Sadism must be one of the foundational values of God

[yetineti]

@LordFall

I had my AI summarize it for you.

You still haven’t addressed:

Why power necessarily means control or deliberate selection.

Why God must operate through human motives like enjoyment or boredom.

Why the only possibilities are “God couldn’t avoid suffering” or “God enjoys it.”

Whether pain could be a consequence of something greater rather than the purpose itself.

My point that if every possible experience can occur, comparison and labels like sadistic or masochistic eventually collapse.

The distinction between suffering not fundamentally existing and reality not existing—which you completely misrepresented.

Why rejecting everyone else’s explanations somehow validates your own.

How this qualifies as an inquiry when you haven’t genuinely entertained alternatives to your conclusion.

Calling my argument “subjectivity” doesn’t answer it. You acknowledged that it holds from the universal perspective, then immediately switched back to the human perspective—even though your claim is specifically about God’s perspective and values.

If God is every being, you haven’t explained why an individual’s actions should be attributed to a separate ruler called God rather than to that individual.

You haven’t addressed the difference between the structure of God and the subjective experiences occurring within it.

Someone’s inability or unwillingness to explain something to your satisfaction does not prove them wrong or make your conclusion correct.

You admit you don’t know the answer, yet repeatedly speak as though sadism has been logically established.

Calling alternatives “foolish,” “delusional,” or “bad faith” is not a rebuttal to them.

Not understanding a point is not the same thing as having disproved it.

Your argument remains self-sealing: every answer you reject becomes further “evidence” that your original conclusion must be right.

You’ve reacted to these points and shared how you feel, but you haven’t actually acknowledged or answered them.

And now you have over a dozen points you have claimed you already solved but they stand all at once, reminding you, you haven’t.

If you have, it should be easy to correct the record.

Edited 55 minutes ago by yetineti

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@LordFall have you studied Peter Ralston's work?

[Xonas Pitfall]

38 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Xonas Pitfall I don't mean to be rude, I don't think it makes logical sense to entertain a bad argument if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I wouldn't use this level of rhetoric in a "How was your day?" thread. 

 I don't your last counters make much sense. Do you really honestly or are you honestly parroting a Leo video without having thought much about it? I've thought a lot on these concepts, I don't take them at face value.

Clearly God can maintain compartments that are extremely stable since he has put very specific conditions for us to be experience wobbly reality like intentionally consuming psychedelics.

No worries. And no, I am definitely not trying to parrot or appease Leo in any manner. I've raised points against Leo on many of his opinions, topics, and blog posts in this forum whenever I've disagreed with him, and I continue to do so. I've been both correct and wrong.

My last goal is not to think in this forum, haha. One of the main reasons I'm here is to expand my understanding. I'm just debating, and these topics aren't necessarily the least tricky, which is why I like having discussions about them.

-

I'll try to be a bit clearer, but basically, there is no "compartmentalization" from God's POV. This is tricky to imagine because you're mostly using your human POV, which has clear distinctions between imaginary vs. real. You need to distinguish things that are more real, meaning things that have a sensory impact on you, from fleeting, inconsistent thoughts.

But from God's POV, if God must experience evil, aka "have evil within itself," to fully be itself, then God would have to somehow experience it. However, evil doesn't really exist in this realm because it's all just one mind. There is no "other." Again, that's the point I was making about nonduality. Nondual literally means no Other, no otherness. So... how would it do that? What would be the fundamental "mechanic" of God even being able to experience Evil?

So the only way for God to experience "evil" would be to somehow "lower it's conciosuness/delude" itself or "forget" that it is God for some temporarily finite period of time so that it can experience it. I don't know if you've ever seen that image of the universe holding a mask. I'll put it here. God needs to create some kind of "frame" or "limit" around its consciousness to even perceive evil. That frame is you, and everything else is a limited being within it.

If you had no frame, bias, or point of view, there would be no separate things to perceive, only God God God God God, all of it, without distinction. That is why awakening sometimes involves your vision having transparency, pure whiteness, pure darkness (blackout); the collapse of all distinctions. There is no separate observer imposing boundaries on experience. Even scientifically, if we stripped away categories, reality could be reduced to particles and fields interacting. Atom interacting with atom, field interacting with field, over and over again. You’d basically see the brown/universe thing around everywhere (just referring to the image/graph). In order for God to even experience some sort of “pain,” it would need to fool itself, put on a “mask,” figuratively speaking, AKA impose a “fake limitation/frame” onto itself to see a temporary "fake" separation between itself and the other. It would then temporarily delude itself into thinking that it is not itself interacting with itself, but that it is some other actual "OTHER REAL" entity that is actually harming and hurting it.

And since God, “as it says, so it is,” has no mind/reality distinction, when God creates this “illusion,” it is not separate from reality. And that “middle experience” of a mask is what we essentially call human life/ego.

It's not necessarily "creating" evil. It's more like God limiting its own consciousness and compressing it into a human experience where concepts like evil, suffering, and harm can even exist. Otherwise, God would simply experience everything as one whole, without a separate "other" to experience those things happening to. Hence, it can't even conceptualize or see "Evil".

-

From God’s POV, it’s kind of like planting a prank on yourself or planning a surprise for yourself. How could you ever fool yourself? You can’t. The only way you could is if you somehow temporarily forgot, in which case it would become a genuine surprise or deception.

How can God experience anything that requires “otherness”? It can’t. It never actually can with its full consciousness, because “otherness” isn’t real or true. So the only way it can do it is by “lowering its consciousness,” forgetting, fooling itself. That’s why evil is often called “low-consciousness behavior.”

Edited 45 minutes ago by Xonas Pitfall

[LordFall]

We can go point by point, that's fine. 

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

 

Why power necessarily means control or deliberate selection.

My thesis assumes an omnipotent God. If you want to put limits on God in your argument then fine but that goes against most definitions of God. Doesn't mean it's not valid but that's not really what you've claimed so far.

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Why God must operate through human motives like enjoyment or boredom.

I wouldn't call it a motive, it's a description of a phenomenon. If God sees people being people suffering and its not that relevant to him that's by definition boredom. Enjoyment from an omnipotent being would lead to increasing the frequency of something since you find it valuable and I guess enjoyable.

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

 

Why the only possibilities are “God couldn’t avoid suffering” or “God enjoys it.”

I didn't only present those possibilities in the thread, I said perhaps God finds it valuable to reality. Nobody made a credible defence of that point and I don't think it makes much sense so I didn't focus on it.

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

 

Whether pain could be a consequence of something greater rather than the purpose itself.

That's absolutely possible. We cannot use that to make base our live out of though. At least not without evidence pointing towards it. That's like saying why don't we encourage murder because perhaps there is a good reason for it since it's allowed in reality. 

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

My point that if every possible experience can occur, comparison and labels like sadistic or masochistic eventually collapse.

It's a demonstrably false point though. Not every human that has lived has been literally tortured. There could've been a single instance of torture in all of history and it never happen again and that would fit the standard that every possible experience can occur. I'm asking why suffering happens at such high frequency ubiquitously throughout mankind

10 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Why rejecting everyone else’s explanations somehow validates your own.

How this qualifies as an inquiry when you haven’t genuinely entertained alternatives to your conclusion.

Just because I don't fold to propositions that go against mine doesn't mean I haven't entertained them. I have gone through every single one.

I could still be biased and ultimately wrong but I haven't seen evidence to support that fact.

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@LordFall have you studied Peter Ralston's work?

No.

Edited 49 minutes ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

 

@LordFall

You will continuing calling me delusional and saying that I haven’t made any good points.

It is the most simplistic cop out haha.

Pathetic

I expected more from you.

Are we still having that livestream debate? You should make a forum thread explaining the topic so people can prepare to view it. It will be on your channel.

Edited 9 minutes ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

You're delusional and love to evade points. When pushed you use AI to make the points for you and when I still sit down to counter them, your ego can't take it and you have a meltdown. 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You do not bring much value to conversation and highly intellectual topics seem to be above your grasp and lead to you getting overly emotional. 

Edited 29 minutes ago by LordFall