How can a good God allow suffering

I minored in Philosophy and majored in Accounting. Got a better grade in Philosophy. However, I did pretty good with my Accounting BS degree. LOL.

I get what you’re saying and the studies of stroke and brain damaged subjects reveal some gross architectural features of the brain, but the valid conclusions that can be made don’t come close to understanding consciousness and how the brain works.

The left/right brain dicotomy and verbal center disruption is interesting but in computer terms, that’s just I/O and sensory input, doesn’t say much about consciousness and what you are calling higher level processes. Saying that these things are 'emergent systems' is just a way of saying 'We don’t know' but gives the impression that 'we do' to those who put all their trust in experts.

It’s like many people's opinion on evolution. They have no clue about the science, they just takes the word of experts. Which is fine up until they enter a debate on the scientific merits of it, where all they can offer is 'You're wrong because some expert says so'.

Sorry, Just my venting of pet peeves.

I remember reading about brain damage, and how one side of the brain will take over the other side that's been damaged.

It can be argued that the ability of humans to create and share what they have created is why they are able to use their bodies the way they do. Humans with physically deformed bodies still use language to express complex ideas because their "intelligence" allows them too. It is not because their body requires them to.

How can you tell if human intelligence is driving the body or the body is driving the intelligence?

I can look really intelligent playing a video game on the internet till my controller starts short circuiting or the internet connection gets bad . Then anybody else playing with me on the internet, and observing the universe from their subjective point of view might think that just because the hardware quit working I suddenly got stupid because I can not contribute to the game in an intellectual way any more. When in reality my intelligence is fine it is just the hardware that is broken.

The same thing can happen with a human body. The problem is even the person using the body to express themselves is subject to the bodies point of view.



A philosophical or psychological pov is subjective. But, reality is created by an objective God. A person would have to imagine viewing the universe through God's objective eyes rather than a persons subjective eyes to develop a fully complete and true view of reality.

Fortunately God stepped onto the Earth and clarified this by explaining the duality of His nature as:

1. The Idea - the Father
2. The physical representation of that idea in words which are stored physical rotating objects (quarks and atoms)- And then those words became flesh in Jesus.

So, if we go back to the video game example, if I could insert my living room chair with me running the controller into the video game I could explain to the other people playing how I am manipulating the game (which is their subjective universe but my objective universe) through the controller and internet connection. I could make some miraculous things happen (from their subjective point of view anyway) if I brought my objective control from outside the game into the inside of the game. (kind of what Jesus did when he performed miracles.)

In other words dualism can only be observed objectively and since we are subjective we can only imagine it. But:

Dualism is logical.

Science is logical.

So:
Philosophers and psychologists must use their imagination to logically determine the truth.

'Emergence' is no longer synonymous with 'we don't know how'. See for example Pross on abiogenesis who utilises the principle of DKS (dynamic kinetic stability) from 'systems theory' to account for an organism's local 'opposition' to entropy increase. (an 'organism' being considered to be a complex 'dissipative structure' - a relatively stable system of energy exchange related to those shown by Prigogine to spontaneously arise in chemical systems)

I consider dualism perfectly tenable, therefore your statement above is factually wrong.

Here is a video supporting the position that the universe is like a video game.

Okay lets modify it.

Dualism (in the Cartesian sense) Is no longer considered to be a tenable pov by most psychologists or philosophers.

Philosophy doen't really work through consensus building, the way science does. Saying "99% of climatologists believe in anthropic climate change" means something, it's precise and verifiable and you know that they base their consensus on an agreed body of experimental, verifiable facts. But "99% of philosophers believe in some sort of transcendence" means very little, beyond the fad of the times.

That's true. Philosophy is the search for the purpose of life. With the varied environments of the people of this world, climate, environment, religion, and politics has much influence in how we live. I understood from my early teens that our lives are directed by our environment, and that includes the influence of our parents, siblings, friends, teachers, the climate of our environment. Look at the south side of Chicago, or the bad neighborhoods in Oakland. The crime rates are way beyond the average, and the kids who grow up in that environment are going to be influenced by it. That is also a microcosm of what happens in countries. Many who were born and raised in democracies and in the right neighborhood have many benefits. I'm not so sure god has anything to do with that.

That's pretty good.

That should be; I copied it from someplace.
BTW, I minored in Philosophy in college. I even stoked a "a".

DKS is a joke. The only factual thing it says is that a complex working system does not violate the law of entropy.

Well - duh...

Show me one example of naturally occurring complex system other than 'life' if you think it’s valid.

Oh, that explains it then... :-p

A hurricane.

https://able2know.org/topic/384507-16#post-6718326

Do you have a comment on this video? It is presented by a mainstream reputable scientist.

Sorry, I missed that reference.

Bear in mind that the OP has zero significance to my atheism which is based on the social perniciousness of religion, and not the futile search for evidence of the nature of a mythical entity.

Atheistic societies have killed many people as well. Who is killing who and why is not really germane to this discussion. . . .Unless, you want to start talking about morality. But morality implies some type of universal purpose. If the universe is here for a purpose that implies somebody put it here for that purpose.

A man named Jesus entered the universe and claimed to be that person. He was hardly mythical. Most of western civilization is referenced around his life and death. I think it is futile to deny the evidence in nature and your life that there is a purpose. So why not do the work And try to understand him and his purpose?

So, that's the reason for the justification that religion was responsible for crimes against humanity. That kind of logic makes no sense. https://www.quora.com/The-least-religious-countries-are-the-most-peaceful-ones-Is-it-true
That's a very logical conclusion. Division is what creates wars.

How can a Good God allow for men to do this to children. Maybe that man's friends and relatives should be asked that question.