The God, Evil and Suffering Paradox.

[Amp1]

LaPalida, you are saying someone gets punshed for choosing against the will of 'God'. How about I explain the choice you make is your own and the consequence is yours also? 1) Suppose, God made the natural laws, say Gravity for instance. 2)You know that God desires that you live and have a healthy life. 3) You know gravity is one of the laws of God. 4)You choose to walk off the roof of a 60 story building. Who made you do it? God, no it was your choice. Should God suspend the its natural laws to save you? That would affect more people than just you. Should God suspend its natural laws in just your vicinity? That would be favoritism and would make God who said "I love all of you equally" a liar, an impossibility. (God is absolutely good) Even if you did not know about gravity and performed the action, you would have the same consequence. However, in either case your personality would be preserved for ressurection. Knowing that, an indivdual could repeatedly go against God thinking he/she/it would be revived eventually. However, God said also that the one who repeatedly flaunts his/its mercy would find that their personality existence would be subject to revocation. The removal of the reality of ones existence would be the result. There would be no pain or suffering just a cessation of being as contrasted with burning throughout eternity in some fiery hell. Is that coersive? I think even Lucifer was given the opportunity to repent/change, to be good again.

 

[LaPalida]

LaPalida, you are saying someone gets punshed for choosing against the will of 'God'. How about I explain the choice you make is your own and the consequence is yours also? 1) Suppose, God made the natural laws, say Gravity for instance. 2)You know that God desires that you live and have a healthy life. 3) You know gravity is one of the laws of God. 4)You choose to walk off the roof of a 60 story building. Who made you do it? God, no it was your choice. Should God suspend the its natural laws to save you? That would affect more people than just you. Should God suspend its natural laws in just your vicinity? That would be favoritism and would make God who said "I love all of you equally" a liar, an impossibility. (God is absolutely good) Even if you did not know about gravity and performed the action, you would have the same consequence. However, in either case your personality would be preserved for ressurection. Knowing that, an indivdual could repeatedly go against God thinking he/she/it would be revived eventually. However, God said also that the one who repeatedly flaunts his/its mercy would find that their personality existence would be subject to revocation. The removal of the reality of ones existence would be the result. There would be no pain or suffering just a cessation of being as contrasted with burning throughout eternity in some fiery hell. Is that coersive? I think even Lucifer was given the opportunity to repent/change, to be good again.

"That would be favoritism and would make God who said "I love all of you equally" a liar, an impossibility."

1. Where in the Bible does it say that God loves "all equally" exactly? There is a claim to impartiality, that's about it.

2. God does play favourites. The entire Old Testament is a proof for that. Jews are the God's chosen people. Cain and Abel? Guess God is a rib and steak kind of guy?

"However, God said also that the one who repeatedly flaunts his/its mercy would find that their personality existence would be subject to revocation."

3. Precisely what I am talking about. This is coersive thinking. God of the Bible is a not a gentle/good God but a jealous and insecure God that needs to be worshipped all the time.

4. Walking off of a building is your choice, agreed. Yet why do you get punished for making that choice? Falling to your death is a consequence of that action NOT punishment. Having your existence revoked is punishment for that action. Worse if it was intentional, like suicide, God will inflict an even worse punishment for it. Suicide is a grave sin is it not?

My point is: If you love something set it free, if it comes back to you then it was yours and if it doesn't then it wasn't yours to begin with. Biblical God's view on this: If you love something set it free, if it comes back to you it was yours if it doesn't then hunt it down and kill it. He gives you no choice on the matter and all the talk of "free will" and him wanting you to have the freedom to choose is a sham made to appear like he's giving you some kind of choice.

 

[RVBuckeye]

What I like to ponder is the point of view of the individual doing the good/evil. If you assume that our reasons for doing good is that it makes us feel better, I'll give you the opposite point of view. I'm sure each of you at some point in your life took pleasure in some sort of evil. Does that make it actually evil. I might think it was evil, but at the time it might have given you some satisfaction and thus, it wasn't evil to you. Who are we to judge? It's all subjective.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What I like to ponder is the point of view of the individual doing the good/evil. If you assume that our reasons for doing good is that it makes us feel better, I'll give you the opposite point of view. I'm sure each of you at some point in your life took pleasure in some sort of evil. Does that make it actually evil. I might think it was evil, but at the time it might have given you some satisfaction and thus, it wasn't evil to you. Who are we to judge? It's all subjective.

I see evil as more about the effects one's actions has on others. If what you do hurts only yourself, then I'd call that foolish (possibly), but not evil.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Let me put this in perspective before I get labeled as "condoning evil". Certainly, I think some peoples actions are evil, but evil could be just a consequence of our free will and not blameable on God. I have been brewing on this one for a while, which is why I chose this topic for my first post--ever. So be patient with me, it's just a hypothesis and is open for discussion. My father is a minister, so I grew up in the faith, but I have a very different opinion of what the nature of God is and our ultimate purpose, and it definitely relates to this topic specifically. If God is infallable, then why does he allow such suffering and evil in the world? This seems to be a serious error of judgement. If God is omnipotent, than nothing I will ever do will change my ultimate fate. Why were we given free will? I think these are mainstream beliefs of Western religion. I've been trying to think of how all these things can hold true, especially when talking about good/evil. Here are my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to disagree.
Maybe our purpose on this world is merely to have experiences. Could you imagine life without an experience. Perhaps God created us as a way for him/her/it to have the same experience. (it must be pretty dull being the only thing in existence). Our bodies are clearly sensing machines. It is true that evil acts or thoughts make us feel bad, personally. But without it, we would not know how to feel good.
A further stretch would be to state that maybe, we are all destined for the same fate when we end this life. That fate is to be re-absorbed (for lack of a better word) back into oneness with God, where all the reasons will be made clear to us.
This is the only rationalle I have thought of thusfar to keep those 3 tenets (infallability, omnipotence, and free will) to maintain their truthfulness. Evil is just our way of explaining the alternative to our feeling good. Since God is infallable, evil is good when the context is serving the greater good of human experience. Since we have free will, we can chose evil/good with no real consequence as to where we are going to end up, since God already knows what we are going to chose. Creating a human destined for hell would also contradict what I hold to be Gods' infallability.
Now, I know some, if not all, of these points are debatable so please...what do you think?

 

[Rade]

Since we have free will, we can chose evil/good with no real consequence as to where we are going to end up, since God already knows what we are going to chose.

You raise many good issues. Here I will comment on one. I hold that since I have free will I can freely (and logically) chose neither heaven nor hell. How ? Did not God allow for so-called "third option(s)" with placement of tree of life in garden ? Did not Adam always have "third" option to live forever on Earth if he had eaten from tree of life ? But is it not strange why tree of life is placed in garden if God is all knowing--e.g., why make big deal out of telling Moses about this tree if God knew all along it would never be eaten of ? Are we saying that God was hoping for Adam to eat from the tree of life so that he could be "more" like God and a friend forever, but how is this logical if God is all knowing and already knew he would not ? But, perhaps one would argue that God "willed" not to know what Adam would do--but, the logical problem here is that God then, during the time evolution of the "willing" process, in fact did not know and thus cannot be considered "all" knowing (e.g., one cannot will not to know for some time period yet claim to know all for all time). I find the reason that God does mention tree of life is that God is telling us that God is in fact not all knowing, thus ultimate reality is not 100% predictable, and randomness and unpredictability represent the pure essence of God and thus essence of pure existence (and is this not what QM of physics tells us via HUP ?). In other words, I hold that God did not know that Adam would not eat from tree of live, but, after Adam ate from tree of knowledge,all bets were off. Suppose I chose from free will, like the third option given to Adam with the tree of life, to exist on the Earth forever once I reach state called lack of life (=death). I hold that all humans have this option (e.g., to select forever existence on Earth as recycled atoms), and that God cannot not allow such a third choice to be freely made, otherwise God is not all good, for an all good God would never deceive man to think that they had free will choice when in fact they did not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Let me put this in perspective before I get labeled as "condoning evil". Certainly, I think some peoples actions are evil, but evil could be just a consequence of our free will and not blameable on God. I have been brewing on this one for a while, which is why I chose this topic for my first post--ever. So be patient with me, it's just a hypothesis and is open for discussion.

I don't think you are condoning evil, and I think your post had some very interesting thoughts. Before commenting on them, I just wanted to clarify that my opening comment to you was to hint that before we talk about evil we have to agree what evil is. More on that below.

My father is a minister, so I grew up in the faith, but I have a very different opinion of what the nature of God is and our ultimate purpose, and it definitely relates to this topic specifically. If God is infallable, then why does he allow such suffering and evil in the world? This seems to be a serious error of judgement. If God is omnipotent, than nothing I will ever do will change my ultimate fate. Why were we given free will? I think these are mainstream beliefs of Western religion. I've been trying to think of how all these things can hold true, especially when talking about good/evil. Here are my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to disagree.

I will disagree with some of your assumptions below.

Maybe our purpose on this world is merely to have experiences. Could you imagine life without an experience. Perhaps God created us as a way for him/her/it to have the same experience. (it must be pretty dull being the only thing in existence). Our bodies are clearly sensing machines. It is true that evil acts or thoughts make us feel bad, personally. But without it, we would not know how to feel good.

Well, we are consciousness. The ability to experience and the ability to become "experienced" is what defines consciousness (IMHO). Consequently, in a way you are saying our purpose in this world is to be conscious. If you observe a baby you can see that from day one he/she is learning consciousness skills, and those skills are furthered or impeded by the quality of experiences the child has. So I don't see any way your statement can be wrong.

It is also true that we want to feel good. Personally I believe we want to feel good over and above anything else.

A further stretch would be to state that maybe, we are all destined for the same fate when we end this life. That fate is to be re-absorbed (for lack of a better word) back into oneness with God, where all the reasons will be made clear to us.

It's not such a stretch as you might think. In fact, that concept (with a couple of small adjustments) is the basis of Christian mysticism. Are you familiar with that?

This is the only rationalle I have thought of thusfar to keep those 3 tenets (infallability, omnipotence, and free will) to maintain their truthfulness.

I don't understand the insistence that God be infallable and omnipotent. Considering it from a logic perspective, if there is a consciousness powerful enough to create this universe, this solar system, this planet, life (biology), and a central nervous system capable of housing consciousness, then that is one heck of a creator, perfect or not. That creator doesn't need to be "perfect" to create all that we find here. Maybe he/she/it is doing the best he/she/it is capable of.

Likewise, logically speaking a creator doesn't need to be omnipotent to create this universe; he/she/it only needs to be powerful enough to create a universe (that applies to omniscience too . . . i.e., just knowledgeable enough know how to create the universe).

These old concepts are neither indicated logically, nor are they supported by any known evidence. IMO, they are merely assumptions made dogma by past popes and fed to the masses. I don't see why we need to attach those concept to God. All they do is raise doubt and drive some of the faithful crazy because they really don't make much sense.

Evil is just our way of explaining the alternative to our feeling good. Since God is infallable, evil is good when the context is serving the greater good of human experience. Since we have free will, we can chose evil/good with no real consequence as to where we are going to end up, since God already knows what we are going to chose.

Well here is where I want to decide what evil is. Personally I limit evil to intentionally harming others. So if I want to drink myself to death, and only I am harmed, then it might be foolish (or whatever) but not evil.

But if we include evil among the many things we can do that feel bad, then I think your theory is pretty good (if I've understood it correctly). To a reasonably healthy consciousness (and we need that "healthy" qualifier), experience teaches us to pursue "good" (quite Aristolean, eh?) because good stuff is what feels the best. So experience teaches us.

One source where I see of a lot of evil may agree with your assessment, and that is when we pursue things which we believe will make us feel good, but which really don't. Some of those pursuits seem to encourage us to behave selfishly without regard for others, or even to harm others so we can get what we want. Sometime a consciousness doing that doesn't learn in time to keep from self destructing and hurting a lot of people in the process.

 

[RVBuckeye]

In fact, that concept (with a couple of small adjustments) is the basis of Christian mysticism. Are you familiar with that?

Depends on what you call Christian Mysticism. I've never heard of that phrase before. I think I'm familiar with the core beliefs of some of the mainstream religions (ie, christianity, judaism, mormons, christian science), but I've done little research into the subject. Really, it's been only the data which supported my life's work of disproving the existence of God. It's been a rather recent endevor of mine to accept that there is a God, and try to explain his nature.

I don't understand the insistence that God be infallable and omnipotent. Considering it from a logic perspective, if there is a consciousness powerful enough to create this universe, this solar system, this planet, life (biology), and a central nervous system capable of housing consciousness, then that is one heck of a creator, perfect or not. That creator doesn't need to be "perfect" to create all that we find here. Maybe he/she/it is doing the best he/she/it is capable of.
Likewise, logically speaking a creator doesn't need to be omnipotent to create this universe; he/she/it only needs to be powerful enough to create a universe (that applies to omniscience too . . . i.e., just knowledgeable enough know how to create the universe).
These old concepts are neither indicated logically, nor are they supported by any known evidence. IMO, they are merely assumptions made dogma by past popes and fed to the masses. I don't see why we need to attach those concept to God. All they do is raise doubt and drive some of the faithful crazy because they really don't make much sense.

I absolutely agree with you. I've long thought religion to be an "opiate for the masses" as well. Nothing irks me more as when I see brilliant people being seemingly duped by these unfounded concepts. What I am trying to contemplate is how they all might fit together harmoniously. Just assuming those 3 basic tenets to be true. Like i said, that's the only thing I have been able to come up with thusfar. Perhaps it might be worththy of a new topic- "the nature of God"

Well here is where I want to decide what evil is. Personally I limit evil to intentionally harming others. So if I want to drink myself to death, and only I am harmed, then it might be foolish (or whatever) but not evil.
But if we include evil among the many things we can do that feel bad, then I think your theory is pretty good (if I've understood it correctly). To a reasonably healthy consciousness (and we need that "healthy" qualifier), experience teaches us to pursue "good" (quite Aristolean, eh?) because good stuff is what feels the best. So experience teaches us.
One source where I see of a lot of evil may agree with your assessment, and that is when we pursue things which we believe will make us feel good, but which really don't. Some of those pursuits seem to encourage us to behave selfishly without regard for others, or even to harm others so we can get what we want. Sometime a consciousness doing that doesn't learn in time to keep from self destructing and hurting a lot of people in the process.

Limiting evil to intentionally harming others is interesting, and since I maintain that it is subjective, I can't logically disagree with you. I will throw this out there though. Was it evil, then, for Moses to kill a Egyptian guard, before the exodus out of egypt? Apparently it was a necessary act in order for the exodus to have happened. I don't think God held it against him. That wasn't the reason they spent 40 years in the desert. (I know, maybe a bad example, as I don't think there is any other source for Moses' existence than the Bible, historically speaking.) Some would say it was justifiable homicide (not evil). The family of the guard would think it was murder (evil). I think our concepts of evil is just the tagword we associate with the extreme of negative thoughts and actions. But again is there really evil?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Depends on what you call Christian Mysticism. I've never heard of that phrase before.

Google Christian mysticism, interesing stuff. A famous book called "Mysticism" was written at the turn of the last century by Evelyn Underhill. More recently Jacob Needleman wrote a book called "Lost Christianity." Those and many other works describe how some Christians (monastics mostly) pursued knowledge of God through an inner practice.

Limiting evil to intentionally harming others is interesting, and since I maintain that it is subjective, I can't logically disagree with you. I will throw this out there though. Was it evil, then, for Moses to kill a Roman guard, before the exodus out of egypt?

I should have been more clear. I meant to say harm done to innocents for self-serving purposes (or something like that). I usually don't get involved in the minutia of trying to figure out where every act falls on the good-evil scale; but for instance, if we don't kill a terrorist about to explode a bomb, lots of people will die. But then, if the terrorist believed he was serving God, is his act evil? I usually factor in intent, so I might see his actions as deluded, but not really evil.

Some have argued that evil doesn't really exist, just ignorance. I can agree with that too. Each is a way of looking at behavior and intent. I probably see it more along the ignorance line myself.

 

[Amp1]

LaPalida:

1. Where in the Bible does it say that God loves "all equally" exactly? There is a claim to impartiality, that's about it.

Well first, I'm not exactly holding strictly to the Bible as my only source; however, it is one. When 'God' says it/he/she is '...no respector of persons' then I take that to mean no favoritism.

2. God does play favourites. The entire Old Testament is a proof for that. Jews are the God's chosen people. Cain and Abel?...

Singled out to be representative from any other group does not automatically imply favoritism. One can also look at them as the control group in an experiment - observe what happens if you follow my guidelines that I told you would be to your benefit. As opposed to look at those who don't. Even peoples who were not Jews, that followed the guidelines benefited.

3. Precisely what I am talking about. This is coersive thinking. God of the Bible is a not a gentle/good God but a jealous and insecure God that needs to be worshipped all the time.

Not having ever existed one could not be punished, IOW, you never miss or suffer for what you never had, I maitain that there is no cruelty in that nor coercion. This applies to your forth point, it's a consequence that stops the infection in the past so that future generations are not spoiled.

 

[RVBuckeye]

You raise many good issues. Here I will comment on one. I hold that since I have free will I can freely (and logically) chose neither heaven nor hell. How ? Did not God allow for so-called "third option(s)" with placement of tree of life in garden ? Did not Adam always have "third" option to live forever on Earth if he had eaten from tree of life ? But is it not strange why tree of life is placed in garden if God is all knowing--e.g., why make big deal out of telling Moses about this tree if God knew all along it would never be eaten of ?

In order for me to understand your point, Are you talking from a literal interpretation of the bible? I was not there and I have never had God speak to me personally, but if there was a tree of life, it must have been put there for Adam to eat. Obviously I haven't heard of a 6000 year old man walking around anywhere, since he ate from that tree. If it was a tree of knowledge, where would we be if he hadn't? Perhaps this was the point in which mankind lost the knowledge of our oneness with God and started being more like a separate being, who has to search for God. More like a tree of lost knowledge. You should have a choice, since you have free will, to chose re-absorbtion with God or some other option. (I'm talking strictly from my theory here) However, if you believe those are your choices, and you choose the latter, don't do it to spite me. Choose whatever you want. I haven't given the afterlife much thought. For a long time I thought we weren't given a choice at all, we just died and returned to stardust. Like I said in my earlier post, I've only come to think that there actually is something out there we call God. Let me re-state that, I was always open to the possibility, I just recently cared enough to spend time thinking about the nature of God. I still have a lot of doubts on religion in general, more the abuse of it.

Google Christian mysticism, interesing stuff. A famous book called "Mysticism" was written at the turn of the last century by Evelyn Underhill. More recently Jacob Needleman wrote a book called "Lost Christianity." Those and many other works describe how some Christians (monastics mostly) pursued knowledge of God through an inner practice

I've spent the greater part of the day researching the subject. Not much info on the subject at our public library, so I was forced to strictly use the web. From my brief readings, I do think that some of what I said in my theory is consistant with Christian mysticism. More along the lines of my struggle to understand the nature of God. The methodology more specifically. From what I understand, they still think prayer and worship are necessary, and also the belief in Jesus as the son of God. I'm not sold on those aspects as necessary to maintain a relationship with God. Just being grateful for the experience we call life will suffice. If I have mis-understood, tell me. It's definitely worth further study, thanks for the suggestion. It is interesting reading, for anyone else so inclined.

 

[Les Sleeth]

From what I understand, they still think prayer and worship are necessary, and also the belief in Jesus as the son of God. I'm not sold on those aspects as necessary to maintain a relationship with God. Just being grateful for the experience we call life will suffice. If I have mis-understood, tell me. It's definitely worth further study, thanks for the suggestion. It is interesting reading, for anyone else so inclined.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to point the finger at particular mystics who might have been, let's say, flexible on the theological questions of Jesus' divinity etc. (though you probably know one of the earliest Christian disagreements was exactly over that issue). But if one did not inwardly accept all the dogma and theology of the Church, one had to be very careful about expressing it. Two of the people below I quote, Teresa of Avila and Meister Eckhart, were both hauled before the inquistion for their views, and another monastic (John of the Cross) was imprisoned and tortured by fellow monks for his mysticism. Many others were persecuted as well.

You can read a little about Teresa here: http://www.rc.net/boston/st_theresa/teresa.html
and Meister Eckhart here: http://www.grailbooks.org/EckhartIntroduction.html

Regarding the the mystics' prayer, for many was unlike what you'll likely ever run into in churches today. Let me give you a few quotes describing it:

A doubting aspirant questioned Gregory Palamas, the then archbishop of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century, who was experienced in inner prayer: “Some say that we do wrong to try and confine the mind within the body . . . and write against them for advising beginners to look into themselves and, through breathing, to lead their minds within, for . . . if mind is not separate from soul, but is joined with it, how can it be reintroduced within? I beg you my father, teach me how and why we take special care to try and lead the mind within and do not think it wrong to confine it in the body.” To this Gregory answered, “For those who keep attention in themselves in silence it is not unprofitable to try to hold their mind within the body. Brother! Do you not hear the Apostle [Paul] saying that ‘your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you’ [I Cor. 6:19] . . . Who then, possessing a mind, will deem it unseemly to introduce his mind into that which has been granted the honour of being the dwelling of God? How is it that God himself in the beginning put the mind into the body? Has He too done wrong?”

Teresa of Avila, a 16th century nun describes stages of contemplative or inner prayer that lead to the “mystical” experience. Teresa says, “the soul collects its faculties together and enters within itself . . .” In the final stage of prayer she calls union where awareness, “neither sees, nor hears, nor understands . . . How this prayer they call union comes about and what it is . . . . we already know since it means that two separate things become one. . . . While the soul is seeking God in this way, it feels with the most marvelous and gentlest delight that everything is almost fading away through a kind of swoon in which breathing and all the bodily energies gradually fail.”

In the tenth century the Greek Orthodox monk Simeon described principles of inner prayer such as found in these excerpts from the Philokalia: “There are three methods of attention and prayer by which the soul is uplifted and moves forward . . . . The distinctive features of the first method are as follows: . . . a man stands at prayer . . . . inciting his soul to longing and love of God. . . . The second method is this: A man tears his mind away from all sensed objects and leads it within himself, guarding his senses and collecting his thoughts, so that they cease to wander . . . . Truly the third method is marvelous and difficult to explain: . . . . the mind should be in the heart—a distinctive feature of the third method of prayer. It should guard the heart . . . remaining always within.”

The thirteenth century German Dominican, Meister Eckhart (one of my very favorite writers), said, “Go to the depths of the soul, the secret place of the most high, to the roots . . . . I have spoken at times of a light in the soul that is uncreated, a light that is not arbitrarily turned on . . . Thus, if one refers the soul’s agents back to the soul’s essence . . . [a person] will find his unity and blessing in that little spark in the soul, which neither space nor time touches . . . This core is a simple stillness, which is unmoved itself but by whose immobility all things are moved and all receive life . . .”

Also in the thirteenth century the Italian Franciscan monk, Bonaventura, stated in his famous The Mind’s Road to God, “It happens that we may contemplate God not only outside of us but also within us . . . [through] which one deals with God’s essential attributes . . .”

Walter Hilton, an English religious of the fourteenth century explained in The Scale of Perfection that, “. . . prayer is in the heart alone; it is without words, and is accompanied by great peace and tranquility of body and soul.”

The French Carmelite monastic, Brother Lawrence, wrote in the seventeenth century in his Spiritual Maxims, “Actual union is the most perfect kind [of union] . . . Its operation is livelier than that of fire and more luminous than a sun undarkened by a cloud. . . . it is an ineffable state of the soul—gentle, peaceful, devout, respectful, humble, loving and very simple . . .”

In the eleventh century the monk called Simeon the New Theologian says, “If you wish also to learn how it (inner prayer] should be done, I will tell you of this . . . . You should [first] observe three things before all else: freedom from all cares . . . your conscience should be clear . . . and . . . absence of passionate attachment . . . [then] keep your attention within yourself, not in your head but in our heart. Keep your mind there in the heart . . . your mind should constantly abide there . . . . One of the fathers says: ‘Sit in your cell and this prayer will teach you everything."

That goal of "union" is what distinquishes the prayer of those monastics from all other prayer. If you study Eastern mysticism, you find exactly the same thing, except instead of "union prayer" they call it samadhi meditation (samadhi basically means "union" in sanskrit).

 

[RVBuckeye]

Regarding the the mystics' prayer, for many was unlike what you'll likely ever run into in churches today. Let me give you a few quotes describing it:

First, I want to thank you for your post. From what I have been able to gather from, not only this post, but other threads you've responded to, meditation is an effective tool you utilize to explore your conciousness. I can tell you that I always tend to be a little leary of any method with "religious" overtones. (not to sound ungrateful). I know I might seem to be conflicted on the subject of God, but it is mainly that I think people haven't answered the question for themselves. Unfortunately, they always seem to ask their local minister for help answering their questions. I did, like I said, my father's a minister. It didn't take me long to realize that there is no discussion. They speak in absolutes. I get the feeling you are trying to lead me to meditation in general, which is cool. Although I've never done meditation while I was awake, I do "lucid dream". Not so much as to ponder the ways of the world, but more to experience other realities. These tend to be more abstract and not really my preferred way to think or problem solve. I tend to do much clearer thinking in an open discussion, such as this one.