I feel like this shouldn't need to be stated but here we areNeither are Demons or Spirits or the the Spirit world
Yup
>>546142138>T.satan
>>546142138it is unprovable whether or not god is realinsistence of either affirmation or negation must then be wrong, as wellfaith will always be faith
>>546142138Ok buddy, go on and take a good long look at the lake for me
>>546142138You will burn in an actual literal hell for denying Christ
>>546142138Nah. The Abrahamic gods are the only ones I consider false. The pre-Abrahamic deities weren't some imaginary creatures floating in the sky neither they represented the forces of nature, the fundamental energies of existence, and the very principles governing cosmic order. They were embodiments of the cosmos itself. Meanwhile, Abrahamic theology reduces divinity to an invisible, supposedly omnipotent being in the sky, detached from the natural world. One sees the divine in the universe itself the other demands belief by all means necessary in an unseen man in skies.
>>546142138neither are you
>The Abrahamic gods are the only ones I consider false.
Still irrefutable.
>>546142244You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions
>>546142138What created the first atom?
>>546142138nigga you're retarded
>>546142345Dinosaurs
>>546142345The first stable, neutral atoms came from the cooling of the early universe about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when electrons finally slowed down enough to be captured by atomic nuclei
>>546142138Just because you lack a soul doesn’t mean others do.Also OP is most likely permalocked to be a midwit.Bible is gay. God(creator) is real.
>>546142244Why? If I deny Christ, it's because I haven't been given enough reason to believe. Why is God upset at me for only giving me information He knew wouldn't be convincing?
>>546142266>when a brahmin speaks I listen
>>546142510God is absolutely real. In Hindu Theology the Supreme Reality is called Paramātman or the Supreme Soul. not some narcissist old man floating in the clouds who smite non believers, but the very fabric of existence itself. Every force of nature, every cosmic law, every form of life emerges from Him. His three cosmic expressions are Creation, Preservation, and Destruction and Transformation these aren't three competing powers they're the eternal cycles through which existence operates. God isn't a being trapped in heavens or skies the universe. The universe itself exists within Him.
>>546142327
>>546142138Spirit is Atom (derived from sanskrit 'Atma')Demon is the Internal locus of control self (Atma).God is External locus of Control self(Atma)Agrippa Trilemma is hard to solve and Baron Manchaussen knew this.
The Abrahamic God is the only real God and Muhammed his little slutty sims character
>>546142138I believe in simulation theory and the funny thing about simulation theory is that it means the afterlife could be literally anything. Who knows what sort of programming it would involve?
>>546142229What about every other Fiktion?
>>546143066I double dare you to put stickers all over times square depicting mohammed as asherah
>>546143191>Fiktionis also just another mirror of reality
>>546143019>Freedom does not mean a continuing desire or capacity to do evil God can then create a world where we technically can do evil, but no one has the desire or capacity to AKA Heaven. Why not make everything Heaven then?>Perfected will not choosing evil is still freeThen why not give everyone a perfected will from the beginning? They could still technically choose evil they just never actually will and we would still be free >Growth does not require suffering Then we don’t need Earth to grow, we can grow in Heaven. Why not make everything Heaven then?>Making meaningful choices without evil is still freedom Then God could have created a world where we make meaningful choices without evil, AKA Heaven and that would not violate free will. Why not make everything Heaven then?>All evil must be necessary All evil must be necessary if you accept the premise we live in the best of all possible worlds. If the evil wasn’t necessary or wouldn’t lead to a better outcome we wouldn’t be living in the best of all possible worlds, would we? There would be a better possible world, and then we must ask why we don’t live there if a better possible world and agency/free will are not contradictory >Why not Heaven from the beginning A non-answer, if an infant or child dies they do not have sufficient experience to have agency compared to an adult. Especially if an infant dies. If evil not existing does not violate agency or freedom, and we can develop in Heaven why not develop in Heaven?>Infants and children I accept your concession. Not even the AI you used could come up with an answer and literally gave up. Lmao
>>546143393>Freedom does not mean a continuing desire or capacity to do evil. God can then create a world where we technically can do evil, but no one has the desire or capacity to AKA Heaven. Why not make everything Heaven then?Because perhaps there's a distinction between being created with a perfected character and freely developing one. Someone who has overcome hatred, learned forgiveness, and developed compassion through experience possesses something different from someone who was simply created with those qualities. Perhaps the process of becoming morally perfected has value in itself.>Perfected will not choosing evil is still free. Then why not give everyone a perfected will from the beginning? They could still technically choose evil they just never actually will and we would still be free.This assumes that the end result is the only thing that matters. Perhaps God values not just what we become, but our participation in becoming it. There's a difference between possessing wisdom and acquiring it through experience. However, this still doesn't explain why the particular degree of suffering we experience is necessary.>Growth does not require suffering. Then we don't need Earth to grow, we can grow in Heaven. Why not make everything Heaven then?Certain virtues involve more than intellectual understanding. Forgiveness requires something to forgive; courage requires something to overcome; compassion involves responding to suffering. Perhaps earthly existence provides opportunities to understand goodness experientially rather than merely intellectually. That said, this doesn't establish that extreme suffering is necessary.
>>546143393>Making meaningful choices without evil is still freedom. Then God could have created a world where we make meaningful choices without evil, AKA Heaven and that would not violate free will. Why not make everything Heaven then?I agree that free will alone doesn't explain why Earth is necessary. Perhaps the purpose isn't simply to give us opportunities to make choices, but to allow us to develop into individuals with particular virtues, experiences, and moral understanding. Heaven would then be the culmination of that process, rather than merely a different environment.>All evil must be necessary if you accept the premise we live in the best of all possible worlds. If the evil wasn't necessary or wouldn't lead to a better outcome we wouldn't be living in the best of all possible worlds, would we?That's true if we accept Leibniz's premise. But why must perfect goodness require God to create the absolute best conceivable world rather than one that is sufficiently good and has morally sufficient reasons for existing? Furthermore, the fact that a world is justified as a whole doesn't mean every individual instance of suffering is independently necessary.>Why not Heaven from the beginning? A non-answer, if an infant or child dies they do not have sufficient experience to have agency compared to an adult. Especially if an infant dies.I think this is the strongest objection to the soul-making defense. If God can perfect someone's soul beyond earthly existence, why couldn't He accomplish that without requiring the child to experience earthly suffering in the first place? Appealing to God's mysterious purposes doesn't adequately answer that question.
>>546143393>Infants and children. I accept your concession. Not even the AI you used could come up with an answer and literally gave up. LmaoI concede that the traditional soul-making argument struggles considerably here. Explaining how a child might ultimately attain salvation isn't the same as explaining why an all-powerful, benevolent God permitted their suffering and death.
>>546143824Nigger if I wanted to talk to chatgpt I would go to chatgpt. Are you this incapable of thinking for yourself?
>>546142138>incel has shit life>G-god isn't real !!!!!
>>546145183>Nigger if I wanted to talk to chatgpt I would go to chatgpt. Are you this incapable of thinking for yourself?If you have an actual objection to my argument, make it. Insulting me and complaining about how I formulate my responses doesn't address anything I've said. If you think I'm wrong, explain why. Otherwise, you're just substituting hostility for an argument.
>>546145293Your argument? YOU haven't made any. There's nothing of yours to reply to.
>>546145392I ran out of messages. Thanks.
>>546145439Incredible. You sign away all your cognitive abilities and you're not even ashamed of it.
>>546145500Well ai is coded to argue against god so who cares. You assume gods can not lie, humans can not misrepresent gods.
