Why does God turn a blind eye ?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Summer3

@Summer3

Trailblazer

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#81

Originally posted by: 13thwish
Isn't the greatest fallacy of this argument the assumption that the Creator and the Creation(I'm including ALL creation in this one bracket, inanimate and animate) separate entities in the first place?

If I am the Doer and I am that unto which all is done, then it is only MY will that determines, well pretty much everything..

Also if subject and object are ONE then where is the question of consent or need for assumed responsibility?

What is enlightenment if not the realization that is in fact, simply how things have always been and how they will always be..

Being able to look through the prism of perceived duality and see oneself reflected in both sides of the equation, isn't that the ultimate answer?

But if we're going to be literal and irreverent, I like the idea that "God" is a sexily dressed, all powerful sadist.. BDSM is so trendy these days😆

Sadly the thick cloud of ignorance is upon me and I am hoping not to get a return ticket back to this place. I must have been here umpteen times ... but then how can I just go away and leave behind all my wonderful friends ? So I keep coming back ...into the same prison cell.

😆

Quote

13thwish

@13thwish

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#82

Originally posted by: Summer3
Sadly the thick cloud of ignorance is upon me and I am hoping not to get a return ticket back to this place. I must have been here umpteen times ... but then how can I just go away and leave behind all my wonderful friends ? So I keep coming back ...into the same prison cell.
😆

Isn't that the first step though? The desire to unveil ignorance.. once set upon that path it then becomes impossible to stop oneself until every answer is revealed.. so if the desire is genuine, you will find your way out regardless of all distraction and attachment...

From the perspective of the infinite, this blink-and-you'll-miss-it span of a human lifetime is so much fun packed in the span of a single universal breath.. of course, you'd wanna come back umpteen times and experience the ride over n over.. good, bad or ugly but still, totally worth it😉

Edited by 13thwish - 10 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Summer3

@Summer3

Trailblazer

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#83

Originally posted by: 13thwish

Isn't that the first step though? The desire to unveil ignorance.. once set upon that path it then becomes impossible to stop oneself until every answer is revealed.. so if the desire is genuine, you will find your way out regardless of all distraction and attachment...

From the perspective of the infinite, this blink-and-you'll-miss-it span of a human lifetime is so much fun packed in the span of a single universal breath.. of course, you'd wanna come back umpteen times and experience the ride over n over.. good, bad or ugly but still, totally worth it😉

Yes the choice is ours, but first I have to get rid of sloth. Sloth is the product of over indulging in food, over indulgence must be due to too much celebrations so I need to lead a quieter life and have more discipline...talk less, spam less and slowly diminish into oblivion.

Human life is fun only when our health is good ... once health fails it becomes HELL. But I guess that is only natural and pain and suffering (one of the greatest teachers) is hard to bear. Still love conquers all and many are willing to sacrifice everything for Love. If only I had the same intensity of Love my job would be so much easier, modern times have turn us into unfeeling stones.

Quote

later ;)

@QuietlyLoud

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#84

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Observation of natural phenomena and recording of all such observations is not referred to as "perspective". Those observations are checked for soundness of methodology adopted before getting published in peer reviewed journals and accepted as facts. That's how research works. I don't understand why some of you are insisting on adhering to the phrase "human perspective". What other 'perspective" is even possible?

Perspectives?! Let's see.

A lion killed a cub.

a)Human (your)perspective-What the lion did was unjustifiable and cruel.

b)Lion's perspective(assuming it has a mind on its own to think)- What I did was right.It was needed for my well being.

c)The fact-Lion just killed the cub.The action is neither right nor wrong.It was simply genetically wired to act that way.

You are dealing with a).I'm talking about c)

a) and b) are assumptions because along with the action,they have a moral part attached with them ie,either the act is right or wrong.If you take away the moral part,then it is the same as c).

c)only deal with materialistic part of the action/incident.There's no room for the sentimental part.

Long time ago,when humans were not aware of animal behaviours,there could have been a time when a,b,and c were assumptions. Then why did just c) went on to become a fact while the other two remained the same?Due to the basic difference between a fact and an assumption-The need for proof.

Since c) just deals with the action part,you can find credible evidence to prove it.You can either go to jungle and see for yourself or film the act .You can also prove its behaviour is a trait that's stabilized by evolution and world will accept it as fact.

The problem with a) and b) is ,you can never prove the moral part.It differs with perspective and the whole world need not have to share your perspective.If you are setting out to prove it is indeed cruel,you may find some people who think so;but then,there are people like me who think it is not cruel and you cannot convince me otherwise because I'm not viewing it from the your perspective.So as long as a these two groups of people exist, I think it is safe to say your assertion about pain and hardships in the animal kingdom will stay as an assumption only valid from that perspective.

Struggles and challenges every living thing get subjected to in its life time is different.Just different.No one can prove the struggles of one particular group is easier or harder than the other group,neither the acts of one group is right or wrong from its counterparts.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
I have no idea why a process that explains variation in traits, differential reproduction and heredity (read natural selection) is being (ab)used here to justify pain, suffering and hardships in the animal kingdom Regardless of your reasoning, all it does is provide justifications for pain, suffering and hardships. Anything can be rationalized that way. The whole point of this thread starts with a "Why", not a "how". I know the how.

Abusing evolution ?!! I did not derive my justifications out of thin air,you know! 😆

Well ,If you're interested in knowing the 'Whys' of animal struggle in a materialistic sense then you may look upon genetic and evolutionary base of animal behaviour and you would find such texts rationalizing them more or less the same way I did earlier.

On the other hand,If you are looking for the Whys of animal struggle on a philosophical/ moral ground, which I think you are ,then I'd say your current premises are at fault.If you judge the human struggle from such a perspective, you're sure to reach a satisfying result, because you and the person whose act you're judging share the same level of consciousness,understanding and moral judgement; But if you judge the act of an animal group which is seemingly cruel in your eyes on the very same ground you've judged the human action,then I'd say you'll never reach any other conclusion other than keep on thinking the act is cruel.Like I said earlier,all animal actions are instinct driven.Their consciousness is simply not yet developed for moral reasoning.So IMO, that's where you're a missing a link regarding your quest for Why's on this particular matter.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#85

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

The "intelligent" life(or universe) only knows change. It is neutral. There is nothing positive or negative. It is us, ones with nervous system that label this and that "pain", "pleasure", positive, negative etc. The ginormous Earth on which us living creatures live, is a tiny spec in this infinite universe, what is our "pain" now?.

So you are saying there is a "disconnect" between us (the humans), and the rest of the Creation, and by extension, the Creator, as far as pain/suffering is concerned.

How do you think that disconnect happened? Alternatively, why do you think that we have a sense of right and wrong, an experience of pain, when nothing else seemingly does?

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

Actually, in the whole universe, pain and suffering are too tiny, it is just because of damn nerves. Isn't pain good btw? Pain is just another sensation. It can be enjoyed too. My existence has given me pleasures, it is my same existence that is giving me pain, maybe, it is doing so to make me grow or maybe something unknown to me. How will we understand when the existence is more intelligent than us? How can WE say it could've been more intelligent, when it is more intelligent than us.

Negligible is not the same as nothing.It is still something, mathematically speaking.The precision and scale of the decimal type is yet to be determined but it is not Zero.

I believe pain exists as a reminder, as a memory, to serve us "better" when dealing with similar situations in future. To oversimplify: I touched a hot pan, I burned my fingers, I will remember the pain as a synaptic connection and I will never do it again.

Regarding the intelligence of the Creator, it is not a question of more for Him because that is the absolute. The point I tried to raise was, the Creation itself appears flawed, imperfect, and so He should have backed off till He is ready to build a "better" one :)

If Microsoft is not ready to build Windows 8, it shouldn't go ahead and build it and later release it to all; it should first sleep on the idea till it irons out the kinks:))

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#86

Originally posted by: 13thwish
Isn't the greatest fallacy of this argument the assumption that the Creator and the Creation(I'm including ALL creation in this one bracket, inanimate and animate) separate entities in the first place?
If I am the Doer and I am that unto which all is done, then it is only MY will that determines, well pretty much everything..

Also if subject and object are ONE then where is the question of consent or need for assumed responsibility?

What is enlightenment if not the realization that is in fact, simply how things have always been and how they will always be..

Being able to look through the prism of perceived duality and see oneself reflected in both sides of the equation, isn't that the ultimate answer?

But if we're going to be literal and irreverent, I like the idea that "God" is a sexily dressed, all powerful sadist.. BDSM is so trendy these days😆

I was of the same opinion.

5 years back.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#87

QL,

(Quietly Loud sounds like an oxymoron :)

Please analyze the WHY from the perspective of the Creator now. Because that is what I have been trying to do.

Quote

later ;)

@QuietlyLoud

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#88

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
QL,

(Quietly Loud sounds like an oxymoron :)

Please analyze the WHY from the perspective of the Creator now. Because that is what I have been trying to do.

From creator's POV, life and struggle are Yin and Yang.

When Creator created life,he created struggles along with it.Since life didn't freeze at the creation of first cell, I'd assume Creator wanted the life to move forward ;and to evolve. He needed a mechanism for it. Struggle was his mechanism.

Creator made life-struggle mechanism to work in such a way that,only those beings who are able to survive the struggles they're subjected to, are allowed to continue its race.The weak ones are eliminated.That would explain the extinction of many species due to their inability to put up with struggles regarding adverse environment,competitions and the like.Struggle is creator's tool to decide whether to sustain or eliminate a certain life form.

No struggle=No life is the creator's motto 😆

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#89

Originally posted by: QuietlyLoud

From creator's POV, life and struggle are Yin and Yang.
When Creator created life,he created struggles along with it.Since life didn't freeze at the creation of first cell, I'd assume Creator wanted the life to move forward ;and to evolve. He needed a mechanism for it. Struggle was his mechanism.
Creator made life-struggle mechanism to work in such a way that,only those beings who are able to survive the struggles they're subjected to, are allowed to continue its race.The weak ones are eliminated.That would explain the extinction of many species due to their inability to put up with struggles regarding adverse environment,competitions and the like.Struggle is creator's tool to decide whether to sustain or eliminate a certain life form.
No struggle=No life is the creator's motto 😆

Question is, what kind of Yin and yang philosophy (no matter who adopted it, be it Creator or whoever) can justify the mental and physical trauma endured by, say, a person like Nirbhaya, before she succumbed?

Question is, if the Creation is indeed by the Creator, and if, say, Dinosaurs are unfit to survive a cataclysmic event, and microorganisms can, the blame (in creating a gigantic animal) should still be attributed to the Creator, right? It's not the dinosaur's fault that it got extinct, is it? After all, how can you "reason" with a falling asteroid?!

Quote

later ;)

@QuietlyLoud

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#90

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Question is, what kind of Yin and yang philosophy (no matter who adopted it, be it Creator or whoever) can justify the mental and physical trauma endured by, say, a person like Nirbhaya, before she succumbed?

Question is, if the Creation is indeed by the Creator, and if, say, Dinosaurs are unfit to survive a cataclysmic event, and microorganisms can, the blame (in creating a gigantic animal) should still be attributed to the Creator, right? It's not the dinosaur's fault that it got extinct, is it? After all, how can you "reason" with a falling asteroid?!

You asked me to consider things from a creator's perspective and you're again considering things from a human perspective.

Trauma,pain,suffering etc etc have validity only in human eyes.

We here are assuming that there is a creator and a creation happened since we don't have the proof for either.So for the soundness of the argument,I'd treat the creator as a separate entity which don't share the perspective/moral reasoning of a particular living thing, including humans. Because, if creator were to have a human mind,he has equal probability of having a microorganism's mind. and the same probability goes for everything that lies in between.Since there are millions of organisms and hence millions of perspectives to choose from,the idea that Creator also should share the same perspective as that of a human is mediocre.

So on that ground,I dismiss the moral part of your example.Now I don't see it any different from your earlier examples regarding the 'cruelties' of animal world.

Regarding Dinosaur extinction,the asteroid impact theory is still a hypothesis along with Climate change theories.

It is accepted as a fact that the asteroid impact had a detrimental effect on dinosaur population.But the idea that the impact washed away the whole dinosaur population without a trace is still an assumption.The impact ,along with the climatic changes happened around that time resulted in extinction.

So in that case,yes microorganisms,many lower reptiles and such organisms with their size as an advantage had an upperhand over dinosaurs,hence they survived .

Edited by QuietlyLoud - 10 years ago

Quote

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13

Why does God turn a blind eye ? - Page 9

Related Topics

Explore Topics