>>42463261
all you will get from this thread is a shitload of retarded cope attempts and a lot of personal insults directed at you.
because the retards here have no real answers but will feel the delusion they chose to believe in is under attack.

how can you judge when humans cause so many other species to suffer, in a lot of ways similar to the tongue parasite.
so really all you can hope for is the the monkey feeding off you isn't so hungry and violent

>>42463261
We live in a fallen creation. Everything God made was good, death didn't exist until Adam rebelled against God and let sin into the world.

>>42463373
but you didnt answer OP's question

File: 1757124196430293.jpg (97 KB, 564x557)

97 KB JPG

>>42463261
It's a literal arms race of Life VS Life and Life VS Death. As life finds way to compete other life forms also have to find ways which often leads to corruption. Same thing with death, it's death job to cull the gluttony of life and as life finds ways to cheat death then death itself has to find more unusual ways to win.

And if God did in fact get involved you would cry about him being a tyrant.

>>42463484
That is the Christian mythology, yes.

>>42463261
Because suffering is logically necessary for the formation of virtue, a higher-order good. It is also logically necessary for there to be meaning to the choice to continue being.

God is Being ("'I AM WHO AM", so tell them that 'I AM' sent you"), as well as Truth and Love/Goodness. If you study morality for long enough you will find that there is a logic to it. Good and evil are not called "right and wrong" accidentally. It's all one thing.

God already eternally has the love of God, among the Trinity.
He already has beings who endlessly praise and worship Him, singing "Holy! Holy! Holy!" without a free choice to do otherwise and without any disturbance, forever (that is essentially what the correct description of an 'infinite eternal bliss' state is without being hedonic).

In Him is the infinite, perfect form of the transcendentals I mention above (Goodness/Love, Truth, Being). So what is left that is valuable to create? A demonstration of what Goodness/Love, Truth, and Being are. So to answer the question directly: even pre-human animal suffering is a demonstration of Being, specifically.

The animals know what today so many are forgetting. That existence is *good.* Being is good. They struggle day and night just for the chance to continue Being. Yet, depressed Gen Z (which I am, at 25) think existence is bad, that it's bad to bring more children into the world, etc. They ignore the lesson that all of our animal AND human forefathers died to try and instill in us.

This (not just the above paragraph, the whole thing) is what the entire drama from Eden to Christ to Revelation is about. Christ on the Cross is the perfect display once and for all of how good is superior, to e.g. evil (malice, Machiavellian thinking, etc.), not by a 'might makes right' display but by literally demonstrating evil orchestrating its own defeat. I can say more on that if needed.

>>42463261
Before you were born billions of years past and you didn't suffer, when you die, you won't suffer for eternity.

God makes you exist in a world of suffering where you can choose to pull up your big boy pants and despite your own suffering, you resist the temptation to devolve into resentfulness and simply try your best to do good.

And here you are bitching about God trying to help you and give you a challenging experence instead of nothingness.

ngmi

File: 694675afa644d5b8d0031d1f5(...).jpg (2.29 MB, 2294x3467)

2.29 MB JPG

>>42463556
Life is also good because it always has the potential to be something, anything, and to hold a consciousness that can create and appreciate the world around itself. If there is no life it's a zero, nothing to sprout and no thought to appreciate, it is such a concept of zero that calling it a zero is heresy. Zero is the ultimate evil.

And this is why they are trying to push nihilism. They hate god and his creations so they want a zero to happen so it will take a long, long time for god to create and bring up creation once again.

>>42463556
>defending suffering
Thank god that you will suffer in hell

File: goodnevil.png (685 KB, 997x448)

685 KB PNG

>>42463596
You are weak so you can't handle suffering. I am strong so I seek suffering. To overcome suffering is to get closer to God.

>>42463596
Are you a Christian?

File: MV5BNDEzMWU2YWUtOWVkMy00O(...).jpg (2.39 MB, 1270x1814)

2.39 MB JPG

>>42463261

Watch the 2012 movie called "The Bay"

>>42463261
God realized that the weird little bug guy is alot happier and cozy inside his little living fish home than the fish is suffering so its okay because the total world happiness increased.

File: PlatosCave.jpg (209 KB, 640x556)

209 KB JPG

>>42463261
You are currently in shadow world, where everything is inverted. Our incarnate souls are the spiritual equivalent of horror movie fans. Hope you are enjoying.

>>42463582
>And this is why they are trying to push nihilism
No, its to demoralize and mentally weaken a population of people and to stifle spirituality.

>>42464057
thats what I said...

>>42464073
Nope, you said "they hate God and his creation".

>>42464075
Yeah, its both. Ohhh, I get it. You also hate God so you are trying to separate the two and downplay what the nihilists are doing.

>>42464087
Annnnnnd opinion discarded. You don't anything about me and I don't give a damn what you think.

Nihilism keeps people docile, so does religion. Stay mad.

File: are-you-serious-fr.gif (95 KB, 498x383)

95 KB GIF

>>42464095
*don't know

Oh, and eat shit anon. I was on your side before.

File: 1548205906301.jpg (500 KB, 1280x1707)

500 KB JPG

>>42464095
>>42464099
And you don't know anything about me either and just assumed things because I used the term "God". No need to get so emotional.

>>42464117
>just assumed things because I used the term "God".
?????

>>42464095
>>42464099
Seems to me like you're the mad one. God bless you friend; I genuinely wish you the very best in life.

>>42463978
like immigration basically.

>>42463261
Maybe God is just kinda evil, at least by our limited human perspective

>>42464135
If you mean this, then thanks. But something tells me this is passive-aggressive

>>42463605
go light your hands on fire right now if you're so hard

File: 1737867199099296.jpg (229 KB, 879x1047)

229 KB JPG

>>42464527
It has already been pre-ordained. I burnt my hand in the oven just an hour ago. Synchronicity event activated.

>>42463484
>We live in a fallen creation
A fall in consciousness

File: one_aperture.png (28 KB, 1000x1010)

28 KB PNG

>>42463261
It's meant to be a horrorcore world. There are better worlds. This one is so grotesque that it is getting discontinued though. I'm God by the way.

When I go back home, I'm discontinuing it. There are better worlds to play.

>>42463556
>Alright, first thing I'm gonna do, I'm gonna make an infinite host of living jukeboxes to play this shit song about how cool I am. Next, I'm gonna design the whipworm.

The rabbi in the sky is worse than the Qu. At least they have an internally consistent reason to make living drain covers.

I had backup plans.
It good.
It Garon

>>42463261
the only possible solutions are there either is no God or there is a God who is not omnipotent/all-powerful. If we try to create an omnipotent God, he becomes not all-loving because an all-powerful remotely compassionate human would snap his fingers and end all suffering. Why doesn't God do that? Suffering builds character? There is no justification for suffering when the alternative is eternal bliss for all. So I think it's possible there's a NOT omnipotent God, but I'm not sure if it's that or no God.

>>42463484
hey retard, the oldest predator lived half a billion years ago. Are Adam and Eve older?

>>42464291
It isn’t.
>>42464841
God didn’t specifically design the whipworm by decree. He does permit its existence, though.

>>42463261
life must be pretty good if this is what it took to get here
https://www.bitchute.com/video/stKA5m5XrLm1

>>42464905
Muh science.
Bro evolution is debunked, epigenetics is legit but macro evolution is borked, DNA is too complicated and we have living dinosaur tissue, which isn't supposed to be possible given that the carbon half life is only 5000yrs. Also billions of missing in-between fossils

>>42466492
>we have living dinosaur tissue
what do you mean? the "reptile" brain?

File: Screenshot_20260529_01215(...).jpg (834 KB, 949x1405)

834 KB JPG

>>42463373
we really need a website for people who suffer enough in life to end up on this website but can also socialize without running into psychos who take out all their anger on random people because they can get away with it through a screen

File: giphy.gif (1.49 MB, 480x320)

1.49 MB GIF

>>42464796
>This one is so grotesque that it is getting discontinued though.
yay

File: TNPCD.jpg (11 KB, 168x300)

11 KB JPG

>>42463484
>Oh how i live in such a satanic place with water coming from the ground
kys christian. Follow your leader Legion. Jesus Hates you with a passion and is the anti-christ demon baby that went after the Tree of Life. He took that away from you and me.
>Mortgages go from 7 years to 30
Christians must be put to death. What remains of them, that Holy Spirit was not his to give. It took off on him, same way bird took off in the garden.

God deserves picrel and He knows it but he is not REALLY God. It is only a belief, he just thinks he is God. He just believes he created everything. It is only real in his mind and Hell is the engine he needs for his fake heaven.

Your judgement is sound, a benevolent God would not give rise to this mishmash universe.

Basically, out of nothing appeared elements, and they converge in chaos endlessly, the universes appearing and dissolving. And there's no control or order over them, it's pure entropy. But you could say that God is what gives this entropy the lovability, the beauty amidst everything.

Because God is exempt from any particularities, it includes and transcends everything simutaneously. Consciousness is basically God in terms of the world, it allows one to see all, but it remains untouched by all.

Do you question why a a dream or a nightmare has appeared in such a way? No, it just happens, then it ends. That is the exact human life, but mind and memory step in the way and make you believe it's real and you take yourself for what you are not.

You will never find God in the observable universe, even though the observable universe cannot exist without God. You could say the lord of this world is Satan, because it is pure entropy without a guiding hand. The Christ/Krishna is therefore the high consciousness that allows one to perceive beyond the veil.

>>42466896
Least obvious demon possessed degenerate

>>42463261

The Lord sent his only son to earth to die a brutal death he didn't deserve for your sake and the sake of all mankind. What makes you think any person or animal deserves better?

You are not God, you have no frame of reference for right or wrong outside of him and any you think you have is far less good and righteous as he, there is not even a comparison to make due to how little any of us measure up to the Glory.

Demons hate this fact and they will use any argument they can conceive to try to fight it but it is folly because any argument they make it inherently false.

Repent, turn away from sin and seek the Father. You are loved. God bless you.

>>42467573
Are you seriously justifying this fallen world? If you wanna love it, then love it bro.

>>42467661
Fanfiction. Even the fucking flood story was stolen

>>42463487
There is no answer, because answer assumes epistemically accessible and ontologically true logic. Both are under the questioning. "Answer" is a formal construct following logic. If it is fallible, it is not answering fundamental questions. It will just be another proposition.

>>42467675

Jesus Christ loves you. There is enough evidence to prove the he existed. The rest is up to you. I pray he appears before you in dreams or visions.

>>42467670
>guy listen to me!! i know more than you all!! i'm so edgy i hate religion!!!
you're so full of shit you could be a manure factory.

>>42463484
The bible itself disagrees with you.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45: 7

Get fucked, you gaslighting piece of shit

>>42463605
You can get even closer by putting a shotgun in your mouth and pulling the trigger

>>42463261
For once, is it a parasitic or symbiotic relationship? Secondly, suffering builds character. Thirdly, it is population control so that the planet doesn't get overpopulated.

>>42463261
Some bad news for you, that's not how God works.

I feel like suffering is just another piece of the engine that keeps the machine running, shoot me out of a fucking cannon idk

>>42467777
absolutely blessed quads.

>>42467670
Are you retarded or something?

File: 1776251980198.jpg (198 KB, 728x1280)

198 KB JPG

>>42463556
>He already has beings who endlessly praise and worship Him, singing "Holy! Holy! Holy!" without a free choice to do otherwise and without any disturbance, forever
imagine this boring fucking shit being your eternity
i just wanna go on infinite adventures with finn and jake
why does god hate what i want?

>>42463487
all forms of life on this planet crave punishment.

>>42467675
If there was a worldwide flood, we would see it mentioned in other cultures, which we do. This isn't the gotcha you think it is, you just gave evidence to support the Bible.

File: Screenshot_20260515_13235(...).jpg (393 KB, 1920x1080)

393 KB JPG

>>42467776
>suffering builds character
>suffering builds character
>suffering builds character

>>42466492
> we have living dinosaur tissue
I promise you we do not and you misinterpreted what you read. Evolution is fact at this point. You're just throwing true things away because it doesn't agree with this ancient jewish gobbledygook you read about man's suffering being man's fault because it couldn't possibly be God's or nature's (it's nature's)

File: WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD.jpg (1.29 MB, 2501x1666)

1.29 MB JPG

>>42467661
If God is omnipotent, he can build our souls without suffering. Since he can't do that, he is not omnipotent. Christians need to stop crying when someone refutes omnipotence — it's impossible. But you also say we deserve suffering and fish deserve suffering. This is because you can't cope with the reality of meaningless suffering, which is all suffering, in the face of someone like a God who is supposed to exist and make our lives better. Well he's not making our lives better. Miracles happen but they're absurdly rare, as if God can't perform many of them. You would like to think that a child praying to not have cancer deserves cancer when it's not healed. That's fucked up emotionally because it's fucked up theology, unless of course we're saying the kid did something in a past life. But Christianity doesn't know about reincarnation because it's somewhat wrong.

>>42467961
>Evolution is fact at this point.
woa, you must be a troll, let me guess you put dino juice in your car too

>>42467855
>If there was a worldwide flood, we would see it mentioned in other cultures, which we do.
Truth
>evidence to the Bi-Bull
Try again. Do more research, lurk more.

>>42467841
How Christian of you.

>>42467687
Altered states of consciousness/religious experiences are a form of high gamma wave, can be generated through a 8 coil Shakta. The 'voice of God'-technology works the same way.
You refuse to understand the deeper esoteric symbolism of the Old and New Testaments and how these religions and cults correspond to the Astrological ages.
You use fear, passive-aggressiveness to proseltyze others. You don't know my life story. I was born into a Christian family. Don't even go there, fag.

>>42463261
>god
God in the usual sense doesn't exist. To the extent that god does exist, it's more a philosophical language game. People refer to nature, consciousness or love as synonyms for god, but that just proves mainstream religions wrong even more.

>>42467746
>>guy listen to me!! i know more than you all!!
No argument. I know more than you, SJW.
>im so edgy I hate religion!
Because its quite literally a tool by the Saturn cult to keep people like you docile, repressed and fanatical. You wanna keep making yourself look foolish?

>>42468033
the only fool here, is you. you use words you don't understand to bolster your ridiculous argument. just because you scream the loudest doesn't make you correct. waste digits on a wasted vessel. i pray you find the light.

>>42467855
Enki and Oannes were changed to Noah and John the Baptist in the Biblical flood story.

>>42468033
Haha, I get it. "SJW" in this context means Saturn's Jewish Warrior. Heheh.

>>42468036
Again, you only have insults. Jesus is a mythological sun god. You CANNOT cope with this fact. Satan was stolen from Pan in Greek mythology. You literally cannot fathom any of this because it is too much for you
>i pray
Yes, you are prey.

>>42468036
>just because you scream the loudest doesn't make you correct.

You do realize there is countless information on Astrotheology, right?

>>42468043
ok so now you're spouting divisive bullshit. i offer only insults because your mind is already closed, filled with random words that somehow conform to an irrational logic only possible in your warped mind. you can cope however you like but you, yourself seem to carry demonic energy. only a demon would seek to tarnish Jesus as savagely as you. furthermore, i can glean (rather obviously) that you have the spirit of a naive kid, trying to prove to their parents that they know more when in fact, they know very little.
i will still pray that you see the light.
>>42468052
be that as it may be, that anon is clearly just an edgy teenager that learned some new words yesterday and is now on a campaign to show everyone the "truth". they are the epitome of a demonic force. i rebuke it.

>>42463261
BECAUSE HE IS A NON OMNIPOTENT KIKE AND THERE IS NO OMNIPOTENCE DUH

>>42468043
Also calling me a wasted vessel is insane. I do more to elevate people in my personal life around me and in my community. No, I don't argue religion in real life.

>>42468058
>I do more to elevate people in my personal life around me and in my community.
KEK you are the biggest KWAB on this entire site.
the only thing you "elevate" is your dick into your hand. you are a complete buffoon.

>>42463556
i bet you rape kids christcucks always do

>>42468056
>be that as it may be, that anon is clearly just an edgy teenager that learned some new words yesterday and is now on a campaign to show everyone the "truth". they are the epitome of a demonic force. i rebuke it.
I'm not an edgy teenager and wish you the best in life. Just someone who wishes to expose the Saturn cabal.
Have a good one.

>>42468063
Juvenile, non-stop insults. You call me demonic though. How funny. Keep going SJW. You realize that, right?

Again, there is COUNTLESS info on Jesus being a sun god.

>>42468056
>only a demon would seek to tarnish Jesus as savagely as you
Dude, the NT has plenty of wisdom in it. You can take some of those teachings and apply to your life to better yourself.
That doesn't change the fact that most of the stories are myths or stolen and the Bible is a calendar.

If anything, you should be EMBODYING Jesus. Acting like him, being humble and kind.

>>42468001

Job 38

You have eyes but cannot see, you have ears but cannot hear. You are not God and to try to say you know better than God is folly.

Repent, turn from Sin and accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Good luck.

>>42468071
You've exposed nothing but make yourself look foolish. You whinge about "SJWs" but an SJW wouldn't argue in favour of Christ as the majority are against religion in all forms.
I should have not taken you seriously when your first instinct was to call me an SJW but it's funny to see crazy people such as yourself talk.
>>42468084
>If anything, you should be EMBODYING Jesus. Acting like him, being humble and kind.
this is the guiding principle in my life. that said, anyone who feels the need to tear down the ONLY good force in our life, is just as bad as an evil (read: demonic) force.

>>42468094
>You whinge about "SJWs" but an SJW wouldn't argue in favour of Christ as the majority are against religion in all forms.
I reject your fake culture war. I called you SJW because you argue entirely on emotion.
>this is the guiding principle in my life. that said, anyone who feels the need to tear down the ONLY good force in our life, is just as bad as an evil (read: demonic) force.
I didn't once tear down or insult Jesus. I just believe he is another mythological sun god based on my own research. If you hate me for that, you want to call me a demon. Then by all means do that. I mean, at the end of the day, only God can truly judge us.

>>42463261
You are God. So ask yourself that question. Why do you make 4chan suffer by asking dumb, philosophical questions to shill a God that is outside of you?

>>42468102
>I just believe he is another mythological sun god
that's all i needed to hear, sweetie.
have a great day, but do study the words you use before using them.

>>42468105
Christianity is a continuation of Aryan solar worship.
>have a great day
I'll have an even better one because of you, anon. Thank you :)

>>42468105
>but do study
Right back at you.

https://cogniarchae.com/2020/02/15/ancient-astronomy-from-vedas-and-egypt-to-christianity/
https://cogniarchae.com/2020/04/21/from-prometheus-to-christ-the-crucifixion-stories/
https://cogniarchae.com/2017/01/06/orion-worship-part-1-christianity/
https://cogniarchae.com/2018/07/13/jesus-donkey-dionysian-christianity/

I do not think this conversation will make you more humble or kind sad to say. Bye

>>42468119
to be honest this hasn't really changed anything for me at all. my love for Christ comes from his adherence to side of good. you can consider Jesus to be anything, but when I think of Jesus, I think of Good but that's my >belief
so it doesn't really mean squat in this discussion. i choose to respect and help people because that is what an adherence to the greater good is about.

>>42467844
They don't get bored anon; they probably can't even be considered conscious. They're more akin to automata. That's part of why it was meaningful to create us, by comparison.

Why don't you try to put your faculties towards the adventure of helping those less fortunate than yourself?

>>42468064
Stop projecting.

File: 29UE7.jpg (494 KB, 1034x1121)

494 KB JPG

>>42468119
Hi anon; don't be a victim of parallelomania.

See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SyPPhwNfqQ

and the absolute embarrassing result of mythicism when confronted by someone knowledgeable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA

>>42463261
Because fuck fish. Srsly tho angsty first world materialism reduced everything not hedonistic to literal torture. The lion suffers every failed hunt as does the gazelle, but this suffering is operation of life actively pursuing continued existence against an environment most living creatures have little to no immediate control over. Don't mistake the term of suffering with torture.

>>42463261
I'm not going to read this thread but I guarantee it's full of the most absurd mental gymnastics to avoid the very obvious conclusion to any objective assessment of the structure of the world: there is either no god or if there is, it is not a benevolent one.

The fact that fangs and claws are such common features, found on everything from microscopic organisms to colossal squid, is more than sufficient to reach this conclusion. If you sit for a bit and really consider the implications, of the exact use of fangs and claws and the nature of a reality that makes them such a universal adaptation, you very quickly lose any ability to believe in a benevolent god.

This reality, if it was designed, was designed at the most basic level to revolve around suffering and to have suffering as an absolutely necessary component to life. A benevolent, omnipotent God could have created a world without suffering and any suggestion otherwise is pure cope.

>>42468261
There can be a non-omnipotent God. Everyone forgets that for some reason and jumps to no God

>>42468261
>A benevolent, omnipotent God could have created a world without suffering and any suggestion otherwise is pure cope.

Yes anon, no one denies that God *could have* created a world without any suffering. The question is whether such a God would have any good reason to permit suffering for some higher-order good.

Consider Kelly Inglis' work on a hypothetical "universal pure pleasure state" which contains no suffering. It turns out that most people reject such a state when asked about it, correctly I'd say, because it's the functional equivalent of suicide. Conscious experience as we live out requires differentiation between things and some things being preferable to others.

Let's also not forget that under classical theism, omnipotence doesn't include logical impossibilities like four-sided triangles. God can do *any thing*, not non-things like the non-thing that the string of words "a four-sided triangle" references. Here's a relevant example: we hold in day to day life that coerced actions are not counted for or against the one coerced. For example, if you're forced to donate to charity, we don't take that as indicating that you have a generous character. You have to choose it. Hence, free will. If you try to say, "But God should make it so that you can freely will it, but actually you don't have a choice and will do it every time," that's a logical contradiction omnipotence itself doesn't warrant.

>>42468296
>functional equivalent of suicide
Buddhists dedicate their entire lives to meditation just to escape suffering permanently. They are not killing themselves... They are the smartest religion clearly because they actually solve the problem of suffering unlike Christianity which results in you going to an astral afterlife (not some final Heaven) and then reincarnating

File: glownigger.gif (448 KB, 322x367)

448 KB GIF

>>42468212
>this is bullshit
I wonder who could be behind this post. Zeitgeist was absolutely true about everything. So was the blood transfusion.

>>42468313
>Buddhists dedicate their entire lives to meditation just to escape suffering permanently. They are not killing themselves...

One of the oldest and most persistent critiques of Buddhism is that the Buddhist is literally seeking after annihilation of the self.

>They are the smartest religion clearly because they actually solve the problem of suffering

It doesn't solve anything. Buddhism concedes to suffering from the start and then is all about how to get out from under it; Christianity is about overcoming suffering.

>>42468296
And here we have a fine example of said absurd mental gymnastics. God couldn't create a world without suffering because he works in mysterious ways and there is a purpose to suffering because...

You people utterly lack imagination. An omnipotent creator god could easily create a reality which achieved whatever "higher-order good" you're imagining without any downsides. He could absolutely create a reality which included things that are logical impossibilities in this one. I honestly think that you people always come out with the most retarded takes because you're simply too stupid to engage in the sort of abstract thought required to comprehend the concept of an omnipotent being.

Your position here is essentially that there are forms and concepts which exist outside of god, which he is powerless to change. A four sided triangle is a logical impossibility that even god is powerless to change? That's not an omnipotent god and most christians would consider it blasphemy.

>a hypothetical "universal pure pleasure state" which contains no suffering
Such as the Christian concept of heaven?

>It turns out that most people reject such a state when asked about it, correctly I'd say
So you intend to reject heaven?

>>42468325
>One of the oldest and most persistent critiques of Buddhism is that the Buddhist is literally seeking after annihilation of the self.
Yes, ignorant people have been misinterpreting Buddhism for a long time. This is not news.

File: astral.jpg (29 KB, 600x300)

29 KB JPG

>>42468325
Buddhism teaches that there never was a self in the first place and we're all just deluded in believing there is one, and once we realize there isn't one suffering vanishes. It's not about trying to commit suicide — like I said they already believe we don't exist. Christianity might have solved the problem of suffering for saints who are in actual heaven, but everyone else goes to The Park which Robert Monroe described as at Focus level 27. This place is depicted in the Italian movie Astral City.

>>42468202
I help spiders by letting them live in my house without getting squished or relocated outside

>>42468329
>because he works in mysterious ways

I know this is probably your favorite line to parody, but I never said or implied anything like it.

>An omnipotent creator god could easily create a reality which achieved whatever "higher-order good" you're imagining without any downsides. He could absolutely create a reality which included things that are logical impossibilities in this one. I honestly think that you people always come out with the most retarded takes because you're simply too stupid to engage in the sort of abstract thought required to comprehend the concept of an omnipotent being.

No, I think you just have a very simple view of omnipotence that isn't what most developed classical theists actually endorse.

>Your position here is essentially that there are forms and concepts which exist outside of god, which he is powerless to change. A four sided triangle is a logical impossibility that even god is powerless to change? That's not an omnipotent god and most christians would consider it blasphemy.

Logic is grounded in God's nature; He is Truth itself. It's not some separate thing apart from Him. That in mind, no, God cannot act contrary to His own nature. For example, God cannot stop being God.

>Such as the Christian concept of heaven?

The point of Christianity is not "going to heaven" despite what American televangelists preach. Our eternal fate is in the new creation. Though, re: suffering, yes, the whole point is that there's a reason why God did not just create us 'in heaven' from the start, eternally. Virtue is not formed in heaven; heavenly saints retain the virtues that they cultivated on Earth. This is why the thought experiments about "hurr durr kill a bunch of babies so they automatically go to Heaven and you just take the hit and go to Hell" don't actually work. I wouldn't deprive a baby of the ability to actually become a virtuous, godly person through their time here on Earth. And, Hell is annihilation.

>>42468261
>Claws and teeth are scary
>Implications
Smoothbrain pussies can't grasp the gulf that separates abstractions created by rational feeling minds and the environmental driving nstincts of hungry beasts.

>>42468391
>developed classical theists
Aka people with a lot of practice at mental gymnastics. It does not surprise me in the least that such people would have found it necessary to redefine "omnipotence" since, as previously mentioned, the concept of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god is utterly incompatible with the reality of this world. If you're determined to believe in such a god, your only real option is to play semantic games to twist the meaning of omnipotence into something that makes your cope easier to swallow.

>Logic is grounded in God's nature
You are assuming that your personal human conception of logic based on the laws of this reality is the only way things could possibly be, as if god couldn't have created something entirely different, something that would be unimaginable to you. As always, you're reasoning backwards from your very specific and limited perspective. You assume that the way things seem to you must be the only possible way that they can be, and you attempt to imagine a concept of god that fits your preconceptions.

>The point of Christianity is not "going to heaven"
Oh, have we already reached this point of disingenuous debate? Didn't take you long at all, did it. Do people in heaven suffer, yes or no?

>Virtue is not formed in heaven
And god couldn't have made it possible for virtue to be formed in heaven because...? The god you're describing is little more than a human with some limited superpowers.

>>42468470
Went right over your head, didn't it? If you think any of that was what I was implying then you're the only smoothbrain here.

>>42468472
>that such people would have found it necessary to redefine "omnipotence"

Anon, I'm not sure how to break this to you, but your pop culture understanding of what "omnipotence" means in real terms ultimately doesn't mean anything in the broader debate over theism.

>You assume that the way things seem to you must be the only possible way that they can be, and you attempt to imagine a concept of god that fits your preconceptions.

Rather, I am simply holding to the notion that "ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made" (Romans 1:20). Why do you think a creator deity would create a reality that does not at all reflect what its nature is?

>The god you're describing is little more than a human with some limited superpowers.

Going out of order because this is worth addressing here: no, that's what you're doing in a different but more serious error. You're envisioning God as some guy who has the superpower "omnipotence", rather than God as "I AM WHO AM", the transcendental yet personal ground for truth, goodness, and being, who reveals His nature through His creation. Your objection basically boils down to, "What if God were different than what He is?", in which case, yes, of course creation would be radically different. But, it's not. He is who He is.

>Oh, have we already reached this point of disingenuous debate? Didn't take you long at all, did it. Do people in heaven suffer, yes or no?

What exactly was disingenuous ... ? I thought what I said addressed that no, there is no suffering in Heaven / the new creation, hence why no new/further virtue can be developed in heaven.

>And god couldn't have made it possible for virtue to be formed in heaven because...?

Because "forming virtue in the absence of the possibility of suffering" is a logical contradiction.

>>42468492
>your pop culture understanding of what "omnipotence" means in real terms
I would personally be ashamed to resort to this level of pilpul but you do you, I guess. I'm using the dictionary definition, which I assume is different than your special reinterpretation of the word that is a necessary part of maintaining your delusions? It's not a complex concept unless, of course, you need to start twisting the meaning to fit your argument.

The dictionary definition:
>Omnipotent: one who has unlimited power or authority

>I thought what I said addressed that no, there is no suffering in Heaven
But you said here >>42468296 that most people reject a state that contains no suffering and that you think they're correct to do so.

You are resorting to circular reasoning and nonsense like
>god has to be the way he is because the bible says so
and it's all getting to be a bit boring. If you can't have an honest discussion without resorting to nonsense word salad like
>God as "I AM WHO AM", the transcendental yet personal ground for truth, goodness, and being, who reveals His nature through His creation
then I think we're done here. I am envisioning a hypothetical omnipotent creator god as a what such a being would truly be: a force beyond human comprehension, capable of literally anything, whereas you are imagining a god made in man's image, constrained by human imagination, incapable of any act that a human mind might consider "illogical".

>Because "forming virtue in the absence of the possibility of suffering" is a logical contradiction.
Why would god be restricted by human concepts of logic? The god you profess to believe in and the god you're describing are two very different things. But yeah, this is looking more and more like a waste of time because all we're done is come in a circle right back to
>>42468329
>you're simply too stupid to engage in the sort of abstract thought required to comprehend the concept of an omnipotent being.

File: 51cf7c5dc5c5219adb81b3f5f(...).jpg (86 KB, 1016x763)

86 KB JPG

>a fish can suffer

>>42468628
>animals don't have pain receptors

>>42468638
pain is not the same thing as a suffering. fish have very basic reflexive nervous systems.

File: gog-alien (1).gif (2.38 MB, 258x344)

2.38 MB GIF

>>42468329
>you're simply too stupid to engage in the sort of abstract thought required to comprehend the concept of an omnipotent being.
Calm that ego, friend.

>>42468650
Yeah yeah, whatever, you're just playing the same stale kike semantic games.

We're considering a fish that has its tongue eaten by a parasite which then digs claws into the chewed off nub of a tongue and sits in the fish's mouth stealing its food until the fish starves to death. This fish is undeniably experiencing constant, agonizing pain, from both its tongue and from the process of slowly starving to death, a process that the fish of course couldn't possibly understand. It doesn't know why it's starving even though it keeps eating.

If you really feel the need to describe this scenario with a word other than "suffering" then I guess you can if you want but OP's basic point remains the same regardless of the exact word you decide is appropriate to describe this scenario.

File: ab818fd10452d2338796a1679(...).jpg (39 KB, 540x540)

39 KB JPG

>>42468694
dude you are just a retard. its not that complex. all your thoughts are retard thoughts.

you are not at the level where you can differentiate between such concepts like suffering and pain.

you literally just use words without having a clear idea of the meaning. it's no different from some monkey howling.

>>42468472
>the concept of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god is utterly incompatible with the reality of this world.
This is true. Don't they believe Satan is the God of this world anyway?

File: alegria.gif (2.85 MB, 498x320)

2.85 MB GIF

>>42468703
thats just the way it is... some things will never chaaaaange

>>42468611
>I would personally be ashamed to resort to this level of pilpul but you do you, I guess.
Oh, spare me, when you cannot help but continually include insults in your replies whereas I've done nothing of the sort in return.

>The dictionary definition
I'd recommend a resource like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you actually want something substantive instead of colloquial: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ This is fundamentally a meaningless critique, though. It ultimately bears on nothing if you believe that a God who can do literally anything except instantiate logical impossibilities shouldn't be called "omnipotent", because that's the God that I'm proposing and that's the God of the New Testament, who cannot act contrary to His own nature (e.g. Hebrews 6:18, that God cannot lie).

>You are resorting to circular reasoning and nonsense like, "god has to be the way he is because the bible says so"
My point was not "God has to be this way because the Bible says so," my point was, "We can glean information about God's nature from what He has chosen to create," an idea that I learned from scripture. I never said you have to accept that view because the Bible says so. So, feel free to actually give an argument as to why that's wrong.

>a force beyond human comprehension, capable of literally anything
Let me ask you what you asked me. Is what is true v. false and right v. wrong grounded in the God you are envisioning, or is it a separate thing over/and above him?

>Why would god be restricted by human concepts of logic?
Logical truth isn't human-invented; it's human-discovered. I'm talking about the *actual* logic that "human concepts of logic" refer to, not the words etc. that we use to refer to them: logical axioms that must precede even empirical knowledge.

>>42463261
Suffering has a purpose which is ultimately good

>>42468678
I accept your concession.

>>42468703
Son, I literally just finished telling you that I don't care what word you use to describe it. This semantic hair splitting over the difference between pain and suffering is completely irrelevant to OP's argument. Do fish have pain receptors, yes or no? Because if they do then the fish in this situation is experiencing the sensation of intense pain over a prolonged period. Is that "suffering"? It doesn't matter because your fixation on semantics (as previously mentioned, a very jewish trait) has nothing to do with the argument being made.

>>42468703
that's so convenient that you think animals who scream in pain don't suffer at all so now only humans can suffer and we suffer because we deserve it because of the garden of eden *myth*. No, humans don't deserve suffering and yes animals do suffer. If you have a pet go grab a knife and stab it in the eyes and see how you feel about what you've done. Or better yet give it a tongue parasite

>>42468212
Based Christianity bringing all of the western culture together to build the most beautiful height of human civilization.
Blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ.

File: 1779147765183234.png (379 KB, 537x529)

379 KB PNG

>>42468725
>I accept your concession
I'm just having a good time.

>>42468325
>>42468332
>Yes, ignorant people have been misinterpreting Buddhism for a long time. This is not news.
Buddhists themselves can't even explain fundamental parts of their own religion.
They can't explain "if there is no self what is being reborn", and they can't explain samsara chronologically. They just say that samsara has no beginning. If samsara has no beginning then that could be interpreted as meaning that it's infinite, which means that there should he an infinite amount of good karma you can draw from and never have to suffer bad karma. They also argue among their schools whether karma can be eliminated or not. Some say karma can never be erased or divided, some Tibetan Buddhists even have mantras that they claim just seeing the written mantra can remove aeons of bad karma. Hindus believe their gods can remove a person's karma. Some Hindus like Ramana Maharshi even said karma only exists for those who believe in it and everything comes from the Self.
Buddhism is the worst of all of the dharmic religions. It completely destroyed my life, mind, and fundamental understanding of reality. I literally lost almost all of my faith in existence itself because of it and have been spending the last few years trying to get it back while also going through the worst non-religion related circumstances of my entire life. Buddhism also made my ocd SEVERELY worse.
>t. grew up in a Hindu cult then became a serious strict Buddhist shortly and left Buddhism
i think Buddhism damages a person metaphysically. i think it weakens a person's soul and makes them unable to utilize their innate power and ability to create in reality. I've even heard someone who I think is from the Hindu cult i grew up in (which is actually just one particular Bengali tradition claiming itself and the god they worship to be the supreme one, which other Hindu schools do with their own traditions and respective deities) claim that Buddhists only make it to the "ocean of causality".

>>42468212
>parallelomania
That is NOT what my post is.
Please read the links yourself and point out any examples of parallelomania.

>>42468733
I will say one thing; I do like some of Jesus' teachings even if I don't believe he existed.

That's all I'll say.

File: 1d3f627251250c5d4b937e9ce(...).jpg (81 KB, 736x776)

81 KB JPG

>>42468725
i will try to keep it a very low level so you dont get too confused.

imagine you have a toothache. your painreceptors are firing. now depending your your mentality, it can either be a very big nuisance for you, or it can be something you barely notice.

anyone who has experienced prolonged or chronic pain of this nature knows that it is possible to have such a state of mind that the suffering associated with the pain is lessened or absent.

now for a fish, it is the opposite. it lacks the internal capacity to suffer like a human can suffer. for the fish, the constant pain it is experiencing in the case of your hypothetical, is akin to a constant tension.

it does not have an idea of itself and consequently not an idea of itself in pain.

>>42468611
>But you said here >>42468296 (You) that most people reject a state that contains no suffering and that you think they're correct to do so.

1. The state I mentioned was not just "no suffering" baseline, but "infinite hedonic pleasure." The point was that *some* realities lacking suffering are less preferable to realities that contain suffering, disproving the idea that any suffering at all automatically disproves God.
2. As I've said, what we carry forward into the "no suffering" state of the new creation is the virtues developed through suffering on Earth, rather than entering infinite hedonic pleasure.
3. This is why I said the point of Christianity is not to 'get to Heaven', i.e., get to the state without suffering, despite you thinking that was disingenuous deflection. Our eternal fate isn't something we choose or reject at the Final Judgement, *after* a life spent developing the orientation of our hearts, which we carry into it.

Also, the study I cited is about if you *right now* would make that choice, not if you would e.g. on your deathbed.

>>42468212
You do realize that the CROSS is actually an Aryan solar symbol, right?
That the flood story was taken from Sumerian mythology? And the Old Testament is the Epic of Gilgamesh repacked. Moses is quite literally Pharoah Akhenaten.
The problem with your meme too is that ALL of those stories pre-dated Christ. So why does Christ have so many parallels to these gods who just so happen to be solar deities? Why is this something that should just be.. brushed off and ignored? Because you believe in Jesuit/Roman propaganda?

Why is Jesus associated with the Age of Pisces? Why was bull worship so common during the Age of Taurus? Why is Pan/Satan actually Saturn? Can you answer any of these? If you can, we can start there. Or do you just have more popular Christian feel-good content to post?

Anyway, the truth will prevail eventually.. you also want to explain WHY astrology is so important to the el-ites too?

>>42468754
What a bunch of silly fanfiction. All you're doing is describing your own personal delusions and in a way that's bizarrely defensive. Let me guess, you don't like the implications of OP's question and you've decided to cope with it by declaring that fish can't suffer therefore god did nothing wrong by creating the parasite eating its tongue?

Pretty weak bro, not impressed at all. Nice little anime picture though, really helps me imagine the sort of person I'm dealing with.

>>42468777
>Let me guess, you don't like the implications of OP's question and you've decided to cope with it by declaring that fish can't suffer therefore god did nothing wrong by creating the parasite eating its tongue?
Refer to the pic here: >>42468734

>>42468185
You seem pretty cool, thanks anon.

File: Screenshot_20260529-14262(...).jpg (227 KB, 971x600)

227 KB JPG

>>42468212
>Lucifer was the latinized name of the original Greek, Phosphorus. And in Greek, Phosphorus and Hesperus were two aspects of the goddess Aphrodite, which was actually the planet Venus. Venus has a movement throughout the year known as its synodic cycle. For a portion of the year, it rises in the east before sunrise, and it's known as Phosphorus, meaning the bringer of the light or the bringer of the dawn.

>>42468800
https://www.museumoftarot.com/post/is-the-tomb-of-lucifer-at-the-vatican

File: 2655b3164c12f3b8d6117bb97(...).jpg (37 KB, 474x632)

37 KB JPG

>>42468777
let's just calm down here for a bit.

first of all, you call my explanation a fanfiction, which already confirms what I said earlier.

you use words in a very lax and undefined manner. it shows that you have a poor vocabulary.

the number of mental categories is similarly impoverished. you immediately start accusing people of being 'jewish', which to you is like a type that contains the qualities that are opposite to those you identify with.

so for instance, if you have are articulate and eloquent, you will feel that such a person is a jew. this is a basic psychological coping mechanism to mask your own insecurities.

you also say that they are personal delusions. i dont know what about them that could be considered delusion. the part about how a fish feels is speculation on my part, but you can easily look in the research on the nervous systems of fish that could be used to support such speculation.

then you call it defensive? which is weird, because i am not particularly invested in this subject. i just dont think you have a clue what you are talking about. fish absolutely cannot suffer.

for the rest of your post, i am not interested in any of this god stuff or pseudo-gnostic hooloo baloo, i just wanted to comment on lack of capacity for suffering in fish.

here is an article to get you started on the subejct:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4356734/

>>42468736
>mfw it was just a jeet seething about buddhism all along
lmao

>>42468817
i'm not gonna read all that shit but nice reddit spacing bro

>>42468831
well i guess you are just not that interested in the subject, which makes perfect sense considering your level of intelligence.

>>42468715
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
I couldn't have asked for a better example of mental gymnastics. Dull, very dull. When OP asks a simple question and you can't address it without going
>ok well first we need to define our terms and oh you can't use the dictionary, that's not the real definition, you need to read this 11,000 word dissertation on "omnipotence"
then you've lost the plot.

The rest of this >>42468756 is incredibly boring to anyone outside your cult. Take a step back and look at the sort of elaborate, complex shit you're having to conjure up in an attempt to cope with OP's very simple questions. There's no other word for it but cope and a sensible person would realize that a belief system that can't give a simple answer to a simple question might have some flaws.

>>42468823
im not indian, i grew up in a Hindu cult. and I'm neither of the anons i replied to in that post. i think that was my first post in this thread about dharmic religions.

>>42468835
Nah i'm just not a sociopath who needs to write essays about how it's actually good for animals to be in constant pain or w/e you're going on about. The people who are so aggressively invested in the idea that animals don't feel pain are always in it because they want to be able to harm animals without feeling bad about it.
>it's ok that i'm hurting them, they can't feel it anyway!
Gross stuff, honestly. Reevaluate your life, you hateful little dude.

>>42468856
i would suggest you might consider reading yung, or just the concept of the shadow and projection, because you come across to me, based on what you write, as a deeply repressed and projecting individual.

i have no hatred whatsoever of fish, and why would i have?

now i would suggest all that, but again, i dont think you have the emotional maturity, nor the intellectual capacity to actually follow through on such a suggestion. so instead you will continue to engage in, to you, this highly emotionally satisfying activity of trying to get into heated arguments online.

>>42468744
That's all that matters. No one questions the existence of Buddah or Mahoma or Confucius or Homer or shakespeare.
Those schools of thought, are the accumulated wisdom of their nations kept alive through millennia as a way to keep humanity's spiritual knowledge alive, and avoid falling back into the darkness of beasts.
The Jesus core wisdom is the Sermon of the mount, wich is basically what a father has to know, every night at dinner table, a good father must teach the children "Aid your brother in need, protect him, share your food with your brother, respect the woman as you respect your mother and sister, cure the sick, feed the hunger, treat others as you want to be treated, be just and true" etc, etc, etc. That "civilizational enlightenment" became more efficient with the sunday church tradition creating a society more cohesive and organized in that "higher thought". So you have a society capable of coexist with eachother, without killing and raping, or exchanging wives provoking more killing and chaos, so a healthy thoughtful society can build a big nation or civilization as we did in the west.
So, the thought of "did Jesus really existed" gets devoid of any meaning or importance, what it is, is a civilizational device, and attacking that tool is a foreign subverting operation to destroy that society organized under one "caring for each other faith"
That's why japanese killed christian preachers, because those christians went there to subvert the Japan society and cause institutional chaos. Japan was right to defend their social thought. Same as the chinese or the muslisms do. All Nations have their OWN school of thought to protect each other from the "foreign danger". We need to do the same as well, before the western civilization ceases to exist. We need to start caring for each other again. That's all that the "Jesus" concept is in depth. Just a civilization starter core to build a group of people who cares for eachother, and build things together.

>>42468839
Anon, you are at the point where you're claiming a non-specific dictionary definition is the standard we have to go by rather than the definition explained by a reputable encyclopedia specific to the matter at hand. This is like holding up the simplified dictionary definition of what an electron is as "an elementary particle," and when someone points you to a physics textbook discussing electron wave-particle duality you go, "Wowwww epic cope bro, the literal dictionary definition says 'particle' not 'wave', stop the bullshit my guy!!"

Again, though, this is fundamentally a wordcel objection. If you insist on that definition, then I am not positing the sort of omnipotence that you're holding to; it's that simple. Really I just wonder if you sensed that what I'm saying is a sensical reply but you're not willing to accept it because it defeats something that you've long held as a sure-bet objection to classical theism.

>There's no other word for it but cope and a sensible person would realize that a belief system that can't give a simple answer to a simple question might have some flaws.

Interesting. Now try physics and "Why do magnets stick?"

>>42468864
>so instead you will continue to engage in, to you, this highly emotionally satisfying activity of trying to get into heated arguments online.
and he says i'm the one projecting

>>42468900
>you're claiming a non-specific dictionary definition is the standard we have to go by rather than the definition explained by a reputable encyclopedia specific to the matter at hand
Complete nonsense and you and I both know perfectly well that that your 11,000 dissertation on omnipotence has no relation to what the average person believes. When people envision an omnipotent god, they don't imagine anything more complex than "god can do anything". They don't imagine - and rightfully so - that the infinite, eternal being that willed all creation into existence has any sort of limitations on his powers.

Logically, this doesn't have any real problems outside of silly abstractions like god creating a rock that's too heavy for him to lift. It's only when you try to force the square peg of "omnipotent benevolent creator god" into the round hole of "pointless unnecessary suffering is extremely common on Earth" that problems begin to arise, at which point you suddenly have to refer to your legal team of theologians who have spent millennia dissecting and reassembling these once simple concepts in an endless attempt to force that peg into that hole. They haven't been very successful or convincing to anyone not drinking the kool aid, as evidenced by the fact that we're here 2300 years later, still debating the Epicurean paradox.

>I am not positing the sort of omnipotence that you're holding to
Haven't I been saying this all along? If you asked any christian on the street if they believe in an omnipotent god they'd say yes, but anyone who's given it a bit of thought realizes that this conception falls apart very quickly, at which point it becomes "omnipotent" with dozens of footnotes, citations, and exceptions clarifying the specific scope and limitations necessary to make your conception of god not directly at odds with basic reality.

>>42468267
You'll find christcucks as unwilling to admit the first as the second. >>42468492
>creation reflects the creator nature
>creation is mostly suffering
>uuuuh but God is still good tho
>>42468754
We should strap a shock collar to your balls so you develop really good character. It's what your rabbi in the sky would have wanted.

>>42463261
Nasty shit thrives around nasty shit. Most terrible looking predators have terrible looking tools precisely to kill quickly. A dying animal is a lot going one, and a living one will struggle, potentially injury to predator. It's terrible to minimize risk and increase success. Arguable it exists as such to minimize suffering. But parasites thrive in shit just like the cat cysts in OPs greymatter.

>>42469011
>has no relation to what the average person believes
The average layperson, if asked, would probably accidentally say a bunch of heretical stuff re: for example Jesus or the Trinity. That doesn't bear on anything.

>Logically, this doesn't have any real problems outside of silly abstractions like god creating a rock that's too heavy for him to lift.
That is literally the exact same principle that I'm citing. "A rock too heavy for God to lift" is a logical contradiction. You keep framing my position as super-complex when all I've said is that I think omnipotence refers to the ability to do any thing, and logical impossibilities are not "things" but rather strings of words with no coherent referent.

>as evidenced by the fact that we're here 2300 years later, still debating the Epicurean paradox
Most even serious atheist philosophers admit that the Epicurean paradox in its original logical form has been debunked by Alvin Platinga's work in the 1970s. The current arguments relate to the amount of evil/suffering rather than the mere existence of it.

File: 6b8db68af32830f82e96fe2e3(...).jpg (41 KB, 682x512)

41 KB JPG

>>42469040
>We should torture you because don't believe fish can suffer

There is no shortage of exemplars of the most fascinating psychological malformities on this board.

>>42463484
>God's perfect creation
>somehow, gets corrupted
Interesting.

>>42463605
>I seek suffering
Not everyone is a masochistic freak.

>>42469064
>Alvin Platinga
Ah yes, that lovely example of
>well if we use a narrow definition of evil and ignore everything except humans and don't concern ourselves with reality but only with logical validity then we might be able to arrive at a carefully crafted set of conditions that make it possible for a good god to create a world full of evil
And suddenly, I can see exactly where your particular argumentative style came from.

Why did god create a parasite that can only survive by eating the tongue of a fish, digging its claws into the bloody nub that remains, and living in the fish's mouth until it starves to death? Why, of course it's because the parasite has free will and chooses to do evil. Sorry, god just couldn't have done it any differently. He loves children, he really does, and he really wishes he didn't have to just sit there and watch that two year old baby being anally raped to death but to be fair, god gave the rapist free will and after that it was out of god's control. It's just logically impossible for god to have prevented that baby from being raped to death. Here, read this 11 thousand word dissertation on the concept of omnipotence and you'll understand.

Do you really think that this sort of thing is convincing to anyone who isn't already on your team?

>>42469134
Well, no, scholarly works rarely have any effect on the retarded.

>>42469134
… yes, as I said, the argument over the amount and types of evil persist. That’s not what the paradox centered the original objection on, though.

You don’t find it significant that the logical problem has been defeated after all this time? Really?

because it's funny

>>42463261
What you call god is a force of nature without bias.
He is a few simple laws that basically say "what can exist, will exist."
Parasitism is an easy niche to fill. The host rarely evolves defenses because the parasite doesn't kill them directly.
Humans also fill this niche. In many ways society is like giving the keys to these parasites, consequences are rarely fatal. People think you can torture or fine the evil out of a mans genes, because they are desperate to think genes have nothing to do with it, and because watching justice delivered feels good to them. Torture is not justice, it's giving evil a chance to fester further. That murderer just got out last year, he has a kid now. The chomo moved to east Asia, he has a kid.
Even the dead ones only serve as errors in anothers trial. You mow the grass, its roots grow stronger; You kill the grass, its seeds become better protected. The eel grows more resistant, the snake grows more venomous.
Everyone feels good about themselves, but evil has bred itself stronger.

The ONLY way to rid the world of evil for good is gene manipulation, and a better understanding of how genes influence brain development (what genes, how)

We are meat puppets, yes, but this is incredibly freeing, because it means we are meat puppets capable of self-modification. The problems of man are not at the soul level. We are capable of fundamentally improving on the mechanisms of our evolution, in a way that avoids all the pitfalls of natural selection. If we don't fix ourselves soon, the future will be retarded, gay, and evil for a very long. Things will eventually get better, but it will be a constant seesaw of pain and suffering.

>>42469139
>>42469202
>You don’t find it significant that the logical problem has been defeated after all this time?
I'm well familiar with it this supposed solution - it certainly gets regurgitated often enough around here - and I don't find it convincing. Like most modern philosophy, it's just semantic trickery, an attempt to use formal logic to wriggle your beliefs around an obvious contradiction.

Because what is it, at its core? It's a god for whom preventing infant murder rape is a "logical contradiction".
>could god have created a world where babies aren't raped to death?
>no, that's logically impossible
>god chose to create this world with the full intent and knowledge that he would be creating such things because he valued giving us free will over preventing babies from being raped to death
I don't think that this sort of abstraction of human logic can be rationally applied to a being that is logically beyond human comprehension, especially when it results in this sort of conclusion.

And of course, even if you fully accept this sort of logic, it just leads you right into another contradiction: even if this omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god can't prevent people from choosing to do evil, why does he not prevent them from carrying out evil? God gave this pedophile rapist free will, ok, fair enough. He watches as this man decides to use his free will to rape a 2 year old to death. He watches as the man finds a child, carries it to a secluded place, undresses it, undresses himself, gets his dick ready to fuck this baby to death.

Why is god still just an observer? Clearly this man has chosen evil and anyone would agree that he's well deserving of punishment. God chooses not to intervene as this baby is raped to death. There have been serial rapists of this sort. God watches as these men do this to multiple defenseless infants. What "logical contradiction" would there be in god directly intervening to prevent this sort of thing?

>>42466492
I don't know how people fell for science bullshit to begin with considering how much of it doesn't make sense, they even put "theory" in front of it and people still cite it.

>>42469294
a theory is a hypothesis that cannot be disproven. disprove it.

>>42469274
Interesting that this is the point where everyone ran away. The modern god won't intervene to prevent babies from being raped to death but the biblical god has no problem intervening. Notoriously, he even intervened in order to personally kill some untold number of innocent Egyptian babies.

A couple thousand years ago, god was doing the baby killing personally. Today, he's content to be a voyeur. But don't worry, modern theologians have proven that this is all logically consistent behavior for a benevolent, omnipotent god. If you think that any of this doesn't sound quite right, you just need to educate yourself.

>>42469629
didnt he make a bear kill a bunch of children because they insulted a bald mans bald patch?

>>42463566
so suffering is necessary? Is there suffering in heaven?

>>42463261
this is the Eric Andre meme
>parasite kills fish
>why would God do this?

File: 1000107597.jpg (85 KB, 753x707)

85 KB JPG

>>42463261
Fren. Your base question won't ever be resolved, for it presumes that cruelty not only is an intentional act on behalf of a God, but also that said God exists and must be responsible.

It would be wise to set aside your superego, and instead rephrase the question to better serve your quest for knowledge.
"If the Abrahamic God exists, why does it allow for cruelty such as picrel?"
By framing your question as an invitation to discussion, the responses you'll accumulate will not only be more genuine, but likely more worthwhile.

>>42469665
You have existed for billions of years before you were born.


Was there suffering?

Just man up and get to work.

>>42469787
>You have existed for billions of years before you were born.
you didnt exist before you were born. from the moment of birth you feel pain. you then suffer until you cease to exist. your entire existence is suffering. its ALL you've ever known

>>42469274
>>42469629
No one ran away anon I just don’t like mobile posting. This seems like it’s a frustrating topic for you…

In any event, if God consistently intervenes to block the outcome when people choose evil then very quickly people would no longer have a free choice. Everyone always says “Well just do it one time, not consistently,” yet for all we know we already live in a world where He prevented some grave individual evil. I’m actually not proposing some absolute rule, just that generally freedom of the will means not interfering when people choose wrongly.

No, actually: go ahead and describe what you have in mind. Describe a reality where peoples’ wills are still free yet God intervenes every time someone does something evil. Because what I so often find is that despite skeptics laughing at, “God works in mysterious ways” as you did, whenever I pose this the reply quickly becomes, “Well I can’t think of it because I’m just a human, God should be able to work in mysterious ways.”

>>42463261
One thing can't exist without it's opposite This goes for all concepts and their degrees. Infinite joy brings infinite suffering.

God you guys are so fucking autistic
>>42469690
Except God is responsible for EVERYTHING in theism
>>42469787
Yes there was suffering and you can get out of it through Buddhism and nothing else
>>42469798
Yes you did exist before birth. Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker studied past life cases and found they're undeniable
>>42469857
Braindead retard. Nirvana is infinite happiness without any suffering. It is possible, just not for people who think it's impossible and don't try to attain it like you.

>>42469890
If infinite paradise exists then infinite hell also exists. How fucking hard is this to grasp?

>>42469905
there is no opposite to nonduality in Buddhism, thus there is no opposite to perfect bliss. an eternal hell never existed and never will. Jesus was an idiot. Buddha is smarter.

>>42469949
You larper kids are so cringe. Imagine preaching that crap with such a chip on your shoulder. You'd never find me being so pathetic.

>>42463261
>>42463373
The parasite is living his best possible life though.

>>42469954
Jesus accomplished nothing. Everyone who has believed in him has reincarnated. Buddhism gets people out of the cycle of rebirth

>>42469979
There's so very little evidence for either thing so proclaiming this kind of garbage rings so unbelievably hollow lmao.

>>42470005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_body
plenty of evidence to Tibetans, but the West is retarded and can't accept things they can't measure in a lab

>>42469890
>Except God is responsible for EVERYTHING in theism
conveyer belt theory? bartender theory? elaborate why God is to blame for the dead fish

>>42470074
NTA
God is the one that said death is to be a consequence. No death in the world til God said that, if we're using Christianity.
If you want the Vedic God, Krishna says he is time, the great destroyer of all worlds.
So...how is god not responsible?

>>42468817
I would love this to be true but one scientific paper does not equal proof. There are papers that have come out since the one you posted which claim to refute it. We have a lot of data on how the inner workings of fish operate. Data does not give absolute answers but opinions formed based on taking the data in claims such. In reality we will never know the absolute truth but opinions comfort us by giving us that illusion.

>>42470074
God is the first cause. He caused everything. EVERYTHING is his fault. I reject an omnipotent God because a non-omnipotent God leaves room for him to *want* to end all suffering but *can't*. There is also the possibility of no God, but not an omnipotent God unless you want to make him an asshole but then omnipotence doesn't make sense in the first place

>>42470115
you mean death in the material? you curse God for not having everlasting flesh? how many more sunrises do you need to see before someone else gets a turn?

>>42470216
That's bartender theory. I gave you a beer at the BBQ, so everything you do after that is my fault, not yours. This removes free will (something I admittedly struggle to admit exists) while also rationalizing sin. It's a catch 22 that isn't meant to be answered.

>>42470270
>you mean death in the material?
There is no other death.
>you curse God for not having everlasting flesh?
No? Where did you see me curse God?
>how many more sunrises do you need to see before someone else gets a turn?
You dont need to see sunrises one person at a time.
Is this some bullshit weaseling into monism? Because this thread is very clearly not about that and I'll just not respond if you have to retreat there to have anything to say.

>>42470277
hey Mr. NTA, you responded to me buddy
if you're confused going in, that's not a me problem
you stepped in to defend the other anon cursing God, so it was a fair assumption
I apologize if I miscategorized how you feel

>>42463261
why would God make women with delicious tits and asses just to say you cant fornicate with them

>>42470277
to answer your reply proper:
spiritual death is very much a thing, that isn't semantics
we can see sunrises together but there is a finite amount of space and resources and whether that is by pure design is purely speculative
this is a philosophical question and I haven't seen any evidence of deliberate malice, but rather bitterness and scorn for lacking something they've been told exists elsewhere

>>42470288
>why would God make beauty and frown on you consuming it mindlessly and spitting out the husk elsewhere

>>42470309
well they have contraceptives.. so theres that.
women are sneaky little whores mane. it doesnt matter.

>>42470285
>if you're confused going in, that's not a me problem
If you reply to a stranger with the expectation that I know some previous thing you said, you can either quote the post or have it ridiculed.
>you stepped in to defend the other anon cursing God
No I didnt. I stepped in to argue against your point. I dont care about other anon, which is why I didnt respond to them.
It was a bad assumption, and now you can move past it and address what I said.
God is the one that said death is to be a consequence. No death in the world til God said that, if we're using Christianity.
If you want the Vedic God, Krishna says he is time, the great destroyer of all worlds.
So...how is god not responsible?

>>42470306
>spiritual death is very much a thing,
Wrong.
> there is a finite amount of space and resources
Wrong again. The only finite is the limit of this one universe. Even the material energy is infinite in that sense.
>this is a philosophical question and I haven't seen any evidence of deliberate malice, but rather bitterness and scorn for lacking something they've been told exists elsewhere
Again you ramble, but you didnt adddress the question.
God is the one that said death is to be a consequence. No death in the world til God said that, if we're using Christianity.
If you want the Vedic God, Krishna says he is time, the great destroyer of all worlds.
So...how is god not responsible?

>>42469853
>Describe a reality where peoples’ wills are still free yet God intervenes every time someone does something evil.
I'm going to refer you back to the lack of imagination I mentioned earlier. We are positing an entity for whom literally anything is possible, so it's very simple. All that's necessary is for god to intervene to prevent evil, removing the evil person from the world and sending them to hell or whatever, and then remove any memory of that person's existence from the world.

>man is about to rape a baby to death
>god intervenes to send the man directly to hell before he can rape the baby to death
>wipes the memories of anyone who knew the man, tweaks the world in whatever way necessary to account for his sudden disappearance

This should be simple for an omnipotent, omniscient being. In this scenario people have free will, no one knows that god is going to teleport them to hell if they choose to do evil, so nothing is stopping them from choosing to do evil. The only thing that changes in this scenario is that we remove that awkward period in between choosing to commit evil and god punishing the evildoers, the part that involves the suffering of innocents.

Let me guess, you don't like this because you think that pedophiles shouldn't be stopped from raping babies to death because if god intervenes then the pedophiles won't have a chance to repent?

>>42470313
the question presumes death is evil
i reject the notion
id rather suffering be lessened, but that is much more a stewardship problem than the author's fault
OP wants bliss on tap, he wants material comfort with no suffering
We have plenty of evidence of people having exactly that kind of lifestyle and the sin it breeds

>>42470325
>This should be simple for an omnipotent, omniscient being.
So you mock his ability to prevent you from sinning? You're not content with judgement after his life is all said and done, you need him to be a preemptive electric chair for every soul walking the planet. Surely you can see how this taunting is just childish bitterness.

>>42470332
>the question presumes death is evil
No I didnt. I none system, it is a consequence, in the other an inevitability - both stated by God as His cause. I never said or assumed or implied any evil.
>the author's fault
The author says "I did this."
>OP wants bliss on tap
then he should go to God.
I dont care.
I am asking you how is it not God's responsibility, and you have yet to give anything resembling an answer.

>>42470347
forgive me, I didn't know we were arguing whether or not death was a concept made by God
I objected to OP's framing
Bartender theory rejects free will. Does man have free will?

>>42470354
>Bartender theory
I dont care.
>Does man have free will?
We can get to that once you can answer the question first asked.
God is the one that said death is to be a consequence. No death in the world til God said that, if we're using Christianity.
If you want the Vedic God, Krishna says he is time, the great destroyer of all worlds.
So...how is god not responsible?

>>42470356
>I dont care.
fair enough but then please stop wasting my time by engaging

>>42469798
ROFL...this kid...

Your consciousness, your soul is on loan. There is no real you, it's a trick. The universe has existed before, and will exist after. You're just a shard, a fractal, a sliver of God.

Yet, here YOU are whimpering, crying, complaining, bitching.

EEEFFFFF YOOOUUUUUUUUU

DO....YOUR.....JOB

>>42470358
you were asked a question and you cant answer it. If you are depending on your little theory, then it fails and should be abandoned.
If it isnt the theory, then it is because you are a cowardly bitch.
you get one more reply to try and answer a simple question.
God is the one that said death is to be a consequence. No death in the world til God said that, if we're using Christianity.
If you want the Vedic God, Krishna says he is time, the great destroyer of all worlds.
So...how is god not responsible?

>>42470356
God is not responsible for a strangler's actions
That is blasphemy
To create or preserve life is to incur death, the two can't be separated materially.
I never claimed otherwise so idk why you're so proud of this line of questioning...
>No death in the world til God said that
No life in this world either until God said so, i'm a glass half full kind of guy

>>42470371
>God is not responsible for a strangler's actions
God is responsible for every single potential action that stranger can make. He built every system and rule utilized to make any action.
>I never claimed otherwise
I know what you thought I asked you HOW, you fucking moron.
And you failed
AGAIN
to give any explanation.
>No life in this world either until God said so
Right - it was all eternally in heaven until then. And then God said you had to come to a world of suffering a death.
But now we are simply arguing dogmas and yours wil lose because you cant answer simple questions that make your god look bad.

But you had one chance, and you failed. So Im off to bed.
you are a moron.

>>42470387
>God is responsible for every single potential action that stranger can make. He built every system and rule utilized to make any action.
Does man have free will? I answered your question now it's your turn.

>>42470387
>Im off to bed
Oh, nvm then. Sleep tight God bless.

>>42463261
Sup, I'm God.

The parasite can not exist without de fish.

So, you wish for a Universe where the parasite doesn't get to exist?

What did the parasite do to you?
I already know. That parasite did nothing to you.

If you want to get mad at me, consider I have to make all things.
The best anyone could do, are some Universes with built-in compromise of existence over time.

While under the hood, there isn't such a thing as time, and there are lots of discrete Planck states threaded together to make continuity.

Listen, if you aren't going to spend your life studying the mechanics of creation, you really just aren't qualified to critique them, ok?
You don't need to suffer over it.
Trust me, every organism before and after you, would post images of humans destroying the planet and whine about it, if I gave them all the same faculties of your Planck frames too.

The dinosaurs, for example, agreed to this existence, as did the flora and fauna of their time period, to become the oil, to progress homo sapien.

Why?
Because eventually we needed built-in recursive mechanisms that could fulfill paying back the debts of the eventual utopia.

It's complicated, and messy, but in the greater cosmos, you appear alone, most of the time, because this compromise isn't even limited to Earth.

You owe the Universe, and it owes you back.
Suffer a little and make it right.

This is a learning process, not a process of degradation.
Learn the difference, or remain ignorant, but don't sit on the fence and point fingers. That's not why you're here.

Each piece of the whole, is an archive and living record for the rest.

If you want a bigger picture of why things are this way.
MWI is true.
All possible realities ARE real.
There are central connections and nodes that allow a free flow of intentful observers, to that which they desire, but until you learn the difference you aren't allowed to free float to what you want, because every fulfilled intent, is a nightmare for someone else.

>>42470436
tl;Dr
Running a Universe is a pain in the ass.
Running a Multiverse is a pain in every ass.

If you want to understand, it's tough in every aspect of understanding.
You can accept that good and evil are tools of measurement, not judgement, and go much further.

How does one position the choice of what gets to exist, and doesn't get to exist, if all things MUST exist, because I love them all.
^
There's the big question, that I spend every lifetime working at some level.

You have a purpose, and I need you. Don't quit on me now. You guys are getting close.

>>42463261
god finds le fish funny

>>42470345
What about it makes you think I'm mocking anything? I meant it honestly: if god wanted to actively prevent people from committing evil acts, it is fully within his power to do so.

I'm not "taunting" anyone and frankly it's embarrassing to see you claim that I am in some petty attempt to avoid having to address my argument.

>You're not content with judgement after his life is all said and done
Why should I be? If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god observing everything that happens then please, explain what benefit there is in allowing evil people to fully act out their evil desires. Do you really lack empathy to the extent that you'd reject the possibility of innocent victims being protected from harm in favor of some abstract theological hypotheticals?

Assuming that it is impossible for god to create a world without evil, we're still left with the question of why, if he can't prevent evil from occurring, he doesn't directly intervene once it does occur.

Stop being a disingenuous slimly little coward hiding behind 15 layers of irony and give an honest answer for once in your life. A baby is about to be raped to death. God is watching and knows it's about to happen. Why doesn't he prevent it? Why does he simply watch and do nothing while this helpless child dies in unimaginable and utterly undeserved agony?

>>42464895
>there is a God who is not omnipotent/all-powerful.
God is omnipotent by virtue of everything existing. Omnibenevolence, on the other hand...

>>42470387
Don't argue with dogmatic religious zealots. You can't change or convert anyone who doesn't want to change or do deeper research. It is what it is. We all have a coping mechanism that gets us through in life, they have theirs.

>>42470984
How come we also are so limited by our physical capabilities and spiritual gifts as well? Even our brains we only use a small percentage of and it's the most animalistic part of the brain.

Why is pineal gland worship so prevalent in occult symbolism and Freemasonry?
There is so, so much most don't know.

>>42470984
>>42470984
>A baby is about to be raped to death. God is watching and knows it's about to happen.
Conveyer belt theory is fake and gay. It's not a gotcha because you were never promised protection from anything, but rather salvation for following the rules. Man doing some horrific act will be judged, you needing to see it for yourself is vanity.

>>42471909
tbf most people have a victim mentality, even christians

>>42471917
agreed but tbf most people are victims

File: calipedos.png (43 KB, 1359x203)

43 KB PNG

>>42471909
>kid gets raped, endless suffering no human being let alone a child should experience
>lmao who gives a fuck, le evil man will be judged when he dies
>is set free irl to continue the cycle
Weird way how salvation works for children who are trusting enough and not yet developed to know that they're being groomed and don't have a say in what happens to them

>>42471939
I suffer with wrath too. The devil is having his fun and I find it horrible that fetishists have allowed it to go this far. But things like the headline you just shared are man's faults, not God's. We know how to exclude predators harming children, but these weirdos want it to happen. You want the heavens to part and order to be restored, I don't blame you. But I don't blame God either. Either God knows better or simply lacks the ability to intervene at that scale, in either case he is not to blame.
If the suggestion is that God is evil and enjoys our suffering, then we wouldn't be asking any of these questions anyway as God would be front and center to collect.
Any way you skew this, shaking your fist at the sky is as nonsensical as it is impotent.

>>42463261
He wanted to warn us against jews maybe, I don't know? Couldn't he have done something about it himself instead of issuing a vague warning though?

>>42470984
>Why should I be? If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god observing everything that happens then please, explain what benefit there is in allowing evil people to fully act out their evil desires.
Can you control every thought that goes through your mind? Or its fate?

File: Screenshot 2026-05-30 at (...).png (265 KB, 1546x1464)

265 KB PNG

>>42468817

>>42471373
>God is omnipotent by virtue of everything existing. Omnibenevolence, on the other hand...
God is omnibenevolent by virtue of everyone existing. Omnipotence, on the other hand...

>>42471987
i asked a detractor yesterday if man had free will, got no response
i'm honestly iffy on that subject myself, and would be more sympathetic if that were the approach
but most agree man has free will and still God is to blame for some reason