I believe in an evil god. It's the only thing that makes sense. Even completely disregarding any human actions (so you can't use the free will excuse), the creator still chose to create a reality where animals have to kill and eat each other to survive.
>>42039232an evil god like the demiurgeOr an evil god which is the supreme
>>42039232>the creator still chose to createOr he just wasn't able to do it better.The Demiurge is not necessarily seen as evil in Gnosticism, just as ignorant and limited in his creativity.
>>42039236I don't believe there is a supreme god. The universe is eternal. There is a god (little g) who is the ruler of this world/false reality. Humans can also become gods.
>>42039246do you believe that this god gave us our minds?
>>42039252No. I think we originally came here from another place, and are currently trapped here.
>>42039254oh ok then i don't have much to say then, so like gnosticismIf you said yes i would call you reatred and bring up descartes evil demon
>>42039232existence by an evil god is illogicalOk first what would be "Evil" in a world view that overarching god is evil, as classical theology understands Evil to be the absence of good as god is the source of "good", so we will just invert it so that good is the absence of evil.So Evil is the substance and good is just a lack of that substance, so god is evil and goodness is a privation of god.This god would not create anything, as Being is understood to be an act of good under an theological reasoning, so god in its goodness and his nature would naturally gives being, this also means that this god wouldn't exist. so its literarily an impossibility if we are going to be consistent under theological understanding.
>>42039263A god which may be "presived" as evil but is just ignorant would make more sense though like>>42039240
>>42039232good for you son
God doesn't really need to be evil for death and evil to exist. Human consciousness exists within the entropic state. And thats not accounting for Gods omniscience and omnipotence facilitating all kinds of possible 'meta' elements.
>>42039263You're fucking retarded. For God to be good the following criteria has to be met. 1. He is truly good to his sons, thus he permits them to dissgree with goodness and be evil. And there
>>42039307>God doesn't really need to be evil for death and evil to exist.Yeah he does. If he was purely morally good he would create a natural world (again, not even including humans, so you can't cry muh free will) where suffering and anguish don't exist. But he didn't. He specifically chose to condemn trillions of animals to an endless loop of torment stuck maiming and killing each other to survive. Unless you're a retard who thinks good = whatever God does, in which case I'm not interested in talking to you
>>42039232Satan rules this world with the permission of god. Read the book, nigga.
>>42039320>thus he permits them to dissgree with goodness and be evil.No he doesn't, since supposedly he sends them to Hell. Withholding punishment for something until a later date doesn't mean that thing is "permitted"
>>42039326Explain how it's not evil of God to permit Satan to rule the world?
>>42039338No, I mean that I dissgree with abrahamic views. I think goodness not only permits, but allows, concedes and encourages evil because that may bring joy to his child. If you're an apex being, the least of your concerns is a masochist or a lecherous slut or a sorcerer.
god is getting more powerful
A purely good God would not create a hirarchy. All beings he would create would have the same status and power as he has. It would be a truely egalitarian and democratic universe of God peers, living in immortal perfection.
>>42039400hierarchy* Is natural human good. Fuck of you leftist retard
>>42039232>I believe in an evil god.Okay.You are sentient, and thus can evaluate things.Everyone can.I judge you evil.See how fun that is?
>>42039400Would you accept, if God gave you nigh-omnipotence and a universe to rule for yourself? So you could show God how it should be done and you can create your perfect world?
>>42039232I believe that our world is two gods clashing. One an evil inferior god which is grounded in quantity, and the other a noble benevolent god which is grounded in quality. What we experience as life is just the battle of these two sources of knowledge playing out in real time.
>>42039477>Would you acceptsure
>>42039491Okay...that is what the demiurge is doing.That already is what you did.It's what we all did.Every soul in samsara begins with their own universe.THIS *gestures all around* is what the result of imperfect beings thinking they can make a place that is "perfect."
>describe God God is God10/10 accuracy
>>42039324>good = whatever God does,Yes because good is goodness itself
>>42039505What other beings do is not my fault.I would be a good God.
>>42039526>Yes because god is goodness itselfAccording to himself.
>>42039521>"Do you know what a circular argument is?"
>>42039532So you wouldnt do anything if the people in your world started raping and killing and making others suffer?
>>42039534If you accept an omnipotent being, good HAS to be defined by said being.Where else would it come from?You've got three choices.Either God defines what is and isnt good.You want to say YOU are the ultimate definier of them.Or you are saying there is something above God that defines these values, in which case why wouldnt THAT be God, and not the powerful being under its rule?
>>42039534According to theology retardhttps://mrfoxre.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/2-05-st-augustine-evil-and-privation/#:~:text=St%20Augustine%20says%20that%20the,appreciate%20when%20we%20are%20healthy.&text=St%20Augustine%20tells%20us%20that,You%20cannot%20make%20dark.&text=And%20in%20the%20universe%2C%20even,compare%20it%20with%20the%20evil.&text=For%20the%20Almighty%20God%2C%20who,good%20even%20out%20of%20evil.&text=Explain%20what%20St%20Augustine's%20response,Christian%20respond%20to%20this%20statement?https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/privation-theory-of-evil-and-the-evilgod-challenge/050C2F9C50B75D0CB929ADB2351059A8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good#:~:text=Theory-,Evil%20as%20privation,by%20a%20thing's%20essential%20nature%22.
>>42039539They wouldn't do that in my world. There would be peace and harmony. It would be a paradise realm.
>>42039320can you reword that please, i didn't quite catch what your saying
>>42039546So yes, according to himself and people who worship him.
>>42039548>They wouldn't do that in my world.Why not? what stops them?
>>42039549don't*
>>42039545>If you accept an omnipotent beingThe issue is that YHWH is not actually omnipotent. He just claims to be.
>>42039550Nice, so you established that your a retard which doesn't even understand theology
>>42039555>YHWHCheckedd, but who said anything about any specific being?>If you accept an omnipotent beingDO you, or not?If not, then what are you talking about when you say "god"?Why use that word at all?Why not just say there is no God?
>>42039556You're*
>>42039232I believe op is 16
>>42039552The offer was:>if God gave you omnipotence>and a universe to ruleThat means I can decide what's real in my universe. And I would decide that it's a world of peace and harmony. All people would be saints, no being would have to suffer. There would be no death, no sickness, no aging and no conflict, only happiness.
>>42039568It's not 2012 anymore, nowadays teenagers think it's hip and cool to be an online christian and daydream about being a crusader. Trad Christianity is in, Atheism is out. Get with the times grandpa.
>>42039571Op your still a 16 year old faggot which doesn't understand theology.
>>42039575Why would I accept theology (copes) from agents of our enemy, Yahweh?
>>42039538>do you know what a faggot is?
>>42039578So anything against your world view is just cope even though logic and reasoning is involved?Nice for verifying that you are 16 retard
>>42039569>I can decideSo you'll stop them in vitro.And they'll only do the thing you want.> no conflictWhat if they want to do something different than another person, and they cant reconcile?
>>42039578Why did you ignore arguments not made by them?
>>42039582All of the "logic" and "reasoning" is done with the assumption that Yahweh is good. that's why I called them copes, because it's people trying to convince themselves that their god is good when he obviously isn't
>>42039320hey so I'm still wating your rebuttal for my argument is pretty incoherent, can you reword it please so i can better understand your position
>>42039594Not really retard1. The Ontological Argument (Anselm and Descartes) https://study.com/academy/lesson/descartes-ontological-argument-premises-criticism.html#:~:text=Critics%20of%20ontological%20arguments%20often%20appeal%20to,the%20perspective%20of%20God's%20state%20of%20being.https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5203011#page=622. Scholasticism and Neo-Platonic Logichttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4181597https://www.jstor.org/stable/41816043. Modal Ontological Arguments (Modern)https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254414https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12938and more
>>42039584With omnipotence (a concept that doesn't make sense anyway) I could have a universe with beings I want, without forcing anyone to anything. They would just be happy, peaceful, virtuous, holy beings because I want it to be. My will would not be forced on them, it would be the reality, so nothing could be outside of my will. That's what omnipotence is.>but that's not logicalDoesn't matter. An almighty God can do things beyond logic and causality.
dark are the powers of hell
>>42039618>My will would not be forced on themI didnt ask about your will.Please try to answer the question.>What if they want to do something different than another person, and they cant reconcile?There are two people who arent you, who want incompatible results.Is that another thing that is limited and restricted away in your universe?What if I am in your universe, and WANT to be in conflict with someone else?I cant do that?What do I do, then?
>>42039633>There are two people who arent you, who want incompatible results.No they wouldn't. All people would be saints and spiritual masters. They would have no desires, no ego impulses, no craving for anything. They would all be united in spiritual love for each other.>What if I am in your universe, and WANT to be in conflict with someone else?You wouldn't be there, as my universe is a place of holy people.
>>42039613>retard dystheisic gets silenced
>>42039613Summarize. I don't have time right now to read several papers.
>>42039650>No they wouldn't.So they arent allowed to disagree with each other about anything ever?No football?No discourse?No surprises?Everyone in all existence would always want the exact same thing at the exact same time?That sounds like slavery and Hell.But you do you.>All people would be saints and spiritual masters.Most saints and spiritual masters are in conflict with another one.>You wouldn't be thereNo, no I wouldnt.I wouldnt want to be in a place controlled by someone who doesnt allow anything but their own conception of perfect.
>>42039659Summarize?? are you fucking retaredyou said >with the assumption that Yahweh is goodI provided sources and arguments suggesting otherwise, this is a critique on your premise not an explanation of the argumentsI don't have time right now to Summarize it for you, do it in your own time if you can mix that with your school work XD
>>42039596still waiting...
>>42039674They are still operating with the assumption that God is good, even if it's not Yahweh outright. I don't believe he is, and there is far more evidence to conclude that he is not good than that he is good.
>>42039664>football:)I think you can't really imagine a higer spiritual world.Anyway, I leave the thread now.
>>42039686Of course I can.The world you talk about exists, it's God's realm.It's just that your conception of it doesnnt allow for people to ever disagree with God.God's version DOES.Those souls get to come here.You and I are here because we wouldnt play along with the saints and pure people.
Apologetics are all about explaining why god is still good even though he does/allows things that are obviously evil. Even a brainwashed person's conscience still tells them when something is wrong so they need copes to reassure them that god is actually still good even when deep down they know he isn't
>>42039684Holy fucking shit XDDDD>They are still operating with the assumption that God is goodNot a single fuckinng one does that, all of them reason their way to a good godYou stated that they all give reasons that god is good from pre assumption, i said no and provided multiple arguments and papers against that claim and then like the dumbass you are just regurgitate the same point again XDDo you even know any of the terms (not papers the Terms) i provided?Seriously you have no understanding of theology yet you still make such strong theological claims about god, dumbass XD
>>42039711>all of them reason their way to a good godTheir reasoning is incorrect. If I was an omnipotent God and my nature was good I would do a much better job.
>>42039704Is it ever possible for someone to consider something as evil, and then change their mind with new information or a different perspective?
>>42039232I believe in a morally neutral creator
>>42039716what enlightened perspective do you have to arrive at to think people getting maimed or killed in natural disasters (directly caused by god) is not evil? Everyone likes to say in Isaiah 45:7 that "he's not talking about MORAL evil, just calamity!" Well directly causing calamity and hurting people as a result is itself morally evil. If something would be evil if a human did it, it's evil if God does it. Divine command theory is one of the most vile, dangerous things you can believe.
>>42039711ecks dee>holds up sporkWish I could spit in your face.
>>42039596What argument? Being unable to read isn't a fucking rebuttal.
>>42039232Romans 14:10-12 ESV[10] Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; [11] for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” [12] So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.Matthew 7:3-5 ESV[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? [4] Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
>>42039736>posts texts from the evil god's cultNot helping your case.
>>42039715 Your so arrogant its hilarious, XD>Their reasoning is incorrectHow can you be so sure, you don't even know what a single one of those fucking arguments>If I was an omnipotent God and my nature was good I would do a much better job.the hubris is ridiculous XDno wonder you are 16
>>42039723Can this morally neutral creator be fair then? Let’s say I like living but wish I had a better life for the 20-21st century, with less evil, allowing more good but still some difficulty.Would it see it as fair, balanced, etc?
>>42039725There are several, and most of them have been presented in this thread.But you were decrying apologetics as a whole, not any specific argument.Are we past that?
>>42039743Your fixation on me being 16 and your incessant use of emoticons makes me think that actually you are the one who is 16.
>>42039750>But you were decrying apologetics as a wholeA perfect God wouldn't need apologetics. His perfect word would be completely self evident and not open to interpretation.
>>42039731Are you mentally impaired?I made a rebuttal to your claimYou "made" a rebuttal to mine, your rebuttal was really incoherent and unclear, so i asked you to reword itOr was that to much for you to understand
if the creator of the world were evilwouldn't that meanthe world is evil?huh?
>>42039232I suggest no god at all is also consistent with the suffering and injustice we see in the world.
>>42039751ad hominem LOL
>>42039756>A perfect God wouldn't need apologeticsHe doesnt. His view is perfect.> His perfect word would be completely self evident and not open to interpretation.You dont understand the point of religious texts.That's okay. That's what apologetics are for.
>>42039751Nice, anyways talk to me when you read just 1 piece of academic literature relating to theology retard
>>42039768I've been having these discussions with Christians for a couple years now and I'm starting to think they literally just can't conceptualize the full implications of words like "omnipotent" and "omniscient" actually are.
>>42039765>>42039770>being so mad you reply twice to the same postI guess I must have hit a nerve
>>42039246The universe is eternal but god exists?what's the point of god, isn't he supposed to create?You conceptual view on god is incoherent, unless if you expand on what you mean on an eternal universe
>>42039784>The universe is eternal but god exists?Why is that preposterous to you, but when asked who created God, you say God is eternal?
>>42039776Okay?I'm not Christian nor Abrahamic, and I will take this as concession that you are actually fine with apologetics and would like to continue.What is your issue with omnipotence and omniscience?Do you think pointing to this universe somehow negate them, as if THIS is God's perfect or even only place?
>>42039792>What is your issue with omnipotence and omniscience?I don't have an "issue" with those concepts. What I was getting at is you people always say things like "well god had to do x because y". Key word: HAD. Who is making God subject to conditions?
>>42039795I dont say that.God never HAS to do anything.God has whims, not needs.Can I stop being "those people" at some point?
>>42039797This thread is aimed at Abrahamic conceptions of God, who they portray as a king/despot. So if you don't believe in that I'm not sure what this thread really has for you.
>>420397791. you refuse to meaningfully engage in any points2. you have literally NO theological knowledge3. you depend on Ad hominem to run away4. it wasn't even me who called you out on the fallacy5. You haven't even heard of popular moral theological arguments 6. You model of god and the universe is incompatible7. your model of god is deeply confusedin conclusion you are a deeply confused dystheisit who doesn't have the slightest bit of theological knowledge
>>42039804>You model of god and the universe is incompatibleI forgot to mention, I don't think Yahweh is eternal either. The universe is. Yahweh is a liar through and through.
>>42039804And you act shocked when someone so retared pisses me off
>>42039803>This thread is aimed at Abrahamic conceptions of GodNo it isnt. OP starts with a belief in an evil God, doesnt say Abrahamaic or anything restricting it to just that.That conception is wrong.Is that the only thing you have knowledge of, and you dont want to hear about other conceptions of God?
>>42039809Don't bother op is just so high up his ass that he would reduce everything just to cope even though hasn't read 1 piece of theological arguments or logical reasoning
>>42039746The world isn't fair so there's no reason to believe the one who created it is
>>42039806not the guy you are responding to, but two thing.1. So you think Yahweh is real but not eternal (and for the sake of this question i am going to steel man you and assume that you have the crude culture understanding of god and just work form that), so my question to you is What do you think he came from, seeing as he is not eternal and your model of the universe is, additionally what is your reasoning that he is finite2. >>42039758Respond don't be a pussy
>>42039830things*One last thing, what would be Yahweh purpose seeing that he exists, he obviously didn't create this world so what does he do and why
>>42039830>What do you think he came fromCreated by another god (likely his father, El)>who created himTurtles all the way down, since the universe is eternal. Gods begetting gods begetting gods. They're like the Q from Star Trek.
>>42039828If I die and meet him can I not convince him to let things become fair?Neutrality could also mean fairness and not one sidedness of good or evil, maybe even logic
>>42039839>>42039839>Gods begetting gods begetting godsHey just to let you know that your make believe fancy cosmology is logically impossible as you would fall into and infinite regresses, but i doubt you would even know what that would mean. additionally you missed my point >what is your reasoning that he is finiteig your eyes skimmed to fast and you missed that question loltherefore more your super quick eyes eyes skimmed my other question were i asked you >so what does he do and whyfinallyAnswer my question you pussy bitch>42039758
>>42039839Is the universe evil?That is your true conception of god - the impersonal eternal universe.You dont seem to believe god is evil, you just dont accept this line of powerful beings as god, despite the label you put on them.
>>42039857>fancyFantasy*
>>42039860>>Is the universe evil?The Universe isn't an entity. It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.
>>42039868>It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.People say this of god.>The Universe isn't an entity.Yes it is.You meant to say it isnt a person.And yes - it would be an IMPERSONAL conception of God.So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.
>>42039784>isn't he supposed to create?Well he doesn't, read Genesis again. "The waters" already exist when Yahweh shows up and starts letting there be things. That's Tehom, the pre-cosmic ocean. It was a universal belief in the ancient near east, not only in early Yahwism.
>>42039876>People say this of god.Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not. They say he is all good or "omnibenevolent"
>>42039877NTA but Tehom is obviously outer space.
>>42039880>Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not.Yes they do, and the bible says he does as well.>They say he is all good or "omnibenevolent"That is their judgement of god, not the fact that he creates good and evil.And it doesnt really matter what THEY say.I was asking you.So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.
>>42039877The vast waters and oceans symbolize chaos and disorder in Jewish thought. This illustrates that God embodies order as He creates harmony from the disarray.Anyways I'm not Christian so don't assume that
>>42039886>Yes they doThen go on /his/ right now and say God is the creator of evil, see what happens.
>>42039894Why? No. You get your own proof.And it doesnt really matter what THEY say.I was asking you.So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.
>>42039894He wouldn't, he only posted here so he can hopefully confuses the x sctizos, And yet he has been bitched two different times >>42039857>>42039804/thread
>>42039885Nope. Tehom is the prima materia before it's been ordered into forms. That's all Genesis says Yahweh did if you read it closely and know about its cultural context.
>>42039851God is a force of nature. He isn't bound by man-made concepts like good and evil. He's a lion who kills you because he's hungry and just because he can
>>42039904>he only posted hereI am not OP. I am asking OP why he says he believes God is evil fro creating good and evil, when he believes the universe is neutral even though the universe is the source of good and evil.
>>42039857Why is infinite regress impossible but somehow God existing forever and never having not existed totally reasonable to you? If everything requires a cause, why is God exempt from that?
>>42039901not the guy you was talking to, but yet again you are a fucking retard, the burden of proof would be on you as you made the claim that>Yes they do,you need to substantiate that
>>42039913XDDDD>Why is infinite regress impossible XDDDDDgo to sleep bro you know literally nothing XD
>>42039914>you made the claim thatI made the claim that it is said of God that he creates good and evil.Have you not read the Bible?YOU wanted to make a populace statistic claim of who says it.Go ahead and present your statistic.And it doesnt really matter what THEY say.I was asking you.So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.Everyone can see that you absolutely refuse to touch this. Coward.
>>42039923ARE you fucking retrared>I was asking you.I literally said >not the guy you was talking toHoly shit
>>42039931>not the guy you was talking to>thjat means I cant be asked a questionI was asking you.So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.You want to jump in, you can answer the question.It's a simple question.
>>42039919So why is God exempt? You need to answer the second part of my post.
>>42039923>Coward??you>>42039857 >>42039804yet you are calling others Cowards, comical
>>42039938Neither of those are my post.And you still havent answered a simple question.Coward.
>>42039935I jumped in to clarify that the burned of proof was on you, nothing out, if someone in the crowd points out a mistake during the debate it doesn't meant that he goes up on the fucking state to debate now.
>>42039944>I jumped in to clarify that the burned of proof was on youYou were wrong. the claim was of a statistic, and the burden is on them to provide the statistic.
>>42039942>Neither of those are my post.Never said that they was, i was showing posts which you haven't responded to because you was to reatred and had nothing to you dumbass.>>42039936because if everything had a cause and there was not an something which was nessery then this would result in everything being contingent (caused) on something else to substance itself, hence causing an infinite regress, i didn't respond because if you don't even understand how a fucking infinite regress impossible i see no point in talking to you
>>42039947No it was on>Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not.>Yes they do, and the bible says he does as well.retard
>>42039962thats what i was pointing out
>>42039959>showing posts which you haven't responded toI was never talking to them, moron.>>42039962>Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not.>I dont believe your statistic.>Provide proof.>go on /his/ and see what happens!>No. Provide your own proof.There. The wording fit your autism now?
>>42039959Something always existing with no cause or explanation is more nonsensical than infinite regress, because it is not logical.
>>42039973so you are not op XDDon't make me fucking laugh with this weak ass attempt of diversionyou made the claim that>>It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.>People say this of god.you was the first to prepose this in the first place hence the burden of proof is on you dumbassI don't care what the other guy said, that doesn't concern me hence i never got involved with the meat of the argument,I cant keep talking to a retared who already got bitched two times, its frying my brain>>42039857 >>42039804
>>42039987>is more nonsensical than infinite regresssomething which is completely illogcial can not be more or less logical dumbass you dont even know what an infinite regress, respectfully stfu
>>42040010If the concept of infinity is logical to you then it doesn't follow that you would believe the person of God is eternal (i.e. existed for an infinite amount of time)
>>42040001>so you are not opNo.>>It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.The person I was talking to, I think OP, said this about the universe as an explanation for why the universe is not evil.I responded.>People say this of god.Because that is exactly what the Bible says about God, and thus if the universe does this and is neutral, then it should mean when god does it God is neutral.>you was the first to prepose this in the first place hence the burden of proof is on youSo you are not aware that God in the Bible says he created good and evil?
>>42040019>If the concept of infinity is logical to you*is illogical to you, is what I meant to say
>>42040019>If the concept of infinity is logical to youI'm going to assume that you meant illogical retardnever said that; i said that concept one god creates another god which creates another god of eternity is an infinite regress hence its illogical
>>42040028>infinity isn't illogical>infinite regress is illogicalWhat about the infinite regress is it that makes it too difficult for you to understand?
>>42040024yes you are stop lying>People say this of god.>Because that is exactly what the Bible says about God, and thus if the universe does this and is neutral, then it should mean when god does it God is neutral.>you was the first to prepose this in the first place hence the burden of proof is on you>So you are not aware that God in the Bible says he created good and evil?still haven't provided proof that People say this of god.
>this thread
>>42040037idk that the fact that you are trying to justify an infinite regress or that you don't understand how an infinite regress is impossible scares me more.An infinite regress is not the same as infinity, look you don't even know what an infinite regress is so respectfully pick up a book or two because you have no idea what your talking aboutthis is so tiresome
>>42040040>yes you are stop lyinglol retard>still haven't provided proof that People say this of god.So you arent aware.Isaiah 45:7 has God saying he creates such evils.>>42040044The fact that the retard suddenly mixed people up is endlessly frustrating.
>>42040044kek can i be the pepe laughing please
>>42040051>you don't understand how an infinite regress is impossibleAn entity always existing with no explanation is not more logical than infinite regress. At least infinite regress can be followed back forever, eternal God is just a brick wall.
>>42040056Again you have to provide proof that People say this of god. i don't care what bible verse you have, a lot off people don't even have a full understanding of the bible
>>42040056Again if you follow the responses back its op, stop trying to fucking lie>>42040063You think an infinite regress logicalGG have fun
>>42040065>i don't care what bible verse you haveThe Bible is people saying it.And again. I never cared what other people say.I asked a question of the person I was talking to.You mixed us up in an attempt to be logical and failed in every way possible.
>>42040069Not OP.I disagree with OP.I was asking them a question.You fucking retard.
>>42040071Yes i did anon your right, your so so right. my philosophy savant who thinks the infinite regress is logical you so logical XD
>>42040077>who thinks the infinite regress is logicalI havent once said that phrase in any of my posts, you moron.That is another anon.
>>42040069Someone else should read our reply chain and chime in.
>>42040065>>42040069Not anyone you guys are beefing with but the anon is right a infinite regress illogical
>>42040087whatttt my philosophy savant! yes you did >At least infinite regress can be followed back forever, eternal God is just a brick wall.hence trying to justify it>>42040077NOOOdont say that my my philosophy savant who thinks the infinite regress is logical is right your not
>>42040098>>42040091*
>>42040088you know what yea i was wrong you aren't op i was a bit retraed for that,mb at lest i have the honestly to say that But your still a reatered for think an infinite regress is logical
>>42040098>yes you didNot my posts, retard.There are two people in here disagreeing with you.I have never once used that phrase in my posts.Go ahead and quote any post you think is mine.
>>42040123just admitted that you wasn't op?wtf are you doingBut your still a reaterd to think an infinite regress is logical
>>42040126>think an infinite regress is logicalI have never once used that phrase. That wasnt me, anon.Promise.I wasnt the guy talking about that concept with you.Quote the post you think was me.
>>42040128exact word fallacy>>42040063also anon XD
>>42040128you know what anon we are both kinda retared (granted im a bit less retared)you like hentai.I like hentailets call a truce, its 2 am for me i need to sleep
>>42040132You have a problem with hentai?Do you think that is supposed to be embarrassing?Are you a child?>42040063Not me.Want to try again?You were wrong I was OP.You are wrong I am the guy with whom you were complaining about that phrase.
>>42040143Bye, coward.You never answered my question.
>>42040145>>42040063>Not me.ok don't lie, we can actually run a chain of response for that one, this is fooling no one
>>42040153We can do this all night.
>>42039664>That sounds like slavery your ISKCON theology is literally the Hindu equivalent of American protestant Christianity >Most saints and spiritual masters are in conflict with another one. Yeah, like how Shiva worshippers say that Shiva is the causeless cause of all causes, word for word like ISKCON followers describing Krishna Dharmic religions also blame victims for their suffering based on HYPOTHETICAL crimes from HYPOTHETICAL past lives >I wouldnt want to be in a place controlled by someone who doesnt allow anything but their own conception of perfect. That is literally ISKCON's version of Heaven. Their god also kicks you out when you disagree with it. Or even better when you stop worshipping him after growing up in the broken-person trauma factory that is ISKCON then he decides to torture you by causing bad circumstances that never happened to you before in your life and using a sadistic abusive person to torture you, and give you nightmares about him, and attack you in a dream after you pray to him about something and then don't follow through with it, and when you pray to him about something else you almost completely stop being able to remember your dreams after that. Krishna destroyed my life and has been torturing me for 3 years since I stopped worshipping him. No one believes me. I read someone say they got serious bad luck after throwing out a Ganesha statue. Hinduism shouldn't be dealt with by foreigners. Half of ISKCON are secretly still Christians anyway. All you guys do is create broken people and broken children and broken families. Indian spirituality to non-Indians is like an unexplored forest on an island that humans have never inhabited. You have no idea what you're getting into, and the presence of evil is tolerated.
>>42039232What's a God? I don't understand the post.
I empathize with a God, must be a very lonely existence.
>>42039232>create a reality where animals have to kill and eat each other to survive.eh i mean, what if it is just evolution, then life is just inherently morbid. so i don't know how much i blame god for that.
>>42041076There's only so much room on this planet.
>>42039232You're a fucking retard>>42040917bot idiot>>42041055He survive in a vacuum by Himself
>>42039232>animals have to kill and eat each other to survive.What's evil about that?
