Why does God HAVE to be "good" or "pure love" instead of pure hate?>because He is perfectI have yet to see an actual argument for why love is the condition for "perfection" instead of hate.>creation is an act of loveNothing that states that this is necessarily so. >because God is the source of morality.God can be a being of pure hate and still be that. No theists dares to say that God is right because he is something else but only by virtue of being the supreme authoritative being who gives you your daily coveted pleasures and orgasms.Anything else?
>>17415528Which God?
>>17415528When you say “God is love”, you are saying that God is loving.God loving people is a good thing.So...Logically it would seem that the more people God loves, the better.By definition, the more people God loves, the better.Therefore, the more people God loves, the better.
>>17415535Yahweh
>>17415536You talk like someone who doesn't even know what an arguments outside of the fact that they usually contain the word "therefore"
>>17415536I'm not saying that "God is love". Why can't He be hate?
>>17415607Because the nature of reality, the fact you can know truth, says otherwise
>>17415612Pseud
>>17415607>Why can't a fish climb a tree?
>>17415625Fedora faggot
>>17415612>Because the nature of reality, the fact you can know truth, says otherwiseHow so? I'm not going to ask you how you can know for certain that you can know truth. I'll ask you why that can be true and God can't still be hate? After all, even under the good model, he apperantly allows and tolerates tons of disasters, evils, and suffering (meaningless suffering even, as there is nothing meaningful about suffering in this life just so that you can be hooked to a pleasure machine in heaven.
>>17415660Existence is, is how you know truth. Tho the science of it is called epistemology Wanting others to know truth is the definition of loving and its exemplified by a god who wants you to know truth in its totality so bad he is willing to let you know the truth of suffering and give you the capacity to interpret it as the idea of evil
>>17415672>Existence is, is how you know truth.what?>Tho the science of it is called epistemologyYou have clearly not read much about epistemology. You probably think that the skeptical hypotheses have been thoroughly eliminated. They, of course, have not. But that's not really my point.>Wanting others to know truth is the definition of lovingNot necessarily. A villain may want others to know that he killed their families out of some sick pleasure he gets from it. IT is by no means "by definition". This also does not explain why an omnipotent and benevolent god would allow evil and suffering to exist in the first place. What gives? I already apperantly can make it happen in heaven, where you can have existence and consciousness and absolutely no suffering. Granted, it does mean that there is no free will in heaven.
>>17415691There are foundational statements that any conscious agent couldn’t deny, one of them is existence is and it is objectively true.Okay so you have a religious belief that we can’t know truth? You reject epistemology as a field or something?Yes it is more loving for a killer to let a family know they did it then leaving them in ignorance? Are you retarded? If love is to have any meaning in an eternal context the only definition Is the desire for the object of your love to know eternal truth (the limited version being I love you so much I’m willing to be the nutrients for your growth)Heaven doesn’t mean no suffering? It means it isn’t meaningless suffering. You will always suffer being limited in the face of god and all the ignorance that entail in an eternally novel existence. The difference between here and heaven is there, you are surrounded by people who don’t see suffering as evil and see god as self evident. Who have faith in god and won’t call him evil if he tells them to hold up the world until they crumble beneath. Who have no fear of death because they know eternal life is guaranteed by god. Who willingly throw themselves into the fire over and OVER again for the sake of refinement with their creatorYou seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding if you think a heaven without free will is heaven but the point still stands, god is loving because he wants us to know truth and you say he is evil because that truth involves the suffering of our limitations?
>>17415717>There are foundational statements that any conscious agent couldn’t denyprove it>one of them is existence is and it is objectively true.how can you prove that existence is and that it is objectively true? IT all just ends up being a baseless assumption. A "given".>Yes it is more loving for a killer to let a family know they did it then leaving them in ignorance? I don't think the killer loves the men whose families he killed. I think he gains a sadistic pleasure from knowing that they know that he did it. I do not see how this is "loving".>If love is to have any meaning in an eternal context the only definition Is the desire for the object of your love to know eternal truthThis is meaningless drivel.>Heaven doesn’t mean no suffering?Aquinas disagrees with you. define "meaningless suffering.>You will always suffer being limited in the face of god and all the ignorance that entail in an eternally novel existenceAgain, Aquinas and most other church fathers disagree with you because they believe that with the beatific vision, when you witness God's glory, all the mysteries of the world will be laid bare for you and everything will make sense and you will understand that it is all good.>You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding if you think a heaven without free will is heavenIronic, since you apperantly don't know anything about the religion you claim to practice. Probably because you only entered the church out of hopes of getting a virginal gf, like virtually all the tradlarpers.
>>17415736I’m not gonna engage further with a fedora fag who can’t admit existence is man. You are so far gone into schizophrenia and psychosis if you reject the reality that me and you are having this conversation that it would be pointless to continue For everyone else just so you know this guy doesn’t know what he is talking aboutIt is more loving than the alternative which would be ignorance? I’m not saying the killer is loving I’m separating the action and defining it. No it’s really not and it’s so sad that you don’t have a definition of love but pretend to be some philosopher?No they didn’t. No church figure thinks god is within our understanding. That moment you are talking about is when god reveals himself to you and your faith is affirmed, ignited or found lacking. Just because you know gods goodness now doesn’t mean you aren’t limited in the presence of god and you will suffer those limitations. Do you think the next time god creates and he tells you to bow down to what you perceive as your lesser it’s not gonna hurt you to be ignorant and limited in the face of gods wisdom? It should if for no other reason then you should feel how loving god is to put up with a limited being such as youMy guy you have no clue what you are talking about and are having to try and be a “better Christian” to win this argument from the atheist position. It’s sad and on top of it you genuinely don’t know if you can know that this is happening right now which should inform any anons who have interacted with you that we are dealing with a mentally ill individual
>>17415756>existence is manWhat the fuck are you even talking about?>You are so far gone into schizophrenia and psychosis if you reject the reality that me and you are having this conversation that it would be pointless to continueI'm not rejecting anything at the moment. I am just better read in epistemology than you.> I’m not saying the killer is loving I’m separating the action and defining it.Do you believe that intent does not matter in any way whatsoever? Also, note that you haven't actually explained with any rigor why knowing the truth is "good".>No it’s really not and it’s so sad that you don’t have a definition of love but pretend to be some philosopher?You don't have to have a definition for love, or even believe that it even exists, in order to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not begin or end with Plato. You are clearly just not very well read in philosophy.>No church figure thinks god is within our understanding. Aquinas literally did. The church fathers both did and did not depending on circumstances but virtually all of them believed that the bible was 100% the truth.>That moment you are talking about is when god reveals himself to you and your faith is affirmedNo. Google "beatific vision" and union with god, which is what is believed by many theologians is what you achieve in heaven.Christianity is such a silly religion the more you think about it. no wonder it is going extinct. It can't simply kill and crush the nonbelievers anymore.
>>17415771I say “existence is” and your response is “What the fuck are you talking about” so no, you are not better read at epistemology than me. I’m saying there is truth available to us in the reality of existence. You are genuinely sick in the head if you can’t accept that it is true that this is really happening to youIntent can matter? But if I save a life for my ego, the act itself is still loving even if my intent was wrong. Please don’t pretend to be some intellectual if you can’t separate intent man.Knowing truth is better game theory than not knowing truth? And if truth has value then eternal truth is eternally valuable and the act of making it available to someone eternally loving. Are you genuinely arguing it would be good to keep someone ignorant? Or do you think knowing truth doesn’t matter? Because if so all your doing is affirming my belief you are an immature pseud. No aquinas didn’t and no 100% of them were not sola scriptoria fags. Yes union with god is a denomination of thought within Christianity but now your asking why didn’t god just engage in expansion instead of creation.Christianity is so far above your specific ability to comprehend without a tutor that I almost want to go on a crusade against whoever let a lying pleb like you read about it (or anything like it) without the proper theological, mathematical and epistemological education So are you gonna continue to pretend to be a better Christian or admit the nature of existence is loving because you have been blessed with ability to know truth?
>>17415587the demiurge is pure retardation though
>>17415791have you conceded dna stores information in its sequence yet ?
>>17415806I mean that IS true? but I never rejected that, I said that its structure carries the information (which you said it didn’t) which if you weren’t a brainlet you would know is true because THE SEQUENCE IS WITHIN THE DEFINING STRUCTURE
>>17415823no, it's sequenceDNA stores its information in its sequence, according to the source YOU posted last time
>>17415827No it didn’t? Here’s google AGAIN cause Jesus Christ that clearly shows the sequence is not the whole of how dna translates or replicates INFORMATION, please kys. You know what NOPE I’m not getting baited again, I hope you have a good one schizo anon
>>17415837why are you so fucking stupid, it is written right there retarded namefagcopy and paste this: DNA's structure allows for a high informational capacity because it stores genetic information in the sequence of its base pairsis this hard for you ? lol
>>17415837Can you underline the part that supports your view
>>17415842Fuuuuuuuck man, I don’t know why but I can’t get over the fact you might actually think you are saying something My guy, nobody is saying there isn’t information is the sequence. YOU were having a debate with someone else and you said the structure of DNA has nothing to do with its informational capacity AND THAT IS FLAT OUT WRONG. if I scatter those basses is it still information you fucking idiot? No because information to be coherent needs to be bounded by structure. Are you somehow saying 1s and 0s without a structured domain (provided by the geometric reality of fundamental interactions to produce the shape of DNA) is somehow still information? or are you saying that if DNA was a square it would somehow still work within human biology? I’m genuinely confused man and I’m praying you are trolling
>>17415852literally just copy and paste it desuDNA's structure allows for a high informational capacity because it stores genetic information in the sequence of its base pairs
>>17415854This is why I’m so confused? Why did he say that DNAs structure has nothing to do with its informational capacity? It’s just blatantly wrong and I’m so confused
>>17415858it is really not that hard to just accept you're wrong and move on lol
>>17415861lol let’s see if your being honest about that.Is the structure of DNA fundamental to its informational capacity?
>>17415863no, it is not according to >>17415837:^)
>>17415866My god the schizophrenia, I don’t think I’ve witnessed it this bad on this board before
>>17415871so can you copy and paste it or nothere you go again, I'm generous today DNA's structure allows for a high informational capacity because it stores genetic information in the sequence of its base pairs
>>17415876So I’ll ask again, is DNAs structure fundamental to its informational capacity? You said I said no but my pic says yes and I say yes and then you just said yes again (with a copy paste that you might schizophrenically thinks says no) so I’m making sure we’re on the same pageJust answer the question according to youIs DNAs structure fundamental to it’s informational capacity?
>>17415888I already answered your question retardbroyour pic says that it's the sequence and you keep lying about it
>>17415891That sequence doesn’t exist without the structure you brainletI’ll ask again, is DNAs structure fundamental to its informational capacity?
>>17415894>100.00000000000% of the ENTIRE thing has to be there so I can concede the pointthis is how you sound btw
>>17415898It’s a REALLY simple questionIs DNAs structure fundemental to its informational capacity Also no you absolute fucking brainlet that’s the opposite of what I’m doing, I’m identifying the part of DNA that is integral to to it’s informational capacity outside of any given sequence you fucking mongoloid
>>17415904do you really have a reading comprehension issue? the answer was posted 4 posts ago
>>17415907No it wasn’t. I’ll ask againIs DNAs structure fundamental to its informational capacity? Yes or no?
>>17415909the answer was posted 5 posts ago now
>>17415528Of course God is pure psychotic hate>God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.<make existence utter suffering>For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son<let him be killed
>>17415910That’s what I thought you punk bitch
>>17415916lemme help you illiteratebro >>17415866do you want me to copy and paste the text ? :^)
>>17415919I just want you to answer yes or no. You can extrapolate, provide sources whatever you want. Just end it with a yes or noIs the structure of DNA fundemental to its informational capacity?
>>17415926ok I will *copy and paste* the answer I *already* gave you. here you go, ok, pay close attention else you may miss it again :^)no, it is not according to >>17415837:^)
>>17415937Okay well that picture says the structure IS fundemental to its information capacity? It talks about the double helix structure and the fundemental lay geometric chemical bonds that allow for the sequence?So you don’t understand the photo I posted. What made you think the structure of DNA was unimportant to its informational capacity before you misread my picture?
>>17415943no it doesn't say that, stop lyingit says it's the sequence
If there is a god, it is an incomprehensible being that is nothing like what religion claims. Its existence would be nothing like our own.There can be no such thing as an all powerful, all loving, all good god. The fact that anything remotely evil, let alone the shit we actually have, exists is proof of that.I mean, you have to kill other living beings to keep living. And those creatures kill other conscious creatures. Often in a slow, brutal, and painful fashion. And you have to do it constantly too, it’s not like you can just eat once every few years and be good. Who the fuck does that? Even more than that, there is literally nothing you can do in this world without exertion. All pleasure comes with pain.People just cope and believe what they want to believe. Some people can’t handle the fact that the world isn’t a magical fairytale land with rainbows and unicorns. Reality is violent and vain and full of suffering for no particular reason.
>>17416062Okay you accept god but he is not good because of humanity.How do you think he should have reacted to seeing the possibility of humanity within the eternal possibilities? Do you think he would have been good if he never allowed you to exist?
>>17416083>muh humanity muh free willWhat’s with this deflection that you retards always turn to? Evil exists with or without humans.
>>17416089Humans (more aptly children of god) is the point of all that suffering. That evil you are talking about in the suffering of limitations is implicit in your being.Would you have rather he just lied about where he got you from?
>>17416093
>>17416095Another muh suffering faggot bites the dust
why is this board /x/ lite? /lit/ Is also /x/ lite
People like this >>17416102 can vote
>>17416105People like you can’t breed
>>17416107Cheese
>>17415528Humans hate. Humans are made in the image of god. Therefore, god hates.
It's gaslighting. It's not real. The argument for loving god makes zero sense. >creation is an act of loveObviously not. If I created a new creature using DNA splicing or whatever just to torture it then no one would call me a loving father. It's pure nonsense.
>>17416093See >>17415949
>>17415528>Why does God HAVE to be "good" or "pure love" instead of pure hate?Are you asking in the bullshit neoplatonic sense or just about morality? If it is the latter then we simply have to refer to divine revelation to know our creator. An evil "God" of pure hate would create us in hell, the fact there is any bit of mercy in creation is enough to justify this position false. There is zero reason for such a deity to let us live lives where we aren't tormented maximally since creation for even one microsecond. While the opposite is not true, and btw God can hate>No theists dares to say that God is right because he is something elsewtf do you mean? God is right about morality because of his omniscience, his benevolent/just/etc nature and the very fact he created reality according to his own will. He defined the very rules and principles in question so how can he ever be wrong about them? His absolute authority just reinforces this. A being of pure hate will not teach us about what is wrong and he will not warn us to stay away from it. Quite the contrary such a being would do what demons try to do and misguide humanity from moral perfection. Why? because it increases our suffering in the worldly life and the hereafter.
>>17416089>Evil exists with or without humans.Yes but your pic shows and example of predation by beings who don't know right from wrong and function on instinct above reason. Why is this action under these circumstances inherently evil?
