Why are there deadly storms, accidents and diseases?

[nazz]

So I don't think it's realistic to expect things to be optimized for well-being, love, design, and comfort, nor do I think it's fair to place ourselves at the center of things, as though the universe is designed specifically for sapient beings. I think we've got to work with what we have and try to make it better.

If it's designed, it does seem to be designed to produce sapient beings. Sort of its crowning achievement. I like to call the universe a nursery for life.

 

[Penumbra]

If it's designed, it does seem to be designed to produce sapient beings. Sort of its crowning achievement. I like to call the universe a nursery for life.

It has taken 4+ billion years of Earth's existence to create sapient beings as far as we know, and we haven't yet found evidence anywhere else in our solar system of sapient beings or even life in general. So in terms of volume and time of the explored universe, it has an exceptionally low prevalence of sapient life.

I don't view us as Earth's crowning achievement. We've grown to a population of seven billion people, despite our wars, and we're harming our own ability to sustain our lives in the planet's environment.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

We have found evidence of life on Mars; just nothing that is viewed as conclusive by the scientific community. In point of fact some folks think Mars may have been the origination point for life on Earth.

And while I don't think that we are the "crowning achievement" of Earth (that seems awkward to me because I don't think there is a competition in place: beyond natural selection in which case we would be the crowning achievement: a top predator that has no competition); I think you are being vastly unfair by claiming that the reason why we are unworthy is because we are "harming our own ability to sustain ourselves."

Sentience gives us potential for both great good and great malevolence: we've simply increased the scope of our activities instead of "merely contenting" ourselves with genetic instructions to carry us through our lives by being more dependent on extra-genetic information than any other species on the planet.


If the Earth is not devoid of storms, most accidents, and diseases in the future, then it will not be because of some penchant for self-destruction or because we did something to the Earth too damaging for it to absorb (Earth has been through far more than we could with our current technology ever dream of throwing at it); it will be because we failed to live up to our potential; it will be because we chose to limit ourselves and not accept the advances and technologies available.

Technology may progress faster than wisdom, but if we choose to ignore what it is wise to do, then it is not the fault of technology that we founder or fail.

MTF

 

[nazz]

It has taken 4+ billion years of Earth's existence to create sapient beings as far as we know, and we haven't yet found evidence anywhere else in our solar system of sapient beings or even life in general. So in terms of volume and time of the explored universe, it has an exceptionally low prevalence of sapient life.

I'm assuming there are many other life forms in the universe despite their being widely dispersed. The amount of time for life to develop and its dispersion among the stars is not really important. What I am saying is that there is a cosmic evolutionary process that results in life that begins with the formation of more complex elements, then stars and planets, even more complex arrangements of molecules, the building blocks of life and ends up with there being intelligent, self aware beings. But that may not really be the end of the process.

I don't view us as Earth's crowning achievement. We've grown to a population of seven billion people, despite our wars, and we're harming our own ability to sustain our lives in the planet's environment.

Whether we as a species survive (I think we will) is not really important. What's important is the overall cosmic process.

 

[challupa]

You got used to the pain. That's what happened.
You no longer call it suffering, because it used to be worse in a certain way back then.

Yes, that is very true! But I see that as an amazing physical ability. I am in awe at the way we can adjust to discomfort. Especially to the extent that it changes to a state of 'not suffering' although we experience high levels of pain. That fascinates me. I know 'it's just getting used to it' but have you ever thought how that actually works? We have amazing resilience. Before this experience I would never have believed that I could get used to such levels of pain. Now I know what the body/mind is capable of. Impressive!

 

[challupa]

We live on a thin, fractured and shifting (sometimes violently) layer of crust above a sphere of hot magma, rock, and metal and below cold, dark, airless, radiation-filled empty space for mind-boggling distances, with a very thin atmospheric bubble partially guarding us. Life grew on the crust, forming a predator/prey cycle of nature for hundreds of millions of years and counting with only a recent known emergence of sapient minds on the planet. Other observed planets and moons appear to be devoid of life, so far, and our planet has weathered multiple mass-extinction events.

So I don't think it's realistic to expect things to be optimized for well-being, love, design, and comfort, nor do I think it's fair to place ourselves at the center of things, as though the universe is designed specifically for sapient beings. I think we've got to work with what we have and try to make it better.

:clap Exactly. We are not the center of existence and anything we do get is just our ability to evolve and survive in conditions on earth. One of the biggest reasons to believe in evolution is the fact that we can survive as well as we do in these surroundings. We have evolved along with the earth and anything that didn't survive the earths' changes didn't make it. We are the product of the survivors. And, no I don't want an evolution conversation...

 

[Sand Dancer]

What is that supposed to mean exactly?

Sorry that I never answered this. I didn't see it. I'm thinking that natural disasters are actually natural processes that the planet needs to sustain itself. I do believe in God, but in order to understand this concept completely, I need to fit God into the fact that He/it doesn't "cause" these things, but that they are necessary occurrences.

 

[desideraht]

In order for there to be Life, there must be Death. For Light, Darkness. For Joy, Suffering. It is the Way of things. Chaos and Order reign.

Death gives value to Life. And only from Destruction may there be Rebirth.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Thirza:

I If you don't like the way something is going, then it is on you to go out there and make sure it is stopped or changed for the better. That is the biggest stumbling block. Most people are content to let things happen unopposed; because opposition would involve effort and conflict with other people.

For instance: Did you know that we can build nuclear reactors now that have ZERO radioactive waste products? (on a related note check out how many people die each year due to coal and oil related accidents and illnesses) Did you know that we can create houses that are insulated so well that body heat is sufficient to heat the building in winter (and is so effective at keeping out heat in the summer that no AC is needed)? Did you know that we developed urban planning models for cities vastly more energy and water efficient decades ago (look up Buckminster Fuller if you are curious to see something "only" 40 years out of date), but have never been implemented?

Our world is full of innovations and technologies that are not implemented, but could potentially solve a lot of problems. Most people just don't know about these things, and amongst those that do, most don't care enough to want to try to implement them.


MTF

How can I find out about these things in order to help?

 

[Sand Dancer]

In order for there to be Life, there must be Death. For Light, Darkness. For Joy, Suffering. It is the Way of things. Chaos and Order reign.

Death gives value to Life. And only from Destruction may there be Rebirth.

It's the suffering part I hate the most. Sounds like it could possibly involve sheer terror, and that scares me. Any way I can have a less anxiety-producing attitude about it?

 

[desideraht]

It's the suffering part I hate the most. Sounds like it could possibly involve sheer terror, and that scares me. Any way I can have a less anxiety-producing attitude about it?

That is difficult to answer. Some find solace in knowing that Life will never give you anything you can't handle—if you cannot handle it, this results in Death. So any suffering one may endure, in the end, strengthens them and broadens their understanding of the world. It can enable them to reach out and help others who endure sufferings.

As someone who has endured a great deal of terror, I suppose my best advice to you is that it always passes. I have felt many times the fear of Mortality and Death, so frozen in terror that I felt it would kill me in that very moment, but it never has. Terror and suffering are immaterial and of the mind, and do not truly harm us.

I would also like to note that it need not be 50-50. You need not spend half of your life suffering, the other half in joy. There are many shades of grey in-between worth acknowledging, and there is no Cosmic rule which states that the "Good" and "Bad" must balance out. One must simply try to cultivate the Good in their own life.

 

[Sand Dancer]

As someone who has endured a great deal of terror, I suppose my best advice to you is that it always passes. I have felt many times the fear of Mortality and Death, so frozen in terror that I felt it would kill me in that very moment, but it never has. Terror and suffering are immaterial and of the mind, and do not truly harm us.

I am sorry to hear that you've experienced this. You were a good person to ask I guess. Good advice. Take care!

 

[Whiterain]

As a believer in the mighty Thunder God sometimes the storms seem alive, speaking to the world,

"I... am...the Thunder God............"

Yet, This age science has told us these storms and plagues are part of nature. I am not against that notion
and am more than obliged to not accuse or believe in an angry Lord taking sacrifices.

 

[underthesun]

I've never felt the need to reconcile these things with my faith, but that might be simply because I am not of the belief that an omnipotent being exists. I can understand where the conflict would arise in those faiths, when people look at suffering and 'disaster'.

But for me, I see the Divine in every aspect of the natural world: in the peaceful forest clearings, in the energy from the sun, in each of us, and indeed in the power of a tsunami and in the raging forest fire. I don't view these things as 'bad', though. I don't view anything as 'good' or 'evil', really. It just is; and everything we usually deem 'bad' has a 'good' side that we don't usually acknowledge. Forest fires bring new life to forests; a disease outbreak in a herd leaves the strong and healthy and might help reduce the species to below the carrying capacity.​

 

[George-ananda]

Life is eternal but 'Problem of Evil' believers view things from the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death.The natural illusion.

I try to look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

Plus Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of cause/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are. Standard Problem of Evil proponents believe in this one life only so evil seems unfair and cruel in that limited perspective.

If all the dramas were removed, it would just be a static-state sameness. Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.

I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little spec and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.

 

[Koldo]

Life is eternal but 'Problem of Evil' believers view things from the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death.The natural illusion.

I try to look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

Except that ignores the other option just around the corner where no one would have to do undergo that process to reach this goal.

Plus Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of cause/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are. Standard Problem of Evil proponents believe in this one life only so evil seems unfair and cruel in that limited perspective.

If all the dramas were removed, it would just be a static-state sameness. Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.

Also known as: God is not omnipotent.

I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little spec and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.

Or not.

 

[George-ananda]

Except that ignores the other option just around the corner where no one would have to do undergo that process to reach this goal.

These comments again show you are not grasping the concept of non-duality and are trying to apply Abrahamic (dualistic) concepts to my explanation.

Without change and drama there would only be static-state sameness. All was in that state before the creation of the universe. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita…..’I separated Myself from Myself and became all this’. There is nothing that is not God. The goal for us is to realize our Oneness with everything.

Also known as: God is not omnipotent.

This comment makes no sense in non-dualistic thought.

Here’s an analogy. An author writes a great novel. It has a beginning, a middle with much drama and suffering, and a happy ending. So your comment ‘God is not omnipotent’ is like saying the author of our novel is not omnipotent over what happens in the novel. That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Koldo]

These comments again show you are not grasping the concept of non-duality and are trying to apply Abrahamic (dualistic) concepts to my explanation.

Without change and drama there would only be static-state sameness. All was in that state before the creation of the universe. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita…..’I separated Myself from Myself and became all this’. There is nothing that is not God. The goal for us is to realize our Oneness with everything.

And why is there a need for this specific drama rather than a different version?
It seems the God you propose is quite lacking on power to write a better story.

This comment makes no sense in non-dualistic thought.

Here’s an analogy. An author writes a great novel. It has a beginning, a middle with much drama and suffering, and a happy ending. So your comment ‘God is not omnipotent’ is like saying the author of our novel is not omnipotent over what happens in the novel. That doesn’t make sense.

I was replying more properly to this sentence: 'Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.'

If God is unable to make us turn into a state where no further need to grow exists, he is not omnipotent.

 

[George-ananda]

And why is there a need for this specific drama rather than a different version?
It seems the God you propose is quite lacking on power to write a better story.

There is no better story than this one. Most people can't appreciate it from their limited perspective.

I was replying more properly to this sentence: 'Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.'

If God is unable to make us turn into a state where no further need to grow exists, he is not omnipotent.

God is able to turn us into that state. But static-state sameness is not the best story line. Questioning, advancing and growing and succeeding is the best story line.

 

[Koldo]

There is no better story than this one. Most people can't appreciate it from their limited perspective.

Or perhaps some people can't think of a better story.

God is able to turn us into that state. But static-state sameness is not the best story line. Questioning, advancing and growing and succeeding is the best story line.

Meaning the goal is of little relevancy.