174. Dr. Raymond Moody On Understanding Near-Death Experiences as Nonsense (Podcast)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Scott

And if one Starts with the default of God existing - then the argument is over. You can't prove a negative. They did not come to their premise by reason or rationality. There is nothing to discuss.

You're right there, there is indeed nothing to discuss. You're not getting to grips with my points.

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by Scott

It is just a version of how this one persons attempted to make sense of their experiences - No more and no less worthwhile than millions of other versions.

Here's the point though. A possible metaphysical model of reality that takes omnibenevolence, a creator entity and challenges (suffering/evil) into account, and which is also consistent, is all that is needed to refute the problem of evil in all its various formulations!

It doesn't matter whether it's just a logical possibility that we have no evidence in favor of. Over and out. o7

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I'm not a fan of glib 'explanations' of suffering, or why we are here - at least when they become assertions rather than hypotheses.

However, it is certainly the case that humans seem to voluntarily 'suffer' in a variety of ways:

1) They scare themselves at amusement parks.

2) They engage in seriously dangerous activities - such as mountain climbing.

3) They play video games, in which they immerse themselves in a very dangerous and scary world.

4) Many professional soldiers actually look forward to being sent into a war zone!

I don't consider it inconceivable that life is somehow analogous to a video game, and that the NDE is analogous to peeling the goggles off and plunging back into normal life!

David

Certainly! You know, I think that life is only ever as serious as we want it to be. I also think that most people care a bit too much about irrelevant pettiness. But on the other hand, that is how our culture is structured in these times. We take many things in life very seriously (like our identity in relationship to society), and especially life itself.

But I don't think these are 'glib' explanations, only that they appear as such because they rub off on our sense of seriousness. "What, my extremely stressful and socially relevant life is just a role-playing exercise, and the outcome really doesn't matter? That's ridiculous, there's got to be more serious aspects to it!" Reminds me of this sketch by Bill Hicks.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

Here's the point though. A possible metaphysical model of reality that takes omnibenevolence, a creator entity and challenges (suffering/evil) into account, and which is also consistent, is all that is needed to refute the problem of evil in all its various formulations!

It doesn't matter whether it's just a logical possibility that we have no evidence in favor of. Over and out. o7

Yes, and so is every other story or possibility. It is just I am saying if you are going to bring something into the story then what is the evidence that something exists little lone has any of the traits you give it?
I am not discounting any story - though what makes any one of the stories stand out more than any others?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I'm not a fan of glib 'explanations' of suffering, or why we are here - at least when they become assertions rather than hypotheses.

However, it is certainly the case that humans seem to voluntarily 'suffer' in a variety of ways:

1) They scare themselves at amusement parks.

2) They engage in seriously dangerous activities - such as mountain climbing.

3) They play video games, in which they immerse themselves in a very dangerous and scary world.

4) Many professional soldiers actually look forward to being sent into a war zone!

I don't consider it inconceivable that life is somehow analogous to a video game, and that the NDE is analogous to peeling the goggles off and plunging back into normal life!

David

It couldn't be a rush of adrenalin that might make these events something to look forward to. I don't see any other than #4 even being a remote kind of suffering.

For the first 3 you could add sitting in church for an hour or two a week - That I can see as suffering. I can also see where others would not. Just as some would see high risk activities as torture and others as just a rush.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

Here's the point though. A possible metaphysical model of reality that takes omnibenevolence, a creator entity and challenges (suffering/evil) into account, and which is also consistent, is all that is needed to refute the problem of evil in all its various formulations!

It doesn't matter whether it's just a logical possibility that we have no evidence in favor of. Over and out. o7

But the problem is just saying "we get some sort of growth out of it" isn't necessarily a good defence. First of all - I'm not sure its always true. There is misery that doesn't seem to produce anything but suffering. Or at least the growth isn't apparent. The suffering is spread out unevenly which questions fairness. And the question is: what is the actual end and why does such enourmous suffering have to be the way to get there?

I'm not saying there aren't ways to defend omnibenevolence (if this world is basically a video game that our eternal selves play then it is similar to playing a video game) - but I'd need a lot more information before I was to accept the "personal growth" thing as a sign of omnibenevolence.

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by Scott

For the first 3 you could add sitting in church for an hour or two a week - That I can see as suffering.

Haha, this reminds me of the attitude of some of my friends. One of them can't sit in a church without getting physical symptoms from it, like constant itches on his legs. He REALLY doesn't like going to church

Originally Posted by Arouet

But the problem is just saying "we get some sort of growth out of it" isn't necessarily a good defence. First of all - I'm not sure its always true. There is misery that doesn't seem to produce anything but suffering. Or at least the growth isn't apparent.

You're not looking at it from an eternal perspective, though. And the extent to which the misery helps to produce more misery is relatively irrelevant, as the purpose of suffering isn't to immediately end it in the larger sense. As in, "What, you suffered yet couldn't end continual suffering at once when you learned something from that suffering? Then it was worthless and you didn't really learn anything from it."

But you're free to provide examples of this that in your mind is compelling, as the conversation might get a bit more tangible with concrete examples.

Originally Posted by Arouet

The suffering is spread out unevenly which questions fairness.

Again not taking the larger picture into account. If the amount of suffering we're going to (potentially) endure prior to incarnation is decided by the individual, then wherein is the concept of fairness relevant? I might live in a King this life, and be a homeless beggar the next. In the long run, everything will even itself out. And even if it didn't incarnation-wise, so what? Fairness will be infinite in the spiritual realm anyway.

Originally Posted by Arouet

And the question is: what is the actual end and why does such enourmous suffering have to be the way to get there?

Imagine someone being tortured, like horrendously. And yet, imagine that person being able to cry from joy and love unconditionally the ones who are doing this to him, despite the horrible circumstances.

Now imagine how happy such a person would be when he's back home in the heavenly light of infinite bliss, acceptance and unconditional love.

As Christian says, when we learn to thrive in our challenges we grow our "inner light", and are thus able to be even more happier and loving beings. The ultimate goal is to learn to be happy and loving come what may. In a way, infinite optimism may be our final destination

Originally Posted by Arouet

I'm not saying there aren't ways to defend omnibenevolence (if this world is basically a video game that our eternal selves play then it is similar to playing a video game) - but I'd need a lot more information before I was to accept the "personal growth" thing as a sign of omnibenevolence.

Let it take the time it needs to, my friend.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

You're not looking at it from an eternal perspective, though. And the extent to which the misery helps to produce more misery is relatively irrelevant, as the purpose of suffering isn't to immediately end it in the larger sense. As in, "What, you suffered yet couldn't end continual suffering at once when you learned something from that suffering? Then it was worthless and you didn't really learn anything from it."

But again: it depends on what the lesson is and why it needs to be learned.

But you're free to provide examples of this that in your mind is compelling, as the conversation might get a bit more tangible with concrete examples.

Well, lets take the animal kingdom, for example, where most animals live in constant fear of being eaten by predators.

Let's take the mold who must battle and kill each other to survive. What is the lesson to be learned?

Now, if the afterlife is a war zone and we need to toughen up for it, then I get it. But its hard to see why the lessons need to be learned in this way if the creator is omnibenevolent. (again I assume you're talking about a creator god here).

Again not taking the larger picture into account. If the amount of suffering we're going to (potentially) endure prior to incarnation is decided by the individual, then wherein is the concept of fairness relevant? I might live in a King this life, and be a homeless beggar the next. In the long run, everything will even itself out. And even if it didn't incarnation-wise, so what? Fairness will be infinite in the spiritual realm anyway.

Well, if we're going to go through infinite incarnations of suffering then again i've got to question the omnibenevolence. But if the people picked this kind of suffering on purpose then again we're in the video game scenario where its all just entertainment.

Imagine someone being tortured, like horrendously. And yet, imagine that person being able to cry from joy and love unconditionally the ones who are doing this to him, despite the horrible circumstances.

Sure - we can imagine this unlikely scenario and the sick mind who tihnks this is a good way of teaching a lesson.

Now imagine how happy such a person would be when he's back home in the heavenly light of infinite bliss, acceptance and unconditional love.

But there's no reason why this person can't have exactly that without the torture. Again - if a bored infinite being wants that experience like we like watching a horror movie then I see it - though its not so lofty. And if there is infinite bliss acceptance and unconditional love outside of here then what good does the lesson do for us? You've got to be more specific about what you think the lesson is and why it must be given.

Why must there be extreme suffering to learn a lesson from a creator god?

As Christian says, when we learn to thrive in our challenges we grow our "inner light", and are thus able to be even more happier and loving beings.

Sure - and yet some people are destroyed by their challenges and live in misery. Others never get that chance.

The ultimate goal is to learn to be happy and loving come what may. In a way, infinite optimism may be our final destination

Why must we learn to be happy and loving through suffering. Again: you're talking about a system that is designed this way, right?





Let it take the time it needs to, my friend.[/QUOTE]

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Well, lets take the animal kingdom, for example, where most animals live in constant fear of being eaten by predators.

Let's take the mold who must battle and kill each other to survive. What is the lesson to be learned?

Is it impossible to learn something from it? No? In fact, is there any conceivable experience that there cannot be learned something from? And can it also be interesting and/or fun? Yes, everything can be interesting, fun and teach something.

Originally Posted by Arouet

Now, if the afterlife is a war zone and we need to toughen up for it, then I get it. But its hard to see why the lessons need to be learned in this way if the creator is omnibenevolent. (again I assume you're talking about a creator god here).

Sigh, be real man. You know that the afterlife is not a war-zone, and I've already explained what can be learned from suffering. Although, there is no doubt that there probably are "make-believe" wars in the afterlife. After all, we find it fun to fight each other even when we mean absolutely no harm. And what can be learned from war itself? Well, war. Just like table tennis can be learned from, well, table tennis. Some people find war interesting, and role-playing it would then seem like the most interesting thing to do for those people, right? Like I know that I love table tennis, for instance, and I'd love to role play as an Olympic athlete in many incarnations down the road (and I'm sure I already have in the past as well).

Originally Posted by Arouet

Well, if we're going to go through infinite incarnations of suffering then again i've got to question the omnibenevolence.

No you don't, and I never said an infinite amount of them. Just a ridiculous amount of them, so large that it can be viewed as infinite for a practical perspective. Also, they are self-chosen. Wouldn't an omnibenevolent entity let us experience everything we want to experience? I'd argue that that would be a requirement for omnibenevolence.

It would probably be easier for you to grasp this if you view these lives as self-chosen by our Higher Selves, rather than some obligatory requirement or mission enforced by God.

Originally Posted by Arouet

But if the people picked this kind of suffering on purpose then again we're in the video game scenario where its all just entertainment.

Indeed. Though it's not like it's an "either or" situation, where the purpose of live is to learn things in its infinite seriousness, OR just be role-playing and have fun with it. It seems very much to be a mix of it, and we choose at least in part in real-time what we prefer to do with and get out of life.

Originally Posted by Arouet

Sure - we can imagine this unlikely scenario and the sick mind who tihnks this is a good way of teaching a lesson.

I get the vibe that you are quite unable to think outside the box with the language usage of a "sick mind" here. It was the same thing when you criticized Christian Andréason for giving life coaching advice without a proper academic degree.

Originally Posted by Arouet

But there's no reason why this person can't have exactly that without the torture. Again - if a bored infinite being wants that experience like we like watching a horror movie then I see it - though its not so lofty. And if there is infinite bliss acceptance and unconditional love outside of here then what good does the lesson do for us? You've got to be more specific about what you think the lesson is and why it must be given.

Why must there be extreme suffering to learn a lesson from a creator god?

Of course not! But his ability to appreciate it and, perhaps, take in even more of it, will be heightened.

Christian, for instance, talks about how there are many different levels of the afterlife, and that we can only go higher when we advance our spiritual vibration. With that said, it should also be emphasized that in a sense you are right, and Christian agrees with this - we don't need to incarnate and advance. Staying at the lower levels for next to eternity is all good and fine, and I'm sure many spirits choose to do this. I certainly wouldn't blame them.

Originally Posted by Arouet

Sure - and yet some people are destroyed by their challenges and live in misery. Others never get that chance.

Yeah, to the extent that their lives are in misery, they learn from that in a larger sense, AND, they always have the opportunity, if they choose to grow up emotionally, to start loving life despite their hardships.

Originally Posted by Arouet

Why must we learn to be happy and loving through suffering. Again: you're talking about a system that is designed this way, right?

Yes, I am. But we don't have to learn through misery, it's just the quickest and simplest way to learn. Another thing to consider is that wisdom comes through experience.

View incarnation as going to a university. Some take easy courses - like being born beautiful, rich, smart, loved, etc. Others choose harder courses - unhealthy, handicapped, poor, ugly, stupid, ignored/hated, etc. And keep in mind that ANY life on this Earth is regarded as relatively challenging from the perspective of the spiritual realm. We are certainly not in a friendly environment, compared with what could be the case. And some NDErs even state this explicitly, that coming here is prestigious and regarded as an act of bravery.

Those poor starving children in Africa, or those who have redonkulously hard lives for one reason or another, are likely very advanced spirits and literally super-stars.