Sadism must be one of the foundational values of God

[LordFall]

@Xonas Pitfall I've already countered all of these points. On the God has to be everything point.

39 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Just because a game engine has concepts it can use doesn't mean it needs to use them all the time.

There is no reason that God cannot compartmentalize things, and as a matter of fact our very existence is the proof that it is. Also your point is easily proven false as not everything exists in our reality. There are no 20 legged giraffes. You can say you can think of one or in VR you can make one but that's not the same thing as the experience of a giraffe as a biological organism. 

9 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The second reason is that the notions of good and evil, as well as pain and suffering, are extremely tricky.

You could technically argue that you commit "sadism" every time you kill an insect, every time you choose not to help a homeless person, or even when you put your own body through pain by forcing your muscles to grow stronger.

It is tricky which is why I find it worthwhile to deconstruct it. Your point here is weak though and is a simple false equivalency. An ant doesn't have the same brain structure to experience the same level of pain as a human does. They have studied this unless you want to pick apart the science on it. Unless your personal finances are in order you cannot afford to help each homeless person. If they are you should otherwise you are logically quite shallow and cruel. That's a deeper conversation on ethics and morality but is also worth having. 

Muscles don't have consciousness, you experience the pain. 

9 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The moment you accept the finite world, you accept these issues, because a finite thing is defined by certain conditions it needs to thrive, be happy, and exist. If you could genuinely be happy with anything, you wouldn't be bound by those conditions. In that sense, you wouldn't be defined as finite, but as infinite. If you were completely fine with losing a leg, you wouldn't be defined by the normal human attachment to having an intact body. People will call you an "abnormal human" just for that.

There are different ways of being finite. We could have been born as angels and experience taking walks and hunting fake beings that don't experience pain and hanging out with our friends and building businesses all the same without the design fact of extreme pain put into the universe. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

20 minutes ago, LordFall said:

This is the subjectivity point. Which from the universal perspective is true. We're humans though. Unless you want to put your flag in the ground and say that to you a child getting murdered is about the same as an apple falling from a tree. If that was your point then that can be your perspective but I find it invalid and it would define you as a psycho.

If you’re arguing about subjectively, that’s pointless. It’s just another self sealing argument. Have you considered confronting reality instead of all of the possibilities?

Quote

> Points of reference collapse. Reasoning becomes paradoxical until it evaporates. Consciousness persists.

That would prove my point though. If a supreme ruler made a universe made a bunch of beings that genocide, kill, rape, and torture eachother and it's like whatever I'm gonna look at some stars now then it's wildly irresponsible first of all but also that doesn't really make sense. We are now attributing limited consciousness to God like a telescope that can only focus on one thing at once. I think God can experience all viewpoints in the universe at once and therefore has experience the POV of all humans since the dawn of time. It's either suffered alongside us for the sake of evolution which is a valid theory but I think an omnipotent God could've made beings that don't need to torture themselves for thousands of years until they learn better so he just enjoyed the process.

Please use proper spacing when you do these stream of consciousness style feelings. They’re really hard to understand what you’re trying to say.

Quote

If Stephen Hawking taught a class and nobody understood what he talked about then I would call him a terrible communicator and that would be a fair point. Which is an invalid hypothetical because Stephen Hawking wrote many books and communicated his points quite well.

Missed the point. He couldn’t talk. But he’s better than you at math. 

Natasha is an allowed to make a general point without explaining herself. You assumed she referred to you and demanded an explanation.

You have to earn those.

Quote

Respectfully again this is what I meant in the other post by you make shallow points that are not well thought out. 
 

Respectfully, you haven’t demonstrated understanding of any of the points I’ve made.

MJ—has a skill he can’t give ‘counter points’ or ‘explain to you.’ Do you acknowledge that?

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

And why must it be enjoyable? Why does enjoyment have to be the only explanation for why things are the way they are? Are you really not creative enough to imagine a single alternative? Did you ever consider that the experience of pain was never for the pain itself—that pain might simply be a consequence of something much more beautiful?

 

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Imagine say, a two dimensional being living on a perfectly flat surface and a sphere passes through their world. From their perspective they see a point appearing, then becoming a circle. The circle grows larger, then gets to a maximum size, shrinks down then becomes a point again and dissappearing.

Your question (or premise) could be "what is causing this strange circle to change size?" or "it is a circle expanding and contracting".

The question and the explanation do not address what is actually happening. 

The problem isn't that we are missing 2D information - the entire third dimension is missing. From 3 dimensions, the whole sequence is trivial: a sphere is moving through their plane. But if you tried to explain the sphere entirely in 2D terms, you'd be forced into increasingly strange explanations.

The explanation requires a conceptual move that the existing framework cannot represent.

Best analogy I can think of.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[LordFall]

20 minutes ago, yetineti said:

If you’re arguing about subjectively, that’s pointless. It’s just another self sealing argument. Have you considered confronting reality instead of all of the possibilities?

That is pure projection. I am the one anchoring directly to physical reality: biological nervous systems, nociceptors, cartel torture, and real human suffering.

You are the one avoiding reality by retreating into airy abstractions about "selection bias collapsing" and "reasoning evaporating until consciousness persists." When someone is being physically tortured, that is not an abstract "possibility"—it is a concrete, localized event engineered by the laws of this universe. Calling the actual lived experience of pain "pointless subjectivity" is just an intellectual trick to avoid confronting the horrifying mechanics of the world we actually live in.

20 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Missed the point. He couldn’t talk. But he’s better than you at math. 

You're the one that missed the point. He wrote books that sold millions of copies and gave worldwide lectures using a speech synthesizer. Hawking proved that even with extreme physical limitations, a rigorous thinker can and must communicate complex ideas clearly. I never claimed to be better than him at math.🤦‍♂️

20 minutes ago, yetineti said:

MJ—has a skill he can give ‘counter points’ or ‘explain to you.’ Do you acknowledge that?

You see what I mean by bad points? I never asked Michael Jordan for basketball coaching, where did that come from? You're trying to put me down from a pedestal that I never put myself on, I don't play basketball bro. 

You're also implying that people here are at the top of their field and that their competence and knowledge is beyond questioning which is not the case. 

17 minutes ago, yetineti said:

And why must it be enjoyable? Why does enjoyment have to be the only explanation for why things are the way they are? Are you really not creative enough to imagine a single alternative? Did you ever consider that the experience of pain was never for the pain itself—that pain might simply be a consequence of something much more beautiful?

Is the sadism not coming from you? Look at your enjoyment disregarding people in this thread. You even described yourself as satisfied before. Correct me if I’m wrong, you may be conflating worlds.

 

I've fleshed out many other alternatives that you chose not to go down. I see it as sadism because I don't see it as a constructive move from an omnipotent being. A lot of religions portray God as quite a ruthless being so I don't see why him being sadistic is out of the question. Especially because indeed sadism is a prevalent trait in humans. 

I have a mild enjoyment in increasing my knowledge through debates. I am satisfied when I come to the conclusion that my understanding stands up to scrutiny. I think that's a pretty common and reasonable feeling. My attack on God is being the master of the universe and creating conditions for much worse sadism. If you fathered 10 kids and let them beat each other up and fight to the death you would be imprisoned and considered a monster.

Why is that same standard not applicable to God? I think it is and that's my point. 

15 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Imagine say, a two dimensional being living on a perfectly flat surface and a sphere passes through their world. From their perspective they see a point appearing, then becoming a circle. The circle grows larger, then gets to a maximum size, shrinks down then becomes a point again and dissappearing.

Your question (or premise) could be "what is causing this strange circle to change size?" or "it is a circle expanding and contracting".

The question and the explanation do not address what is actually happening. 

The problem isn't that we are missing 2D information - the entire third dimension is missing. From 3 dimensions, the whole sequence is trivial: a sphere is moving through their plane. But if you tried to explain the sphere entirely in 2D terms, you'd be forced into increasingly strange explanations.

The explanation requires a conceptual move that the existing framework cannot represent.

Best analogy I can think of.

That's the Flatland Analogy. It describes a spatial illusion, not conscious agony.

A 2D observer seeing an expanding circle is making a geometric mistake. A conscious biological organism being tortured is experiencing raw nervous-system trauma. Adding a 3rd or 4th dimension does not erase or negate the agony felt on the 2D plane.

If a 3D architect intentionally creates vulnerable 2D beings and drops a crushing sphere through their world knowing they cannot comprehend or escape it, that architect isn't just "higher dimensional"—it is actively cruel to the beings it engineered. Claiming there is an unseen dimension where suffering magically becomes fine is just an unfalsifiable excuse to ignore the problem.

As a matter of fact it's exactly my point. If God and whatever other post human beings exist indeed can control human suffering and are not affected by it then holy moly we are ruled by sadistic creatures. I don't think that's fully the case as I've stated before since humanity seems to be able to achieve massive progress and I personally believe that all crime on earth will end in the next 30 years. I'm mainly questioning why it was necessary for us to take that long to achieve it.

The two conclusions I came to is God took enjoyment in our struggles which makes sense because an aspect of a mind seems to be enjoying the struggles of others in some others that it alienates. Since God creates being that are limited we are by definition alienated from divine power.

The other is that it was not possible to do it any other way. It's plausible but I'm highly skeptical of that answer. I guess the universal mind could evolve over time but there are plenty of credible instances of people having been able to predict the future hundreds and thousands of years ago that I think it's provable that consciousness has an ability to be omnipotent. This is partly what awakening shows you as well but I'm still looking for an answer to the problem of evil and specifically the mass suffering of mankind. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

9 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I don't see why him being sadistic is out of the question.

Well, thats just it: you’re questioning. You don’t know. But you’re talking like you are.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

Some things can’t be learned without respect.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

17 minutes ago, LordFall said:

That's the Flatland Analogy. It describes a spatial illusion, not conscious agony.

A 2D observer seeing an expanding circle is making a geometric mistake. A conscious biological organism being tortured is experiencing raw nervous-system trauma. Adding a 3rd or 4th dimension does not erase or negate the agony felt on the 2D plane.

If a 3D architect intentionally creates vulnerable 2D beings and drops a crushing sphere through their world knowing they cannot comprehend or escape it, that architect isn't just "higher dimensional"—it is actively cruel to the beings it engineered. Claiming there is an unseen dimension where suffering magically becomes fine is just an unfalsifiable excuse to ignore the problem.

As a matter of fact it's exactly my point. If God and whatever other post human beings exist indeed can control human suffering and are not affected by it then holy moly we are ruled by sadistic creatures. I don't think that's fully the case as I've stated before since humanity seems to be able to achieve massive progress and I personally believe that all crime on earth will end in the next 30 years. I'm mainly questioning why it was necessary for us to take that long to achieve it.

The two conclusions I came to is God took enjoyment in our struggles which makes sense because an aspect of a mind seems to be enjoying the struggles of others in some others that it alienates. Since God creates being that are limited we are by definition alienated from divine power.

The other is that it was not possible to do it any other way. It's plausible but I'm highly skeptical of that answer. I guess the universal mind could evolve over time but there are plenty of credible instances of people having been able to predict the future hundreds and thousands of years ago that I think it's provable that consciousness has an ability to be omnipotent. This is partly what awakening shows you as well but I'm still looking for an answer to the problem of evil and specifically the mass suffering of mankind. 

You consistently do not ask any questions around meaning - but you assume you understand. Why?

[LordFall]

13 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall

Well, thats just it: you’re questioning. You don’t know. But you’re talking like you are.

That's how the scientific method works. You come up with a premise and you see if you can invalidate it. If you cannot you think it strongly supported until you come into evidence to the contrary.

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Some things can’t be learned without respect.

Is that learning or is that indoctrination? I do give people basic respect but I am intellectually honest. If someone tries to wave away their burden of proof with some vague "I'm too enlightened you wouldn't understand" then I will respond with heavy skepticism.

It's pretty universally true that if you understand something deeply you can not only communicate it to others but do so effectively and also summarize it. 

Sometimes Leo says he has reached awakenings so deep he couldn't even explain them and that's perhaps true or perhaps it's delusional. He has hundreds of hours explaining credible concepts deeply enough that I respect his work and thoughts on stuff. Generally I do not give people that same benefit of the doubt though. 

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You consistently do not ask any questions around meaning - but you assume you understand. Why?

It's a perfectly valid conclusion that someone can be wrong or biased. It could also be the case that they aren't communicating properly but if that's the case why is the burden on me to drag it out of them? Especially after I've explained my arguments in depth and they were hand-waved away by "sorry you're confused I'm too enlightened. "

That doubly puts the burden on you to explain better or I think you're simply off track. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

21 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Adding a 3rd or 4th dimension does not erase or negate the agony felt on the 2D plane.

My analogy does not require this.

Higher perspective may change what the phenomenon means, what caused it, and whether the conceptual question you're asking about it remains coherent.

[LordFall]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

My analogy does not require this.

Higher perspective may change what the phenomenon means, what caused it, and whether the conceptual question you're asking about it remains coherent.

Of course it does. That's like if someone set someone on fire and their criminal defence was 'you wouldn't understand, I'm a 5D being it's beyond you.' Great, be beyond it in jail.

I cannot put God in jail so all I can do is deconstruct it down to first principles. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, LordFall said:

It's a perfectly valid conclusion that someone can be wrong or biased. It could also be the case that they aren't communicating properly but if that's the case why is the burden on me to drag it out of them? Especially after I've explained my arguments in depth and they were hand-waved away by "sorry you're confused I'm too enlightened. "

That doubly puts the burden on you to explain better or I think you're simply off track. 

You honestly think it is a burden to ask clarifying questions so you can properly address someone's meaning? How people express themselves through the limitations of language and their context is always the biggest challenge to face - this is why really trying to clarify what is meant prior to assuming and then engaging is needed. It saves a lot of wasted energy and avoids confusion.

Weird

[yetineti]

@LordFall Yeah, you’re like barely communicating, dude. Natasha and I just happen to be really patient with you at the moment.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You honestly think it is a burden to ask clarifying questions so you can properly address someone's meaning? How people express themselves through the limitations of language and their context is always the biggest challenge to face - this is why really trying to clarify what is meant prior to assuming and then engaging is needed. It saves a lot of wasted energy and avoids confusion.

Weird

Why would I assume that everyone has credible points? By default humans don't know much. If you start to claim that you're an expert in astrophysics I will not believe you until you prove it. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Anyway what I am seeing is you consistently misunderstanding what others mean - either through others failure to express properly or your own interpretation. Doesn't matter. But that is what is happening here. And everywhere in almost all of your misunderstandings on the forum.

If you want to still address things in the way you do - so be it. Your assumptions are really shooting you in the foot.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, LordFall said:

Why would I assume that everyone has credible points? By default humans don't know much. If you start to claim that you're an expert in astrophysics I will not believe you until you prove it. 

This really comes across like a bad faith, uncharitable position to take regarding arguments.

[Nercohype]

I am not awakened, but I might have some insight into this.

As an artist who creates worlds of my own, I, as the Allmind, create all these things. But I am not part of them. They are happening within me. I give them the freedom to choose. Some fall low, while others rise up and awaken to the fact that they are part of me. But I am not there doing bad things. It is the characters' own decisions. Good and evil do not go hand in hand. It is a choice: to remain in ignorance or to seek the truth. If all my characters knew that they were all one, there would be no evil. Duality and non-duality exist at the same time. The characters live within my imagination, which is one, and yet they experience separation from me. I am not the characters, but they are part of me. Like cells in my body. But they are not me. So I am aloof from their actions.

And I do feel every suffering, every pain they feel, their losses, and their struggles. Both good and evil men. Sometimes the pain is incredibly intense...

[yetineti]

3 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Why would I assume that everyone has credible points? By default humans don't know much. If you start to claim that you're an expert in astrophysics I will not believe you until you prove it. 

Nobody’s claimed expertise besides you, through your actions.

Others may have an answer to your question but your willingness to understand before jumping to conclusions, or Gemini, for all we know, is really stopping you from maintaining conversations, especially productive ones.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 minute ago, LordFall said:

There is no reason that God cannot compartmentalize things and as a matter of fact our very existence is the proof that it is. Also your point is easily proven false as not everything exists in our reality. There are no 20 legged giraffes. You can say you can think of one or in VR you can make one but that's not the same thing as the experience of a giraffe as a biological organism. 

Not necessarily. You're looking at it through a very narrow timeline. Ages ago, you could've said, "There's no reason God couldn't create teleportation so I can hang out with my pen pal instead of only sending letters," or "There's no reason God couldn't create a place where food is already prepared so I don't have to hunt for one meal," or "There's no reason God couldn't create some magical communication device so I can instantly talk to my family overseas."

And that's still just a human perspective. As an animal, an alien, an amoeba, or some completely different evolutionary creation, your experience could be so fundamentally different from ours that we couldn't even conceptualize it. Not to mention that if you add the possibility of different dimensions, or things existing outside of space and time, the range of possible perspectives becomes even more difficult for us to conceptualize.

That's why the relative vs. absolute distinction matters. When you speak in absolute terms, you're not talking about just humans in our current era. You're talking about all humans who ever lived or will live, across every ecosystem, invention, creature, mind, and imaginable perspective. It's extremely difficult to remove that bias and imagine the "God perspective." Even saying "God could compartmentalize this or that" is still anthropomorphizing God.

Again, remember that if you acknowledge the existence of God, you're talking about something outside space-time and the laws of physics, the creator of those laws themselves. You aren't just taking a narrow snapshot of a single planet in a single galaxy over a few years. It's like basing all of your mathematics on Roblox or Minecraft, then being shocked that it only applies within that environment and not necessarily to the "outside world."

As a finite being, you need rules, sanity, and a solid form of mental stability, just like how our bodies evolve to be efficient at certain tasks and not others. Our perception, cognitive understanding, and what we choose to filter in or out evolve in the same way. There is a reason a cheetah doesn't have human cognition, just as there is a reason our bodies aren't specialized like a cheetah's.

You need a world with some form of consistent rules that you can base your sense of sanity on if you want to continue being yourself. If you take any of those funky psychedelics like salvia, datura, etc., you might not be able to distinguish between real and fake, mind and reality, yourself and whatever you are, or even whether you've taken a psychedelic at all. You might end up killing yourself and understand it as if you were some sort of juice cup object that got broken on a desk instead of your human self dying.

The only time our consciousness was this fluid was probably when we were babies, before we had developed a stable sense of self. We simply forgot what that was like. Now we're operating within this frame, and it's extremely difficult to step outside of it because, quite frankly, it's impractical if you still want to remain a functioning human being and stay alive.

You basically got RNG-ed into a "lower" consciousness and are experiencing what it's like to be trapped within that bind, or that "human-biased" definition. In another space, there could be angels and idealistic heavenly scenarios that you're describing.

The key here is realizing that even the question, "Can't God compartmentalize this or that?" is already being asked from a human perspective. We're imposing our own concepts of space, time, separation, and causality onto something that, by definition, would transcend them. From the absolute perspective, there is no separate "this" and "that."

34 minutes ago, LordFall said:

There are different ways of being finite. We could have been born as angels and experience taking walks and hunting fake beings that don't experience pain and hanging out with our friends and building businesses all the same without the design fact of extreme being put into the universe. 

Basically, there is no true "compartmentalization" with God. God is the mind experiencing whatever form creation takes. So if God imagines something, then from God's absolute perspective, that experience is real simply because there is no fundamental distinction between "real" and "imagined," or between "mind" and "reality." Those distinctions only arise from a finite perspective.

If God is to genuinely experience an act as evil, it would need to construct a sufficiently stable frame, context, "false" reality in which that experience can actually occur as evil. Otherwise, from a detached perspective, it wouldn't truly be torture. It would just be like watching a movie or observing someone else's body being touched.

You can think of finite existence as part of the mechanism through which God actualizes itself as everything. To genuinely experience something, God has to temporarily "identify" or "fool" itself with a particular perspective and its limitations. In that sense, the "delusion" isn't necessarily a mistake. It's the mechanism that makes finite experience even possible.

[LordFall]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Anyway what I am seeing is you consistently misunderstanding what others mean - either through others failure to express properly or your own interpretation. Doesn't matter. But that is what is happening here. And everywhere in almost all of your misunderstandings on the forum.

If you want to still address things in the way you do - so be it. Your assumptions are really shooting you in the foot.

I'll point out that there are very few people on this forum that have the humility to admit they're wrong. I've had discussions on topics I'm an expert on with people with no clue and they flail out. Very few users have the lack of ego to just say ''Huh that's an interesting point, I'll think on it."

I will then point you back to your own signature and let you honestly introspect on your own bias and stubbornness as I believe that's what's happening here as when I deconstructed your point you defaulted to an ego response of why didn't you ask me to clarity instead of countering the point. 

2 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Nobody’s claimed expertise besides you, through your actions.

Asking for a coherent model to explain extreme biological suffering isn't claiming expertise. It’s holding an inquiry to basic standards of logic.

I’ve laid out the arguments from first principles across 4 pages. Those who want to engage with the actual mechanics of suffering can read the thread.

I'm off, good night everyone. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall