Sadism must be one of the foundational values of God

[yetineti]

41 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Depends how you define God but by using the definition of Actualized.org it would be a universal consciousness that experiences everything that makes up the sum totality of the universe. In that case it should have power over everything and it chose to make a reality where people can hurt each other in all kinds of ways.

The fact that humanity itself is getting to the point that we're making a VR reality where you'll be able to live in a sandbox and kill others if you want but with no consequences leads me to believe that God could've shaped reality the whole time this way. The reason he didn't must be that it was more enjoyable to do it this way or its power is limited and he had no other choice but to do it this way. I don't believe the latter makes sense so it must be the former. 

How does that definition lead to that outcome?

And you went from God is sadist > Someone would be sadistic, if they raped someone > VR

To bring it back—how do you even know God operates at a level of motive?

 

Quote

Confronting what? 
 

Ourselves through others, concepts, feelings.

Edited 46 minutes ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

33 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

To think in just one mind without subdivisions is insane lol, that's like saying you wrote this post or I wrote your comment. >

It is one mind. That's the entire point of Leo's Actualized.org. It's most likely that you simply haven't had these experiences, whether through psychedelics, meditation, sobriety, introspection, or other means. Which is totally ok; that's why we are in this forum to help each other 

At the highest level of awakening, you experience the collapse of the separation between Self and Other. The Self becomes all, and the "Other" is also recognized as the Self.

I'm not trying to make this unnecessarily difficult. Yes, from our ordinary human perspective, the world is filled with beauty and horror, love and hatred, pleasure and suffering, creation and destruction, compassion and cruelty, and countless other apparent opposites.

But once you start talking about God, nonduality, or the highest perspective and "values", your definitions have to change accordingly. Concepts such as sadism and masochism depend on there being an "other" toward whom an action is directed. From the highest nondual perspective, that distinction no longer exists. All apparent dualities collapse into one because there is no separate "other" outside of the One.

That's literally what nonduality means (it is in the word itself - not DUAL, not TWO): there is no fundamental second thing, no separate Other, no independent contrast. There is only One.

When we apply dualistic human definitions to the highest nondual context without first redefining the context, we are imposing distinctions that the nondual framework itself has already dissolved.

You're parroting stuff without thinking about it.

One mind can be subdivided into others while still being one whole and each part still experiences its reality and thus can be made to suffer. If this one mind is omnipotent and chooses to make reality in a way that makes most beings suffer a lot of the time that mind is by definition quite sadistic.

27 minutes ago, aurum said:

The answer was given: suffering is a structural consequence of the infinite nature of reality.

Life cannot not contain suffering to some degree.

But of course, unless you understand that answer, it doesn't mean anything to you.

You're making up opinions out of thin air. You could make nerve endings that induce even more pain than they do now. You can make humans that can't experience physical pain, there are conditions like this that exist. If reality is like it is and you believe in God then he thought it right to make it exactly like how it is for some reason. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why and sadism seems like a clear answer.

23 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

100% which is why, if anything, masochism would be the best fit 

But we can go further and do away with masochism entirely - its just sensation, data to harvest, experience - for God. There is no judgement. No good or bad. No unwanted experience. No unwanted thing  

You guys are not understanding the point you're making, you're arguing that you're a bot. I hope that that is not the case and your experiences are real and if so God chooses to inflict pain on us for some reason. Since it should be possible to make perfect beings that don't need to learn from the start then that reason basically has to be sadism.

Here's an easy way to conceptualize it: in Grand Theft Auto you can steal anything you want and shoot and kill people. If you couldn't do that, the game would be less fun.

In my Game Legend Of The Abyss you you'll similarly be able to wage war and kill other players and NPCs. Otherwise the game would be no fun and be like Animal Crossing. In a game you are not hurting real people though, they are NPCs that only appear like they have pain but are a central server that is just processing data. God chose to make a game where its playable characters, us humans, feel a lot of pain for some reason. 

@yetineti So you don't think God has consciousness? Or you believe its power is quite limited? Explain how you see God and we can compare our thoughts on it. 

@aurum You seem to want to believe that there was no other way to make reality which makes no logical sense if you believe in God and you believe that God has basically infinite power over reality. If you do not believe that then please explain where its power starts and end, I'm curious how you conceptualize it.

My only conclusion is that God as an infinite mind is both benevolent and sadistic, like most humans to some degree but as the sum total of the universe its moral responsibility is much greater. Since no one can hold it accountable I guess it gets away with it.  

Edited 44 minutes ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

No, they’re arguing their God choosing to be a bot, like you choosing to play a video game.

Edit: I conceded/see that specific point made now.

Edited 42 minutes ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

Just now, yetineti said:

@LordFall

No, they’re arguing their God choosing to be a bot, like you choosing to play a video game.

God is not a bot though, it exists as many billions of humans and other sentient beings. Are you a bot? I'm not a bot. 

[yetineti]

Why do people assume God has control, though?

[LordFall]

2 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Why do people assume God has control, though?

Where do you think God starts and ends? If you don't think there is a being that has control over the universe, that's fine but then you're taking an atheistic viewpoint which I do not share. I think life is more scary than that and this conclusion is correct.

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

My only conclusion is that God as an infinite mind is both benevolent and sadistic, like most humans to some degree but as the sum total of the universe its moral responsibility is much greater. Since no one can hold it accountable I guess it gets away with it.  

To derive the most satisfaction from sadism you have to inflict a lot of pain otherwise it's not really real. If whenever someone got shot they were like ahah no big deal and healed themselves that's fine that's like Call of Duty but reality doesn't work like this. 

Edited 39 minutes ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

Just now, LordFall said:

God is not a bot though, it exists as many billions of humans and other sentient beings. Are you a bot? I'm not a bot. 

I reread/missed your point there. It was a good point.

 

[yetineti]

1 minute ago, LordFall said:

Where do you think God starts and end? If you don't think there is a being that has control over the universe, that's fine but then you're taking an atheistic viewpoint which I do not share. I think life is more scary than that and this conclusion is correct.

God does not start or end. God is a paradox. I am not atheist.

People are mistaking the structure of God for the experience.

The power and control comes from being able to conjure any experience. Selection bias immediately breaks.

Any experience happens.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It feels like this thread / premise is coming from a perspective that hasn't had a realisation, awakening, insight. 

This level of confusion is revealing this.

[LordFall]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It feels like this thread / premise is coming from a perspective that hasn't had a realisation, awakening, insight. 

This level of confusion is revealing this.

I think you're being intellectually dishonest with this comment. I've had plenty of awakenings and mystical experiences and I came to this exact conclusion that I'm sharing and you've had no valid rebuttals.

Reality seems to be a sandbox in which you can do whatever you want and that includes hurting other humans and if you couldn't do that then it would be worse than it is.

I'm thankful to be born in an age where it seems like AI and post scarcity will happen soon and solve it otherwise from anything prior to our era seems quite hellish. 

6 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I reread/missed your point there. It was a good point.

 

Thank you, I think I'm making pure sense and people are bypassing the harsh reality that we live in a world of suffering and if there is an omnipotent God controlling it, which there must be if we believe in God, then the creator of the universe is quite sadistic. Which makes sense, I'm creating a world and you want to be able to influence it in all ways good and bad. It's just unfortunate from the human perspective. 

Edited 33 minutes ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

Oh, we completely disagree. Don’t be mistaken. I misread the one point. And consider @Natasha Tori Maru could have had more awakenings. Is she supposed to baby you through each rebuttal? No. Show some respect.

Not everyone is spiritually bypassing you.

Edited 29 minutes ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

2 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall

Oh, we completely disagree. Don’t be mistaken. I misread the one point. And consider @Natasha Tori Maru could have had more awakenings. Is she supposed to baby you through each rebuttal? No. Show some respect.

Not everyone is spiritually bypassing you.

So make your point, you haven't made one so far you just endlessly deflect. 

It doesn't matter how many awakenings she's had if she can't counter my points then my argument stands correct. 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, LordFall said:

You seem to want to believe that there was no other way to make reality which makes no logical sense if you believe in God and you believe that God has basically infinite power over reality. If you do not believe that then please explain where its power starts and end, I'm curious how you conceptualize it.

Consider this:

If God exists, God must have infinite power over reality. But how can God have infinite power over reality? Only by being infinite.

So both things are true: God has infinite power over reality, but God must also be infinite.

If God is infinite, infinity must contain finiteness / limitation / pain / suffering / scarcity. That's what a lot of human life involves.

Also, if God is infinite, there literally is no other to inflict suffering upon. Sadism assumes a frame of some outside entity desiring to inflict harm on another, which is metaphysically impossible.

If you want to say God contains, sadism, that's coherent. Because of course infinity must contain sadism. But that does not make sadism the foundational value of God.

[yetineti]

21 minutes ago, LordFall said:

So make your point, you haven't made one so far you just endlessly deflect. 

It doesn't matter how many awakenings she's had if she can't counter my points then my argument stands correct. 

That’s not how arguments work. She doesn’t have to do anything and she maybe correct. And you may, well, be incorrect.

The world doesn’t owe you counter points.

I’ve been asking you questions, mainly, trying to understand your take.

You’ve had a lot to say, a lot of reasoning and now a little hostility.

I did already respond and summarized the problem. It’s been your choice not to ask anything back.

Edited 4 minutes ago by yetineti

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@LordFall I am not trying to position myself above you in terms of awakenings. I apologise if it is coming across that way.

I can see a lot of explanation here, but there isn't understanding being transmitted. 

I don't understand why you aren't asking more questions regarding what other users are stating. It really comes across like you assume you understand their meaning. That can be a huge mistake.

Edited 7 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[yetineti]

God can be any experience. Selection bias collapses, indecision ensues. Any experience happens. This is one of those experiences. It’s impossible to say it’s better or worse or sadist or masochism, when anything else can happen and there is endless comparisons. Points of reference collapse. Reasoning becomes paradoxical until it evaporates. Consciousness persists.

 

Edited 6 minutes ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

Consider this:

If God exists, God must have infinite power over reality. But how can God have infinite power over reality? Only by being infinite.

So both things are true: God has infinite power over reality, but God must also be infinite.

If God is infinite, infinity must contain finiteness / limitation / pain / suffering / scarcity. That's what a lot of human life involves.

God could've made a reality where humans can opt out of pain. Or where just people that choose to inflict pain on others feel pain, like PvP mode in games. 

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

Also, if God is infinite, there literally is no other to inflict suffering upon. Sadism assumes a frame of some outside entity desiring to inflict harm on another, which is metaphysically impossible.

Have you felt pain in your life that others have not felt? If you stub your toe on the wall, that's localized pain. We agree that all of life does not experience your pain of having stubbed your toe. 

 There's both the possibilities that God is a masochist and feels all the pain of all humans when they feel it and enjoys it or that God is even more fucked up than that and can cut itself off from others's pain and experience it like a movie and thus is more psychopathic and sadistic.  

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

If you want to say God contains, sadism, that's coherent. Because of course infinity must contain sadism. But that does not make sadism the foundational value of God.

Sure but we get to deconstruct reality and what it's made out of. For example government's top values are not to produce cheese. Their countries contain cheese but it's not highly ranked. What's highly ranked is military power or alliances to maintain sovereignty, a functional legal system, exports to fund the budget, etc. 

9 minutes ago, yetineti said:

That’s not how arguments work. She doesn’t have to do anything and she maybe be correct. And you may well be incorrect.

The world doesn’t owe you counter points.

I’ve been asking you questions, mainly, trying to understand your take.

You’ve had a lot to say, a lot of reasoning and now a little hostility.

I did already respond and summarized the problem. It’s been your choice not to ask anything back.

You can have a low standard for your arguments. I can say that I believe that God is really a giant fish and you can say wooow bro that's deep who knows it could be true. I wouldn't consider that a valid argument.

You've responded to my arguments but you haven't invalidated them and you've simply deflected and haven't made a point of your own in terms of the power of God and its level of sadism. 

Edited 2 minutes ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

You don’t understand my points, to be fair.

[yetineti]

AI isn’t going to either.

[LordFall]

2 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall

You don’t understand my points, to be fair.

Since we've had a good dialogue these past few days I will be more conciliatory than I usually am. I don't think the points you've made have been good.

Please state your points clearly and succinctly if you believe them to be valid and potentially invalidating the conclusions I've come to. 

Edited just now by LordFall