’re looking at suffering from a linear time based physical reality and then trying to extrapolate whether that suffering is somehow justified from the view of an eternal point of view we can only guess at. So when you say, “that doesn’t make any sense to me” thats stating a fact but has no conclusions attached.
I can read books and try to relate to being black or a woman but without the experience I’ll never truly get it. The difference we’re trying to guess at is more than gender or race. Some have said that it’s like a baby in the womb trying to understand what the world is like. I realize that seem like the tired ole “God’s ways are not our ways” argument, but if we’re speculating from the start that God is that possibility belongs in the equation.

Yes I know. Just as your sincerity and the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to you doesn’t assure you are correct. We’re just talking.

I’m actually pretty interested in the argument.
It’s more an awareness that I currently lack the understanding and/or the words to express it to make an argument that I am satisfied with, even though I believe there is one. Add to that the feeling I have that no argument will satisfy some and I have little interest in banging my head against a wall.

IMO the fact that we currently lack the perspective doesn’t negate the possibility. A couple of things that occur to me.

We keep speaking of God in the more traditional separate creator and controller of the universe role and so that makes him responsible for either the good and bad or none of it. Thats not how I see it. Since I believe we are connected to God and to each other then in some way we had and still have a hand in creation and the way things are.
So, what was referred to as God using people as props might be better described as white blood cells playing their role in the body.

I tend to agree with the eastern philosophies of YinYang

Is that seen as justifying or minimizing suffering?

293

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
As I’ve already said, we’re looking at suffering from a linear time based physical reality and then trying to extrapolate whether that suffering is somehow justified from the view of an eternal point of view we can only guess at. So when you say, “that doesn’t make any sense to me” thats stating a fact but has no conclusions attached.
I can read books and try to relate to being black or a woman but without the experience I’ll never truly get it. The difference we’re trying to guess at is more than gender or race. Some have said that it’s like a baby in the womb trying to understand what the world is like. I realize that seem like the tired ole “God’s ways are not our ways” argument, but if we’re speculating from the start that God is that possibility belongs in the equation.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this problem-of-evil issue usually only arises when you put the term ‘loving’ in front of the word ‘god’, specificially, the problem arises when you try to mix “God loves us as individuals” and “God imparitally sits back and does nothing as we suffer”. Many theists really want to be able to make the first claim, which makes the second one a problem.

For the notion of God loving us to make any sense, you can’t have too esoteric a diety; especially if by loving us you actually mean loving us, the beings who we percieve ourselves to be. This rules out many of the solutions where god is too esoteric to be accountable; if he’s close enough to love us as individuals, then he’s aware enough to be aware of our pain.

Personally, I see “god doesn’t care about us” as an valid answer to the PoE - but not one that I’ll allow for people entertain the ‘loving’ notion as well.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Yes I know. Just as your sincerity and the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to you doesn’t assure you are correct. We’re just talking.

I’m actually pretty interested in the argument.
It’s more an awareness that I currently lack the understanding and/or the words to express it to make an argument that I am satisfied with, even though I believe there is one. Add to that the feeling I have that no argument will satisfy some and I have little interest in banging my head against a wall.

[/QUOTE]
Sure. Your frustration is understandable, especially for the unaccomodating natures of your debate partners. Unfortunately I don’t really have the option of taking your word for things if you can’t explain them. (That inability is a personal failing of mine.)

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
IMO the fact that we currently lack the perspective doesn’t negate the possibility. A couple of things that occur to me.

We keep speaking of God in the more traditional separate creator and controller of the universe role and so that makes him responsible for either the good and bad or none of it. Thats not how I see it. Since I believe we are connected to God and to each other then in some way we had and still have a hand in creation and the way things are.
So, what was referred to as God using people as props might be better described as white blood cells playing their role in the body.
[/QUOTE]
Right, and we don’t love our white blood cells as individuals, and in fact don’t care one whit about what happens to individual ones of them. In fact, most of the time we don’t give them the slightest thought. To our white blood cells, we’re the very image of an unloving god. (And we’re impartial regarding justice and fairness, as well.)

If that’s the way you want to go, then great; the problem of evil is satisfied. (Which doesn’t invalidate debates about the PoE and loving gods, of course.)

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I tend to agree with the eastern philosophies of YinYang

Is that seen as justifying or minimizing suffering?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not really sure how it relates to this discussion. Does this mean that suffering is viewed as an ‘absence of comfort’ or something?

294

Read the bible. Perfect description of one in there.

295

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No, just not even a probability, God is unconditional love.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say it was “probable”, I was saying, “what IF?” Like, say in fiction-in Star Wars, where you have the dark side of the Force. Something like that?

Again, WHAT IF? Think about a novel, where there is an evil god. What do YOU think would happen in said novel. As in, fiction.

296

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I didn’t say it was “probable”, I was saying, “what IF?” Like, say in fiction-in Star Wars, where you have the dark side of the Force. Something like that?

Again, WHAT IF? Think about a novel, where there is an evil god. What do YOU think would happen in said novel. As in, fiction.
[/QUOTE]
Fiction and reality are different things?

297

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Well, this problem-of-evil issue usually only arises when you put the term ‘loving’ in front of the word ‘god’, specificially, the problem arises when you try to mix “God loves us as individuals” and “God imparitally sits back and does nothing as we suffer”. Many theists really want to be able to make the first claim, which makes the second one a problem.
[/QUOTE]
In a nutshell.

IMO the point is to see beyond the beings we perceive ourselves to be.
There is a real perspective problem. For example, if we are timeless beings we can’t see death as cruelty. It’s not a matter of accountability. I think in judging a loving god we have to try and understand how god might perceive us and change our perception of each other in the process.

I don’t mind their unaccommodating nature. It’s only makes it more challenging and interesting, forcing me to examine things. I wouldn’t call not taking someone’s word for anything without a resolution that makes sense to you a failing.

It is only an analogy after all. From there we imagine our consciousness was capable of being aware of each cell of our body and more than that each cell shared in that consciousness in the way each cell contains our unique DNA. I can type it but we really can’t wrap our minds around it.

No. It’s not crystal clear to me either but I’ll give it a shot.

I’ve had experiences in the past where I saw two peoples experiences as one experience. Such as, give and receive. In allowing themselves to freely receive the receiver is actually giving something of value to the one who freely gives. At some point the labels fade and the details of what is given and what is received don’t matter. Two or more acts become one act that two or more people unite in.

I’ve also seen the anger, frustration, fear, and hurt that people lash out at each other with do the same thing. In the midst of it we can’t see it but from the proper perspective we see that we worked together to create the situation.

On a larger scale that’s how I think of suffering and evil in the world. From the proper perspective we might see how what we view as good and bad from our limited human perspective is one thing moving us toward our spiritual nature. In the meantime, we respond and choose creating our own lives and the world as it is.

Okay , that’s enough rambling speculation. It’s an interesting and difficult subject. I’ll continue to work on it and hope that I’ll have something more to contribute down the road.

298

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
IMO the point is to see beyond the beings we perceive ourselves to be.
There is a real perspective problem. For example, if we are timeless beings we can’t see death as cruelty. It’s not a matter of accountability. I think in judging a loving god we have to try and understand how god might perceive us and change our perception of each other in the process.
[/QUOTE]
Not painless death in one’s sleep, perhaps, but most deaths are accompanied by pain and terror. Plus, you’ll find that deaths are only one of many horrible things that happen in this world, and none of the others are defensible by the ‘timeless being’ claim.

Unless this change of perspective eliminates us and our memories of our experiences, or simply causes God not to care about us as individuals, perspective shifts aren’t going to solve the problem.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It is only an analogy after all. From there we imagine our consciousness was capable of being aware of each cell of our body and more than that each cell shared in that consciousness in the way each cell contains our unique DNA. I can type it but we really can’t wrap our minds around it.
[/QUOTE]
I can. If you were aware of your cells and loved them, you wouldn’t subject them to unnecessary pain, and you’d make active attempts with real and noticeable effects to help them when suffering and privation did strike them.

You seem to be trying to argue for some sort of shared consciousness (in direct defiance of some observable reality, I might note), but that would just make it less likely that God would leave the more grossly unfortunate people to their fates. If your own feet were on fire, after all, we’d expect you to put it out. As quickly as possible!

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No. It’s not crystal clear to me either but I’ll give it a shot.

I’ve had experiences in the past where I saw two peoples experiences as one experience. Such as, give and receive. In allowing themselves to freely receive the receiver is actually giving something of value to the one who freely gives. At some point the labels fade and the details of what is given and what is received don’t matter. Two or more acts become one act that two or more people unite in.

I’ve also seen the anger, frustration, fear, and hurt that people lash out at each other with do the same thing. In the midst of it we can’t see it but from the proper perspective we see that we worked together to create the situation.

On a larger scale that’s how I think of suffering and evil in the world. From the proper perspective we might see how what we view as good and bad from our limited human perspective is one thing moving us toward our spiritual nature. In the meantime, we respond and choose creating our own lives and the world as it is.

Okay , that’s enough rambling speculation. It’s an interesting and difficult subject. I’ll continue to work on it and hope that I’ll have something more to contribute down the road.
[/QUOTE]
Noted that, when there are multiple people involved in interactions and altercations, the event can be viewed externally as a single event, not individual experiences. I do not agree that in all cases all parties ‘worked together’ to create the situation, though; if you’re out walking along the road and get flattened by a drunk driver, you have to take a pretty tortured view of the world to see that as mutual interaction. Similarly for if somebody drags you out of your house and shoots you.

Also, if your house gets hit by a landslide, I’m not sure much interaction is going on. If the interaction is the point, then why have landslides?

It sounds as though you don’t distinguish between the types of experiences people have in deciding that they are all toghether one thing, “moving us toward our spiritual nature”. I don’t know if it counts as trivializing suffering if you also are trivializing joy, but either way, if the quality of the experiences is basically irrelevent, then if everyone lived in infinite abundance and comfort it would be equally effective in moving us toward our spiritual nature. That sounds like a better plan to me. What do you think?

299

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
In a nutshell.

IMO the point is to see beyond the beings we perceive ourselves to be.
There is a real perspective problem. For example, if we are timeless beings we can’t see death as cruelty. It’s not a matter of accountability. I think in judging a loving god we have to try and understand how god might perceive us and change our perception of each other in the process.
I don’t mind their unaccommodating nature. It’s only makes it more challenging and interesting, forcing me to examine things. I wouldn’t call not taking someone’s word for anything without a resolution that makes sense to you a failing.

[/QUOTE]

But an omniscient, omnipotent god definitely would be aware of our subjective, limited perspective, right? And he would definitely recognize and be able to experience that pain, terror, and confusion, right? A god who has all perspectives, but insists on allowing this mortal perspective for no good reason sounds like a terrible god.

You can’t argue that because of “perspective” god allows it. That’s already been explained in detail in this thread. If he’s all powerful, he has the ability to extend to us any perspective he desires. Without the inclusion of suffering.

300

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
**It is NOT sane to love God, not when even according to his believers he has inflicted immense suffering on us “for our own good”. ..

If God is a God, he’s evil, or uncaring. If God is a parent, he’s evil, or uncaring. If God is a pet owner, he’s evil, or uncaring.
[/QUOTE]

I keep seeing quotes like this in this, and the other thread…

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
(Quote:
Originally Posted by ch4rl3s)
And wouldn’t you be a wonderful parent, because that’s the way to raise a healthy, respectful, considerate… Wait a minute!!! No it’s not.

(Quote by Der Trihs)
If you are a God, the way to do that is to build them that way.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
From a logical perspective, it’s a fine position if we were unreal, transient, or unimportant beings, like video game characters. Then we could suffer and nobody would care. However this position is entirely incompatible with a position where we are real, lasting, beloved spirits that are shaped by our experiences. If you believe that, this line of argument is complete garbage.
[/QUOTE]

And it keeps making me imagine a bunch of people who are in a computer simulation called “Fighter Pilot.” And they keep saying, "this simulation sucks. The programmer, (if he exists,) can’t be benevolent. For one thing, there are other players shooting at me. That shouldn’t be allowed. The programmer would be responsible for their evil acts, (except he doesn’t exist.)

"Oh, and then there are other hazards. Like gravity. Why can I crash into the ground? And why does the plane sometimes have mechanical failures? The programmer would be directly responsible for these evil things. There’s no point to them. I would take them all out. I don’t even like the plane.

“It shouldn’t be so hard and take so much effort to win. The simulation should be a picnic, with no dangerous experiences. And you should get points for eating fried chicken and playing frisbee… Then, after several hundred hours of picnicing, (or as the simulation calls it, ‘flight time,’) and if you have enough points, the ending comes up and the text says ‘congratulations: you have now qualified to test your skills in a real fighter jet.’ That’s the way a ‘benevolent’ programmer would have designed it.”

No. A “benevolent” programmer *would * have put in just such hazards, and made the simulation as hard as necessary.

To my mind, they’ve completely missed the point of the simulation. These people are not, (I’m assuming,) omnipotent, omniscient, or any sort of higher being, and yet, they presume to know the objectives that such a being would have. (building character is at best a partial explanation for suffering. There would have to be more to it… Ooooh, maybe there’s more than one reason for the simulation…) And then, they presume to know the methods that would be required to achieve them. They think they know so much better.

I don’t think you can make any real conclusions about the existence or benevolence, (or lack there of,) of any higher being from the state of the world as it is. Now, I’m just speculating, but:

“Why doesn’t he show himself?” Maybe he wants to see what you would do when you don’t think someone is looking over your shoulder. Any one can act decent and moral when they are being watched. Maybe if he was standing there all the time, the world would be a nice place but you couldn’t know if the people in it could be trusted with greater power and responsibility later.

“Why is there suffering?” (Aside from the building character argument,) maybe he knew people were going to think they know so much better. And maybe he set the world in motion, self sustaining and said, “ok, you ‘know everything.’ You’ve eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You claim to know what the objective is; you claim to know how it should be achieved. The world is yours; go to it.”

I have, on several occassions, sat watching my girlfriend’s daughter trying to perform some task, and failing miserably. If I step in to help, she gets really angry. (made that mistake a couple of times at the beginning.) And when I offer to help, she gets mad and snaps at me. And I have to sit there, willing to help, feeling compassion for her frustration, and having to wait until she asks for help because doing anything else is just counter-productive. And, a couple of times, she got so frustrated, she threw the project at me and demanded I do it for her. Needless to say, I didn’t. I waited until she was willing to accept help, and then I didn’t just do it for her, I helped her gain an understanding of the situation. So, I’m not surprised that no higher being is stepping in to do the project for us just because some “know it alls” think any benevolent creator would be.

So, then, if life is like a simulation, does that mean suffering is meaningless? Of course not. Just like your experiences in the “fighter pilot” simulation really would have meaning if you were training to be a fighter pilot. It’s a simulation, a training aid, not just a video game. And I won’t claim to know everything we’re supposed to be learning from it, but, I have faith that there is some purpose.

[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9568979&postcount=145](I elaborated on this here.)