The Evil Problem

[Add Homonym]

You should be careful what you pray for.

What you seem to be saying, here, is that God will grant your wishes, when they harm you.

[nebula]

No, we are not. We are living on a planet that came together 4.5 billion years ago in a universe that began 15 billion years ago. There is no more evidence of us being delusions of a god than there is of us being a computer simulation. Look out of your window; all the stuff out there is real. Fanciful thoughts about us being a delusion or computer simulation or existing in a cell on the back of a giant space rabbit are just that; fanciful thoughts.

We can test the theory that gods exist; for example the Christian one that many deluded people are enthralled with, this fellow promises prayers will be answered. They never are. Not once.

One life is all we have. Enjoy it and experience it before we return once more to eternal sleep. Don't waste it on imaginary magicians.

The idea that the universe exists as something other than information is called Objective Reality Theory (ORT).   ORT states that objects exist continuously and that they are self contained or self existent, i.e. that following the big bang, objects don't depend on anything outside of the universe for their existence.   This idea that the universe is continuous and self contained/self existent is completely unproven as are all metaphysical claims at the present time.   However, ORT is a positive claim that is hypocritically regarded as a null hypothesis.

You mentioned a computer simulation, which happens to be a very good analogy for the mechanics of the dream of God that is the universe.   My belief is that objects are discontinuous, meaning that they are generated anew each Planck time, similar to the refresh rate on a computer monitor and that they do not exist in and of themselves but are the output of nonphysical quantum processing, this processing being the deluded aspect of God that is dreaming the universe.   

It is common knowledge and taught in all Quantum Mechanics 101 courses that, via the Schrödinger equation, it is possible for a billiard ball to tunnel to any point in space due to its wave function.   The probability of a billiard ball tunneling through a wall or other solid object is extremely small but no scientist would deny that it is entirely POSSIBLE for a billiard ball to tunnel through a wall.   This possibility is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Schrödinger equation in terms of a ball tunneling through a hill:

"In classical physics, when a ball is rolled slowly up a large hill, it will come to a stop and roll back, because it doesn't have enough energy to get over the top of the hill to the other side. However, the Schrödinger equation predicts that there is a small probability that the ball will get to the other side of the hill, even if it has too little energy to reach the top. This is called quantum tunneling. It is related to the uncertainty principle: Although the ball seems to be on one side of the hill, its position is uncertain so there is a chance of finding it on the other side."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#Quantum_tunneling

In my opinion, the reason it is possible for a solid object such as a billiard ball to pass through another solid object such as a wall or a hill is that all objects have a refresh rate of one instance each Planck time.   Normally, these instances are generated in accordance with the laws of classical physics but it is possible, due to a glitch, that classical physics can be superseded by quantum mechanics.  A billiard ball can 'seemingly' pass through a wall if one instance of the ball is generated on one side of a wall and the next instance of the ball is generated on the other side of it.   The appearance is that a self existent/continuously existing object has passed through another but this is not what is actually happening.   If it were not for reality being a discontinuous processing output, quantum tunneling, or the superseding of classical physics by quantum mechanics in macro sized objects would not be possible in my opinion.

You seem to be suggesting that I can learn something about the nature of reality by looking out of my window, or by stubbing my toe on a coffee table, as if is our experience and common sense is a good indicator of metaphysical reality.   I disagree.   In the ancient world, the earth was regarded as flat due to experience and common sense.   If anyone suggested the earth was a sphere it was laughed at.   "How would the water stay in the lakes, why wouldn't we fall off the earth etc.?"   A flat earth made the most sense and had the least number of assumptions for what they knew at the time.   It was the model that best followed Occam's razor to explain observed phenomena of the day, such as water staying put in lakes.   However, with advances in Hellenistic astronomy, the flat earth model was no longer the best model to explain observed phenomena with the least number of assumptions, hence a new model was needed, that of a spherical earth.   

Similarly, Objective Reality Theory is not the best model to explain phenomena related to quantum mechanics and relativity.   Virtual Reality Theory explains these things better, with far fewer problems.   By VRT I am not referring to anything about God, VRT is a valid scientific theory comparable with something like Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Theory.   In VRT, the processing that generates our universe could be entirely naturalistic.   VRT is not dependent on any belief in a deity, though I personally happen to have such a belief.

If you are interested in learning something about the Virtual Reality argument rather than just dismissing it out of hand as 'fanciful thoughts," I recommend Brian Whitworth:

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRTQuestions.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

The problem being, this doesn't work as an explanation unless you think only one human is real, or (much more likely) unless you think that this sleeping god's personality is so fragmented that he can run literally billions of individual 'fragments', each literally thinking they're a unique individual, in this dream.  That goes way beyond schizophrenic, not to mention the multiple personality thing.

Yes, the delusional, dreaming aspect of God is completely schizophrenic with severe multiple personality disorder.   I am not joking.   This is my actual belief.   The God I believe in is imperfect.   

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Hi June. The little girl down the well is just an example of unnecessary suffering of an innocent. I'm not asking why your god allows her to fall down the well, I'm asking why it allows her to suffer for weeks before she dies. I used the stick marker to make clear she was alive. Countless thousands of creatures die this way in prolonged un-witnessed suffering.

[Ron Jeremy]

Neb, of course I grant that your theory could be correct but then so could us existing in a cell in a giant space rabbit or any one of countless theories.  But what is the more likely? I personally go with this universe being real. I know once philosophers get chatting they find that you can't even trust the evidence of your own eyes, but again I find it very unlikely. As in the case of the flat earthers, they simply had to walk down to the seashore and watch a ship disappear over the horizon. The evidence was there for those that opened their eyes

[nebula]

The evidence was there for those that opened their eyes

As is the case with VRT.   

[jaimehlers]

It is common knowledge and taught in all Quantum Mechanics 101 courses that, via the Schrödinger equation, it is possible for a billiard ball to tunnel to any point in space due to its wave function.   The probability of a billiard ball tunneling through a wall or other solid object is extremely small but no scientist would deny that it is entirely POSSIBLE for a billiard ball to tunnel through a wall.   This possibility is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Schrödinger equation in terms of a ball tunneling through a hill:

There's a reason that quantum tunneling usually applies only to particles, rather than macroscopic objects (like billiard balls).  It's because the mechanics of quantum physics don't work when applied to classical (macroscopic) objects.  There's a reason we've never been able to make a billiard ball quantum-tunnel through a hill, or anything else along those lines.

In my opinion, the reason it is possible for a solid object such as a billiard ball to pass through another solid object such as a wall or a hill is that all objects have a refresh rate of one instance each Planck time.   Normally, these instances are generated in accordance with the laws of classical physics but it is possible, due to a glitch, that classical physics can be superseded by quantum mechanics.  A billiard ball can 'seemingly' pass through a wall if one instance of the ball is generated on one side of a wall and the next instance of the ball is generated on the other side of it.   The appearance is that a self existent/continuously existing object has passed through another but this is not what is actually happening.   If it were not for reality being a discontinuous processing output, quantum tunneling, or the superseding of classical physics by quantum mechanics in macro sized objects would not be possible in my opinion.

However, you need to actually show that this happens.  The fact that it's theoretically possible according to the math is not enough to base anything solid on.

You seem to be suggesting that I can learn something about the nature of reality by looking out of my window, or by stubbing my toe on a coffee table, as if is our experience and common sense is a good indicator of metaphysical reality.   I disagree.   In the ancient world, the earth was regarded as flat due to experience and common sense.   If anyone suggested the earth was a sphere it was laughed at.   "How would the water stay in the lakes, why wouldn't we fall off the earth etc.?"   A flat earth made the most sense and had the least number of assumptions for what they knew at the time.   It was the model that best followed Occam's razor to explain observed phenomena of the day, such as water staying put in lakes.   However, with advances in Hellenistic astronomy, the flat earth model was no longer the best model to explain observed phenomena with the least number of assumptions, hence a new model was needed, that of a spherical earth.

The ancient peoples (who originally decided that the world was flat) didn't have the leisure to sit down and actually try to figure things out.  They were too busy trying to survive.  They didn't know (let alone care) about Occam's razor or coming up with models or anything like that.  They had no reason to doubt their eyes, so they concluded that their eyes were telling them the truth.  That's really all it was.  More importantly, things like believing the Earth was flat, or the sun, moon, and stars were painted on an upside-down bowl, didn't negatively impact their ability to survive, so they had no reason to take the time to consider whether it might have been wrong.

Similarly, Objective Reality Theory is not the best model to explain phenomena related to quantum mechanics and relativity.   Virtual Reality Theory explains these things better, with far fewer problems.   By VRT I am not referring to anything about God, VRT is a valid scientific theory comparable with something like Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Theory.   In VRT, the processing that generates our universe could be entirely naturalistic.   VRT is not dependent on any belief in a deity, though I personally happen to have such a belief.

Actually, virtual reality theory doesn't really explain things particularly well.  Certainly not as you've expressed them so far.  It seems more like wishful thinking on your part than anything.  Certainly this business of arguing that billiard balls being on one side of a wall one instant and the other side the next instant doesn't represent anything that actually happens, as far as we can tell, except on the scale of electrons and photons (which are small enough that quantum mechanics kicks in via the uncertainty principle).

At the very least, you're going to have to present additional evidence to support your argument, rather than something that as far as we can tell, has never actually happened.

[jaimehlers]

Just reading the abstract of the first PDF you posted really stretches credibility.  First off, when an argument starts with, "objective reality should act this way, and it doesn't, therefore, I question whether it actually is objective reality", that suggests that the author's own preconceptions of how things should be is getting in the way.  That isn't really a good way to go about an argument.  One of the key things about objective reality is taking it as it actually exists, not how someone thinks it should work.  That means, if we observe things like time dilation and space contracting (or expanding), they're necessarily part of objective reality regardless of whether they make sense to us.

I'm certainly not saying that he's wrong, mind you.  But I think he's stretching things based on what he expects should be true in objective reality.

[Star Stuff]

The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.  (Lawrence Krauss, Prof. of Physics, AZ State U)

[junebug72]

You should be careful what you pray for.

What you seem to be saying, here, is that God will grant your wishes, when they harm you.

That's not what I said.   Not even close. You do not even respond to what I said about the serenity prayer being very effective in my life.  Sometimes you do need a boost of courage.  Sometimes you need wisdom.  I have never asked God for either of these two things that it wasn't granted.  Ask for money you will not get it from God,IMO.  I have explained why God does not heal death, so the serenity prayer is a better prayer when facing the loss of a loved one.  Perhaps you wouldn't see death as such a bad thing if you believed there was an afterlife.  I have been very intimate with death.  In that profile picture there was my whole family, now I am the only one.  I realized when I let my mother go that it was very unselfish of me.  To ask God to let her stay would have been selfish on my part.  What I really needed was the courage to let her go and the wisdom to understand why.  I miss them but I take much comfort in believing they are with God.  Their pain and suffering is gone.

[Ron Jeremy]

We still don't seem to be getting any answers from theists as to why a god, biblegod for example, allows unnecessary un-witnessed suffering? He witnesses it of course. Maybe it's to build his character?

[junebug72]

Hi June. The little girl down the well is just an example of unnecessary suffering of an innocent. I'm not asking why your god allows her to fall down the well, I'm asking why it allows her to suffer for weeks before she dies. I used the stick marker to make clear she was alive. Countless thousands of creatures die this way in prolonged un-witnessed suffering.

That's kind of what I suspected.  Even in your example there is responsibility to the parents.  I would think in real life this child would not survive a month but a week tops.  Pain and suffering is human made.  W/o belief in a god you must believe this too.

In real life many good people would be searching for this child.  The most likely scenario is that she would be found if her parents called 911 as soon as they realized she was missing.  With a well nearby it would be 1 of the first places searched.  Only a child unloved and tossed in a well by parents would not have a very good chance of being rescued.  You just can't put a child in a well, even hypothetically, w/o some form of human involvement which makes humans responsible for her suffering not God.  God is there to relieve her suffering by allowing her death.  There are fates worse than death and having unloving cruel parents is one of them. 

Don't get me wrong I hate pain and suffering and I agree God is implicated in the problem but only because God created us with freewill.  Please describe what humans would be like if we did not have freewill.  Mine would be puppets, puppets on a string.  That is describing a cruel, egotistical god.  Freewill is an act of love, unselfishness and wisdom.  We would be nothing but ignorant, not capable of learning any thing on our own w/o freewill.  Yes there would be no pain and suffering.  There would be no real happiness.  It would be for amusement to God.  I don't think God created us for amusement.  I believe there is a natural need for our existence.  A need for our freedom to chose right from wrong.  I believe our existence necessary.  I certainly don't believe the human race could be trusted with the knowledge that belongs to God.

We still don't seem to be getting any answers from theists as to why a god, biblegod for example, allows unnecessary un-witnessed suffering? He witnesses it of course. Maybe it's to build his character?

You have not provided a real scenario of God witnessing suffering not caused by humans, witnessed or not.  Yes God allows death, perhaps because it's a part of life.  We will all find out one day or we won't.  I could only imagine what life would be like w/o death.  Young men victims of war surviving mutilations.  It's hard enough on those that have lost limbs.  Or living until your so old your hideous.  Way over populated.  I can find many good reasons God did not create flesh with immortality.  Mostly I think it's so we'll appreciate life and earn our freedom from flesh.  Some humans just don't have this value of life.  It has been a choice since the beginning of life to do so.

I have addressed your statement you just keep ignoring the answer.  Here it is again; death is a part of life.  Maybe you wouldn't see it as such a bad thing if you believed in God and the possibility of a life w/o flesh in a spiritual realm w/o the pains and sufferings of mortality.  God allowing death is not a negative attribute, it is a necessary one.  Humans causing deaths is very negative but you do have the choice.

[Ron Jeremy]

June, I'm not arguing against death. I'm asking why theists think that their gods allow creatures to suffer gratuitously and un-necessarily before death. I'm not saying the girl in this example should be saved from death (although if I had the power I would, but then my morals don't come from gods); I'm saying she should be saved from suffering. It doesn't matter how she got there. Lets say absolutely there is human involvement. A rapist has kidnapped her, raped her and thrown her down the well, hundreds of miles from home. He's now gone, will never be caught, will never tell anyone where she is. Do you doubt this type of thing happens? Do you need me to dig out a real example?

[junebug72]

Nebula,

I want to take and minute and say that I agree with you about the existence of God but I'm having a hard time accepting this dream scenario.  I guess it is possible but to me highly unlikely.  Why would you think that God is dreaming instead of creating.  It does not take intelligence or any skill at all to dream.  Another problem I have with this dream theory is the spirit.  In a dream we are not real and do not possess a spirit.  Our spirit is what connects us to God,IMO.  Why would you say God is not perfect if God is just taking a very, very , very, etc., etc.... long snooze.  We don't really exist right?  If we don't exist then how is God not perfect?  This whole idea is very confusing to say the least.


That's a mighty long nap.  What made God so tired? 

Pinch me I'm dreaming.  The fact that pain is real makes us real.  This is all very real. 

[Star Stuff]

Nebula,

I want to take and minute and say that I agree with you about the existence of God but I'm having a hard time accepting this dream scenario.

^^^ Heh heh, a perfect example of how the thousands of sects and denominations came to be.  ^^^

Generally speaking, people who claim to possess a living, interactive relationship with Christ tend to have a relationship with a Jesus Christ who thinks very much as they do, and who shares their likes, dislikes and prejudices.  (Therion Ware)

[junebug72]

June, I'm not arguing against death. I'm asking why theists think that their gods allow creatures to suffer gratuitously and un-necessarily before death. I'm not saying the girl in this example should be saved from death (although if I had the power I would, but then my morals don't come from gods); I'm saying she should be saved from suffering. It doesn't matter how she got there. Lets say absolutely there is human involvement. A rapist has kidnapped her, raped her and thrown her down the well, hundreds of miles from home. He's now gone, will never be caught, will never tell anyone where she is. Do you doubt this type of thing happens? Do you need me to dig out a real example?

I have, but I will repeat myself as many times as you like.  If God saves 1 of us then he'd have to save us all thereby eliminating death/mortality.  It would be very unfair for God to save 1/4, of people dying to the other 3/4.  We are all dying.

What I can do as a theist is take comfort in believing that the dead will answer for their choices.  The innocent that have died I believe are given a higher place in the heavens and that rapist will be dealt with justly according to the natural laws in which I believe even, especially, God can not break.  I say natural laws because I believe they developed naturally not supernaturally. 

Nebula,

I want to take and minute and say that I agree with you about the existence of God but I'm having a hard time accepting this dream scenario.

^^^ Heh heh, a perfect example of how the thousands of sects and denominations came to be.  ^^^

I won't argue with that.  There are 2 billion different brains in the world.  It would be boring if we all thought the same way.

[Ron Jeremy]

June, I'll try and make it simpler. On 1st of June 2013 the rapist throws the girl down the well. She dies on the 28th of June 2013. Why, once she lands in the well, would a kind god not simply snuff her life out there and then. No one will witness her long suffering death. I'm not asking for her life to be saved and for the sake of argument if a god were to save her life, in this particular scenario, I would appear at the top of the well shaft with a pistol and shoot the girl dead. She is not walking away from this one.

Why do you think your god(s) allow un-necessary and un-witnessed suffering?

[jdawg70]

I have, but I will repeat myself as many times as you like.  If God saves 1 of us then he'd have to save us all thereby eliminating death/mortality.  It would be very unfair for God to save 1/4, of people dying to the other 3/4.  We are all dying.

I take it this is a bad thing for some reason?

Assuming that is the case though, how about just an absolute specified amount of time people stay alive?  Like, 50 or 100 years or something?  During your tenure in this 50/100 years, you don't die, but when your time is up your time is up.  And everyone gets the same amount of time.  What's less fair about that scenario?

[jaimehlers]

June, I'll try and make it simpler. On 1st of June 2013 the rapist throws the girl down the well. She dies on the 28th of June 2013. Why, once she lands in the well, would a kind god not simply snuff her life out there and then. No one will witness her long suffering death. I'm not asking for her life to be saved and for the sake of argument if a god were to save her life, in this particular scenario, I would appear at the top of the well shaft with a pistol and shoot the girl dead. She is not walking away from this one.

Look, no offense, but you just shot yourself in the foot with that post.  How do you think a theist is going to respond to you claiming that you'd kill someone who was in the process of being saved?  I know it's a hypothetical and all, but still.  Most theists ascribe supernatural powers to their gods, and have complex rationalizations for why those gods don't use said powers in ways that would clearly show that it was the god at work.  So trying to pose such a hypothetical in the attempt to explain why a god would be willing to let a child suffer inside a well for weeks (rather than giving her a mercy killing) isn't going to work very well.

No matter what example you pick, theists could come up with a reason why their god wouldn't act.  Even better, why not acting would be an act of the highest moral caliber.  They don't recognize the irony that they've built their god up so much that they've boxed themselves into an effective corner and made their god into a heartless, contemptible moral coward who's only concerned with giving the theist something to feel good about.

[Ron Jeremy]

I think I just gave up trying to explain that the original question didn't ask for or require the child's life to be saved. No theist seemed willing or able to give an answer to the gratuitous suffering problem. Furthermore, if that case was true, all the more reason to simply end the child's life as she was falling.

...of course if I was a real god and saw some lunatic at the top of the well with a pistol, I'd just push him in... 

[nebula]

Nebula,

I want to take and minute and say that I agree with you about the existence of God but I'm having a hard time accepting this dream scenario.  I guess it is possible but to me highly unlikely.  Why would you think that God is dreaming instead of creating.

Because my conception is of an omnibenevolent god and I think a loving, benevolent deity would not intentionally create a place of suffering.   

It does not take intelligence or any skill at all to dream.

And?   What does THAT have to do with anything?

Another problem I have with this dream theory is the spirit.  In a dream we are not real and do not possess a spirit.  Our spirit is what connects us to God,IMO.

We don't need to be connected TO God because we ARE God.   What you seem to experience is EXACTLY what one aspect of God experiences.   This particular aspect of God believes it is a human being whose screen name is junebug72.   The awareness and life that you think is yours is only one of God's deluded perceptions.   There is no 'you' to possess a spirit and be connected to God.   There is only God and its delusions.     

Why would you say God is not perfect if God is just taking a very, very , very, etc., etc.... long snooze.  We don't really exist right?  If we don't exist then how is God not perfect?  This whole idea is very confusing to say the least.

God isn't perfect because it has a certain aspect that can be tricked into believing something that isn't true. Namely that it is a gazillion different particles, objects and lifeforms.   If there is an aspect of you that can be deluded it means you are imperfect.     

That's a mighty long nap.  What made God so tired?

It's only seems long to the aspect of God that is deluded, which is the aspect that perceives the illusion of the passage of time.     

Pinch me I'm dreaming.  The fact that pain is real makes us real.  This is all very real.

OK. 

[Truth OT]

My question to you is about evil and the responses to theists as to why it exists.

Am I correct in thinking that Christians are split into those that believe the bible literally, that therefore if you believe in Genesis all evil in the world resulted from Adam and Eve's fall from grace ..................And on the other hand, theists that accept the universe is 15 odd billion years old, evolution did happen, Adam and Eve are just stories and that evil has to exist to give us character because god was unable to include this in our make up?

There's also another very small camp that tends to believe that evil exists because it was a part of God's 'divine plan' from day one. They site passages like Isaiah 45:7 to back their assertion and in their eye the presence of evil was necessary in order for there to be a proving ground for God's son(s) whereby they could earn the glory of God that Adam and all but one of his supposed decendants fell short of.
These believers don't see God as omnimax, but rather as a spiritual being with omnipotent POTENTIAL that needed to create the world in order to get something that would help It further fulfill Its potential. In the scenario that exists for these folks, man is but a pawn or  tempoerary fodder in a plan much bigger than man would have dreamed of. Luckily for man however, God in Its grace has made arrangements for man to have a continued and blessed existence in an age yet to come that has the elect of mankind more integrated to God.

[nogodsforme]

Amazing how the all-powerful god gains or loses powers depending on the difficulty of the scenario.

Anytime a believer starts a sentence with "but god can't" or "you can't expect god to" they have just reduced god. A god that "can't" is not much of a god. 

I will refrain from posting my favorite relevant Avengers scene....

[magicmiles]

Anytime a believer starts a sentence with "but god can't" or "you can't expect god to" they have just reduced god. A god that "can't" is not much of a god. 

I tend to agree, within the context of trying to explain every single possible instance of suffering.

It's us that can't. Can't understand. I don't pretend to understand why God doesn't prevent suffering in every instance, and the many examples of terrible suffering dusturb me greatly. Especially if the person suffering has no faith in God.

[nogodsforme]

Anytime a believer starts a sentence with "but god can't" or "you can't expect god to" they have just reduced god. A god that "can't" is not much of a god. 

I tend to agree, within the context of trying to explain every single possible instance of suffering.

It's us that can't. Can't understand. I don't pretend to understand why God doesn't prevent suffering in every instance, and the many examples of terrible suffering dusturb me greatly. Especially if the person suffering has no faith in God.

What should disturb you more, MM, is when the person suffering has a great deal of faith in god. Like the many stats that show people where there is the most religious faith having much worse lives compared to people with no faith at all. 

[Ron Jeremy]

Anytime a believer starts a sentence with "but god can't" or "you can't expect god to" they have just reduced god. A god that "can't" is not much of a god. 

I tend to agree, within the context of trying to explain every single possible instance of suffering.

It's us that can't. Can't understand. I don't pretend to understand why God doesn't prevent suffering in every instance, and the many examples of terrible suffering dusturb me greatly. Especially if the person suffering has no faith in God.

Also MM, how is it huge numbers of believers (I'm not saying these are your views), seem to know so much about their god; how perfect he is, how unable to do wrong he is, what his intentions are, what rules he has to abide by, even where he lives (outside of space and time?! How is this known?!) and countless other bits of knowledge but yet cannot answer this question; why does your god allow gratuitous suffering? I get the feeling that there is no answer theists can give because a loving personal god would not allow this.

[nebula]

There's a reason that quantum tunneling usually applies only to particles, rather than macroscopic objects (like billiard balls).  It's because the mechanics of quantum physics don't work when applied to classical (macroscopic) objects. There's a reason we've never been able to make a billiard ball quantum-tunnel through a hill, or anything else along those lines.

The part I bolded is false according to mainstream physics.   Macroscopic objects are merely arrangements of microscopic objects.   Quantum mechanics works at all scales, it's just that the probability of quantum effects at the macro scale is so low that it's negligible.   However, any physicist will tell you that if you throw a ball against a wall enough times, such as a googolplex, eventually, the ball will go through the wall without damaging it.   This is as sure as it is that a tunnel diode works (a tunnel diode being a device that relies on quantum tunneling).   This is because quantum mechanics describes all systems.   Classical physics is only an approximation.   Quantum mechanics supersedes it and is a more complete description.   Here is the fourth paragraph from the Schrödinger equation Wikipedia article and a youtube video.

"In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system. Solutions to Schrödinger's equation describe not only molecular, atomic, and subatomic systems, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe." 

Actually, virtual reality theory doesn't really explain things particularly well.  Certainly not as you've expressed them so far.  It seems more like wishful thinking on your part than anything.  Certainly this business of arguing that billiard balls being on one side of a wall one instant and the other side the next instant doesn't represent anything that actually happens, as far as we can tell, except on the scale of electrons and photons (which are small enough that quantum mechanics kicks in via the uncertainty principle).

At the very least, you're going to have to present additional evidence to support your argument, rather than something that as far as we can tell, has never actually happened.

It doesn't matter if it's something that happens in practice.   All physicists know that if you throw a ball at the wall enough times, eventually, it is inevitable that it will at some point tunnel through the wall because the probability distributions predicted by the Schrödinger equation are known to be true.

Though all mainstream physicists know this, they don't grok it because it really doesn't make sense in a self contained, continuously existing universe as they assume.   On the other hand, the ball going through the wall can be easily groked when assuming a discontinuous, virtual reality in which teleportation is easily explained.

The ancient peoples (who originally decided that the world was flat) didn't have the leisure to sit down and actually try to figure things out.  They were too busy trying to survive.  They didn't know (let alone care) about Occam's razor or coming up with models or anything like that.  They had no reason to doubt their eyes, so they concluded that their eyes were telling them the truth.  That's really all it was.  More importantly, things like believing the Earth was flat, or the sun, moon, and stars were painted on an upside-down bowl, didn't negatively impact their ability to survive, so they had no reason to take the time to consider whether it might have been wrong.

Touché, then how about the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism dispute which was hotly debated. 

Compare this:  http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/shildreth/astronomy/geoanswers.html

To table 1 on page 16 of this: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

The issue is which model, ORT or VRT, explains observed phenomena better, with fewer problems.   

[junebug72]

What should disturb you more, MM, is when the person suffering has a great deal of faith in god. Like the many stats that show people where there is the most religious faith having much worse lives compared to people with no faith at all. 

People with harder lives need faith.  Those that don't need none.  Just saying.

[junebug72]

Because my conception is of an omnibenevolent god and I think a loving, benevolent deity would not intentionally create a place of suffering. 

I believe in a loving God as well but God's not sleeping in my version.  Even in your scenario there is pain and suffering and all God would have to do is wake up!!! To understand pain and suffering you have to understand freewill.   

It does not take intelligence or any skill at all to dream.

And?   What does THAT have to do with anything?

You reduce God to almost nothing when you speak of God this way.  My theory is intelligent design. 

Another problem I have with this dream theory is the spirit.  In a dream we are not real and do not possess a spirit.  Our spirit is what connects us to God,IMO.

We don't need to be connected TO God because we ARE God.   What you seem to experience is EXACTLY what one aspect of God experiences.   This particular aspect of God believes it is a human being whose screen name is junebug72.   The awareness and life that you think is yours is only one of God's deluded perceptions.   There is no 'you' to possess a spirit and be connected to God.   There is only God and its delusions.

 

Ok if you're God create life by falling asleep.  It should be a replica of this 1.  Bring back some pictures so we'll know you're God.   

Why would you say God is not perfect if God is just taking a very, very , very, etc., etc.... long snooze.  We don't really exist right?  If we don't exist then how is God not perfect?  This whole idea is very confusing to say the least.

God isn't perfect because it has a certain aspect that can be tricked into believing something that isn't true. Namely that it is a gazillion different particles, objects and lifeforms.   If there is an aspect of you that can be deluded it means you are imperfect.

How do you know God can be tricked? I doubt that very seriously.   

That's a mighty long nap.  What made God so tired?

It's only seems long to the aspect of God that is deluded, which is the aspect that perceives the illusion of the passage of time.

So you say.

Pinch me I'm dreaming.  The fact that pain is real makes us real.  This is all very real.

OK.

OK.

[junebug72]

I think I just gave up trying to explain that the original question didn't ask for or require the child's life to be saved. No theist seemed willing or able to give an answer to the gratuitous suffering problem. Furthermore, if that case was true, all the more reason to simply end the child's life as she was falling.

...of course if I was a real god and saw some lunatic at the top of the well with a pistol, I'd just push him in... 

You're full of it Ron J.  Every time I answer you, you change the perimeters of your question and say nobody is answering you.  Bullshit! 

Then you would not be a God that loves the creation!!!  A real God understands why the rapist becomes a rapist.  It's not a pretty sight.  Sex abuse ran rampid in my family for generations until I stood up and said, no more.  It stops here. 

Humans are responsible for pain and suffering with or w/o a god.  Since you don't believe in God you must except this fact.  You are just asking trick questions to make an atheist out of me.  Good luck with that especially with this question.

Maybe it was evolution that brought pain and suffering into the world.  Damn evolution.

What happened in the evolutionary explanation that explains pain and suffering?

Either way it can be eliminated by humans for humans.  My belief only enhances that fact to say it will please God when we accomplish this daunting task.

Sorry sleepless night made me a bit grumpy today.