The Black Vault

Maximization of cooperative existence, I meant. Sorry if that was unclear.

At most, your analogy justifies an equal measure of indifference toward the "divine". It does not justify suffering per se.

I have never seen one argument for a divine power that would also excuse any human being from moral responsibility. The "parent" analogy also fails in that regard.

Ultimately, the truth may be that human morality is simply a product of necessity, and has a purely biological basis. But that does not invalidate the vital importance of it, rather it puts the lie to metaphysical formulations of conduct and suggests the reasons for social behaviors are quite easily understood, with no need for injections of mysticism or spiritualism. ie. It is purely a matter of practicality and therefore lends itself to the domain of reason.

humphreys wrote:What does that say about heaven then, khanster?

We are told there is no suffering there, does that mean we will be mindless, emotionless zombies without feeling?

This may interest you:

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-marriage-he ... 96602.html

DIss0n80r wrote:ants are not people in this world.

What if that's what they are saying about humans? After all, we're seeing that no one is eliminating suffering, God or gods or powerful aliens or sophisticated technology. I think it's likely that somewhere in the multiverse, there are beings that are simultaneously aware of our plight and able to do something about it but so far unwilling to do something about it. And so you have to wonder why they are so unwilling. Is it because all of them would prefer we have maximal free will? I think it wouldn't be too hard for potent entities to resolve the free will versus suffering issue, yet they don't. Is that because they do not view us as people just like you don't view ants as people?

I'm reminded of a story about a slave who was enduring slavery for years and every night he prayed to God to be a free man. Years went by without a magical solution to his plight. Then one day he decided to pray with his running legs.

Now not all suffering is the result of free will, of course not. I'm not suggesting that suffering is trivial to me; what I'm suggesting is that it IS trivial to the probable countless potent beings who could but have not eliminated human suffering.

Or perhaps there are no such potent beings in the multiverse aware and able to help us end human suffering. Maybe Avatars like Buddha were the machinations of an attempt to end human suffering. Perhaps we as a species have been led to the water but they are all unwilling to make us drink. One way to get a horse to drink is to lead it through the desert first. Maybe we are being led through the desert now so that we will want to drink.

Enough perhapses, maybes, and what ifs?

My overall point is NOT that suffering implies there are no beings potent enough to stop it but it does imply that they are not omnibenevolent.

My posts were not about whether any such beings exist. You completely missed the point.

I got it. I just went in a different direction. Didn't see a need to belabor your point or fuss overly.

So you chose to ignore my point that the existence or non-existence of such beings is irrelevant in a practical sense, and then went back to belaboring your point about indifference?

Okay, cool.

Anyways - ignoring for now my point about their practical irrelevance - assuming that such beings exist that are able to interfere, the flipside may be that we could count ourselves gladly fortunate that they don't, or at least infrequently and/or subtly do so. What if such a being had, for reasons inexplicable to us, taken a liking to the dinosaurs and had decided to "save" them?

Of course, once we go down that road, we can start attributing divine intervention to all events that were favorable to us, although of course we'd be ignoring everything that has ever threatened our survival too...

Is this a suitable line of inquiry for his at1-ness?

I guess you might say this is a speculative and impractical line of inquiry.
I don't mind either.

Of course it is speculative, but the irrelevance mentioned was not in reference to our speculations. My point was that the existence of such beings is as morally relevant to humans as our existence is to them. IE. If they don't care about us, then they cannot be a proper foundation for our own sense of morality.

Your point was understood. I am also interested in your idea of equating the vicissitudes and struggles of human existence to "leading a horse through a desert to get it to drink".

So don't get all butthurt, bro.

DIss0n80r wrote:Your point was understood. I am also interested in your idea of equating the vicissitudes and struggles of human existence to "leading a horse through a desert to get it to drink".

After I wrote it, I was reminded of the exodus and search of the promised land. People wandering through a desert, waiting to find an end to their suffering. Being in the desert for so long only increased that desire. It's a metaphor that probably makes it seem somewhat Machiavellian.

There are roughly two levels of potency that hypothetical beings could have. One which is significantly more powerful than us humans, like the borg, (though it has been suggested that WE have the power to end human suffering) and the other level is that of the Q.

I think it's pretty clear that if Q exists, he is not willing to end human suffering in a way that has no negative consequences which he could do at the snap of a finger. Such a being is not deserving of worship and I'm sure they probably would be quite indifferent to being worshiped; they may even find it humorous (if they behave at all like humans--which I doubt).

On the other hand, maybe a borg-level race is out there trying to help us out (to continue the speculation). They see zillions of variables as like a puzzle to solve, one that if solved means an end to suffering, but so incredibly difficult that even their best artilect computers are still working on it. Perhaps making suffering end suddenly is in their arsenal like nukes are in ours: we have them but we don't use them. Perhaps they ARE, as you suggested, getting involved albeit subtly. Rather than make us drink that healing potion, maybe they are leading us through the proverbial desert so that we will come to want the healing potion. Maybe God is the answer after all.

I also speculate that suffering serves an as-yet unknown ulterior purpose and maybe all these powerful beings do have our best interests in mind by allowing it to continue.