why do bad things happen to good people?

[Smart_Guy]

Why do good people happen to good people?

Why do bad things happen to bad people?

Now, that's a mystery, scoob

 

[s2a]

Why do good things happen to bad people?

As I offered in simplistic explanation before...the cosmos has no personal interest in what happens to you, or anyone else. No rewards, no punishments.

Is this too difficult an idea to understand or accept?

 

[oldbadger]

is God to blame for such calamities?
could it be Karma, the result of person's bad deeds in a past that reflect their lives today and cause suffering?
if God is loving why does not he protect good people from harm?

Most people think that they are good.
Many years ago a convicted multiple murderer and gangster, when asked for any last words before his execution, exclaimed, 'And this is what you get for tryin' to help people!'...... !

Why humans think that they deserve more protection than other creatures is amazing.

 

[chinu]

is God to blame for such calamities?
could it be Karma, the result of person's bad deeds in a past that reflect their lives today and cause suffering?
if God is loving why does not he protect good people from harm?

Firstly, we humans aren't capable to see anybodies intention from inside, But God is. Thus.. its not necessary that the people who are good in front of us are really good people. We humans can only see the outer person.

Secondly, I don't think there's anybody bad according to God in this world. According to God all are his children, and all are patients. If anything Bad happens with somebody, its just treatment in his big hospital (hospital=world). You can also consider this treatment the result of past deeds.

 

[TashaN]

Obfuscation. Does your inquiry offer a definitive "answer" or no?

I do have my own opinion about this matter but i thought to know yours.

Sometimes, yes. Most often, not really. Not at all.

A fair question. It would indeed rest upon what part of the world I was informed to understand/believe. Some parts of this world "knew: centuries beforehand that our world was a sphere. In other places, the church would dictate (and enforce) science, or heresy.

Again (since you choose to evade any specificity in time), other existent and contemporary cultures readily enough in identifiable time frames of understanding remained fairly well assured of their accuracies of informed speculations concluded that our planet was NOT flat. Sailing on the seas worked fairly well enough.

However, it is silly, even inane to conclude, then again construe, that doubt (or remaining question) is equitable to utter ignorance, or wild guess. It's just not. It has never been so.

That's why we might be on the same statues now. I'm sure you wouldn't claim science will not go forward after we depart from this life. That's why having faith in science is not good enough since it's just one of the tool but not something to rely on to answer everything.

Um, no?

Is it your only "point" to be offered that I may not "know" everything, in the entirety of the complete complexity of the cosmos, before I die?

Really?

Is that supposed to be scary?

Is that fear to be best answered by a belief in some invisible benevolent space entity?

Or might I instead retain some confidence and (*gasp*) hope that a prevailing part of our entire species might actually seek beyond superstition and fear for greater insights and enlightenment's that exist over that next hill?

Or should a species evolved to employ rational thinking just hide under a rock and just pray for some divine "deliverance" from cave bears and stone knives?

it's not about whether it's scary or not, but rather about being open about other possibilities that science has yet to discover. Just because science doesn't know about something, that wouldn't make it a fairy tale.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Why do good people happen to good people?

Why do bad things happen to bad people?

Now, that's a mystery, scoob

OMG, I can't believe I made such a stoopid mistake?

 

[oldbadger]

OMG, I can't believe I made such a stoopid mistake?

Who cares?
It's the thought behind the post that counts.....

 

[s2a]

I do have my own opinion about this matter but i thought to know yours.

.

OK...I don't wear PJ's to bed either. Is this also relevant to the topic?

That's why we might be on the same statues now. I'm sure you wouldn't claim science will not go forward after we depart from this life.

Um, I do retain that optimistic "faith"... what is then your point?

That's why having faith in science is not good enough since it's just one of the tool but not something to rely on to answer everything.

You predicate a lacking definitive answer "today" as may be tendered by "science" to therefore be, until the end of days, to be forever unknowable, or beyond understanding.

Forgive my saying so, but that is REALLY stupid.

Let us fairly evaluate the entire history of scientific revelations. Virtually none EVER suggest that any "answer" lent on a given day is EVER final. THAT IS the very essence of "science" Science NEVER offers others to ponder upon absolutes or irrevocable outcomes. EVER. Period. End of statement,

The very least any scientific endeavor or experimentation EVER alludes is.. "I don't know". It's only religion that EVER suggests absolute certitude. EVER.

What "science" can offer is a certainty of result that most often defies all other alternative probabilities.

If "science" can predict with 99.99999% accuracy that a manned projectile shot at the moon will "work", you are still welcome to offer an alternative that either predicts failure, or increases odds of success that is something "new". Just curious, what ya got?

it's not about whether it's scary or not, but rather about being open about other possibilities that science has yet to discover. Just because science doesn't know about something, that wouldn't make it a fairy tale.

Yes, quite true.

But at the same time, a moment of question or doubt of scientific conclusions, does NOT serve as validation of myth or magical thoughts as the best (or only) alternatives.

Understand?

 

[TashaN]

.

OK...I don't wear PJ's to bed either. Is this also relevant to the topic?

Never mind.

Um, I do retain that optimistic "faith"... what is then your point?


You predicate a lacking definitive answer "today" as may be tendered by "science" to therefore be, until the end of days, to be forever unknowable, or beyond understanding.

Forgive my saying so, but that is REALLY stupid.

Let us fairly evaluate the entire history of scientific revelations. Virtually none EVER suggest that any "answer" lent on a given day is EVER final. THAT IS the very essence of "science" Science NEVER offers others to ponder upon absolutes or irrevocable outcomes. EVER. Period. End of statement,

The very least any scientific endeavor or experimentation EVER alludes is.. "I don't know". It's only religion that EVER suggests absolute certitude. EVER.

What "science" can offer is a certainty of result that most often defies all other alternative probabilities.

If "science" can predict with 99.99999% accuracy that a manned projectile shot at the moon will "work", you are still welcome to offer an alternative that either predicts failure, or increases odds of success that is something "new". Just curious, what ya got?

I agree with you.

Yes, quite true.

But at the same time, a moment of question or doubt of scientific conclusions, does NOT serve as validation of myth or magical thoughts as the best (or only) alternatives.

Understand?

I also agree here. My only point is that we can't simply deny something just because for a lack of a scientific conclusion. I see no issue with saying "i don't know", but i have a problem with those who deny anything and everything just because science have not arrived yet to any valid conclusion. You got my point?

 

[s2a]

Never mind.



I agree with you.



I also agree here. My only point is that we can't simply deny something just because for a lack of a scientific conclusion. I see no issue with saying "i don't know", but i have a problem with those who deny anything and everything just because science have not arrived yet to any valid conclusion. You got my point?

Sure.

Religion offers surety absent credible evidence.

Science offers credible evidence absent surety.

Sooo....

....wanna buy some prime property sight unseen?

Now sell me on that "Heaven" idea again?

 

[Riverwolf]

Sure.

Religion offers surety absent credible evidence.

Science offers credible evidence absent surety.

Wrong.

...well, not necessarily wrong in terms of broad generalizations that may be consistent with some conceptions of the sciences and religion, but wrong in your surety of getting the point.

What's being said is that positive denial lacking evidence is just as bad as positive assurance lacking evidence.

Certainly my religion does not offer surety absent credible evidence, nor do I positively deny the existence of things simply because they lack evidence.

 

[TashaN]

What's being said is that positive denial lacking evidence is just as bad as positive assurance lacking evidence.

Ditto. :yes:

 

[natasha levchenko]

What do you mean:"the creation of humanity was not one of God's actions"?

 

[s2a]

Wrong.

...well, not necessarily wrong in terms of broad generalizations that may be consistent with some conceptions of the sciences and religion, but wrong in your surety of getting the point.

What's being said is that positive denial lacking evidence is just as bad as positive assurance lacking evidence.

Certainly my religion does not offer surety absent credible evidence, nor do I positively deny the existence of things simply because they lack evidence.

Understood.

Your religion is different...just like all others (except the ones that are not, and see themselves as just damn sure)

I know some literal fundamentalists you might like to meet...

 

[Riverwolf]

Understood.

Your religion is different...just like all others (except the ones that are not, and see themselves as just damn sure)

I know some literal fundamentalists you might like to meet...

I've dealt with those kinds in the past. Annoying.

My religion is only different at first. Then I realized that it's buried right within our language and some of our vernacular.

 

[s2a]

is God to blame for such calamities?
could it be Karma, the result of person's bad deeds in a past that reflect their lives today and cause suffering?
if God is loving why does not he protect good people from harm?

Why not?

If there was no "god", then to what do we attribute natural events?

If the evidence suggests that nature does not punish, nor reward individual behaviors, then what events shall we point towards to suggest they yet may be "true"?

Is it really, if ever, that one survivor in the midst of 600 that perish in an utterly random earthquake/flood/tornado/tsunami/comet strike...that the one survivor is deemed a "miracle" (after lengthy and laboriously modern medical treatments) derived solely of "god"?

Only within religious beliefs does the idea of retribution or reward exist.

If you ask then, "Why do bad things happen to good people"...they really don't (happen). Not unless you seek answers from a "god" that wishes to keep secrets from you, on purpose,