Sadism must be one of the foundational values of God

[yetineti]

@LordFall
 

If you don’t understand my points, they’re on the record for you to ask about.

You don’t have to fake an interest, with me.

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[Natasha Tori Maru]

26 minutes ago, LordFall said:

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

It does if the arguement wouldn't even exist with wholeistic understanding.

[LordFall]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It does if the arguement wouldn't even exist with wholeistic understanding.

Claiming you've had more awakenings without being able to explain how your understanding makes sense is a road straight to delusion my friend. I believe you yourself have pointed out the intellectual trap of making unfalsifiable points. 

2 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall
 

If you don’t understand my points, they’re on the record for you to ask about.

You don’t have to fake an interest, with me.

Alright feel free to stop responding to this thread as I don't think you get the topic and the rebuttals you've had against my points have been weak and therefore invalid. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It does if the arguement wouldn't even exist with wholeistic understanding.

I think this says too much.

One’s ability to or not to counter points is not necessarily evidence of a stronger or weaker argument—more so being correct or not.

He’s leveraging your communication abilities to create a limiting belief around his ability to understand.

And assuming the understanding is even transferable and we’re not just being patient.

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

If this is your first time really pondering the problem of evil then it makes sense that my conclusion that God is quite sadistic is too jarring to consider. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

It's one of the top questions of theology that I've personally wondered about for years and I've introspected even while on psychedelics. If you guys have not pondered it equally as deep then our conversation on the topic is not gonna be very productive. 

Feel free to offer a credible rebuttal otherwise I will assume that you do not understand the topic and are therefore categorically wrong on it. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall
 

Have you ever thrown up or cried ‘pondering’ this?

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

9 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Alright feel free to stop responding to this thread as I don't think you get the topic and the rebuttals you've had against my points have been weak and therefore invalid. 

@LordFall

Not acknowledging my points is not evidence I did not have any. It just means you didn’t.

That is the exact thing you accused @Natasha Tori Maru of just now.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

3 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall
 

Have you ever thrown up or cried ‘pondering’ this?

No, I accept being ruled by a partly quite sadistic ruler since thankfully my life is not that bad and I was born in a time where real solutions seem to exist for all the problems we face.

3 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Not rebutting my points is nit evidence I did not have any. It just means you’re not acknowledging them.

I've rebutted all the points made in this thread to my liking. If you don't feel like my answers changed your mind on your points then feel free to restate your points and we can go over them again otherwise I'm satisfied with this thread so far. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

I find intellectual bypassing much more pervasive than spiritual bypassing. At least with spiritual bypassing, there isn’t an illusion of value.

[aurum]

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

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.

You could have a temporary, limited experience of that. Anesthesia is a good example.

But that cannot be the sum total of reality. Doing so would make God less than infinite.

Also, that assumes there isn't value in pain, which is false. Pain is valuable information.

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

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. 

From the standard human POV, yes.

But metaphysically, no. We do not agree on that. 

There is a difference.

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

 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.  

No, that is not a possibility.

That is only a possibility in the mind of someone who is confused.

[yetineti]

3 minutes ago, LordFall said:

No I'm satisfied with being ruled by a partly sadistic ruler since thankfully my life is not that bad and I was born in a time where real solutions seem to exist for all the problems we face.

I find people often have limiting beliefs in regard to their agency like this.

Quote

I've rebutted all the points made in this thread to my liking. If you don't feel like my answers changed your mind on your points then feel free to restate your points and we can go over them again otherwise I'm satisfied with this thread so far. 

Have you solved your initial question? Or was this thread not meant to be a conversation?

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

21 minutes ago, aurum said:

You could have a temporary, limited experience of that. Anesthesia is a good example.

But that cannot be the sum total of reality. Doing so would make God less than infinite.

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

21 minutes ago, aurum said:

Also, that assumes there isn't value in pain, which is false. Pain is valuable information.

From the standard human POV, yes.

But metaphysically, no. We do not agree on that. 

Some people get skinned alive and tortured by cartels when they try to speak out for justice because it limits the power of the cartels. The pain caused is only valuable to the cartels power and I guess to a sadistic God that's experiencing it as well.

We could also say that it's a perfectly organized set of dominos and if one less person was skinned alive then the collective will towards positive change would not be strong enough to make it happen. That's on the human level though, there is still a sadistic God that made it so. Or an unchangeable reality but that's an atheistic argument. 

21 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, that is not a possibility.

That is only a possibility in the mind of someone who is confused.

Of course it's a possibility. In what way am I confused? You're clearly just avoiding the fact that it's entirely possible for a God to be partly good and partly bad. Like the simple concept that the Devil is another aspect to God. Not more powerful than God since I don't believe reality to be fundamentally based in pain but it's quite a large component of it for sure.

20 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I find people often have limiting beliefs in regard to their agency like this.

Have you solved your initial question? Or was this thread not meant to be a conversation?

I'm an INTP, I focus on solutions and understanding not dwelling on the pain in the universe. If God decided to make it like this but gave us the tools to improve it then I'll focus on understanding how things work and then work to solve it for myself and others. There is no other rational way to look at it. 

52 homicides happen globally each hour so since I've made this thread give or take 300 people have been murdered. I can't do anything about it but you know who can? God. If he hasn't done something then he must be getting some value out of it.

If you consider that as one gets murdered you join the universal consciousness and you don't feel bad then I guess that's justifiable. I'm not really talking about murder though I'm talking mostly about all the worse things that go down on this realm as well as the concept of justice.  

It's a conversation but if we're to be serious in our inquiry then we need to ruthlessly deconstruct each-others point. Otherwise we're back to the fish stoner bro metaphor. I've done that plenty in my life, now I'm on a quest for truth and understanding and have no patience for half-baked points. 

I went to the forum with the smartest and most spiritually aware people I know and if they can't poke holes in my arguments it must be true.

AI said it's true and life is complicated but stop thinking about it if it makes you uncomfortable. I said AI stop worrying about my comfort and just analyze my points and it couldn't really find flaws in them. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall 

Where have you deconstructed any points?

I see a lot of construction. If you have deconstructed my point, specifically—I haven’t seen it.

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

44 minutes ago, yetineti said:

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.

 

I will restate it for you.

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[Natasha Tori Maru]

36 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Claiming you've had more awakenings without being able to explain how your understanding makes sense is a road straight to delusion my friend. I believe you yourself have pointed out the intellectual trap of making unfalsifiable points. 

It shifts ones perspective - which can be hard to explicate. 

[yetineti]

42 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I think this says too much.

One’s ability to or not to counter points is not necessarily evidence of a stronger or weaker argument—more so being correct or not.

He’s leveraging your communication abilities to create a limiting belief around his ability to understand.

And assuming the understanding is even transferable and we’re not just being patient.

 

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It shifts ones perspective - which can be hard to explicate. 

Stephen Hawking was better at math than you @LordFall— would you beat him up because he could not explain it to you?

Micheal Jordan—better basketball player—is it his fault he can’t teach you how to jump high and be tall?

Try to demonstrate respect.

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It shifts ones perspective - which can be hard to explicate. 

That's fine, your subjective experience is your own. If we sit down together and make a map of what we understand about reality, if you want your points to be credible then you need to communicate them effectively.

Otherwise I don't know my neighbour could be Jesus Christ himself powering up for the second coming. I can't know that but it's not something that I'll consider until I see evidence to the contrary. 

15 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I will restate it for you.

Alright and now respectfully my friend, this is a bad point. Let me explain why. 

> 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.

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.

> 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 experienced 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. 

That can be entirely inaccurate and therefore my conclusion would be invalid and if I've now proved the limits in God's power then I'm also satisfied with that

5 minutes ago, yetineti said:

 

Stephen Hawking was better at math than you @LordFall— would you beat him up because he could not explain it to you?

Micheal Jordan—better basketball player—is it his fault he can’t teach you how to jump high and be tall?

Try to demonstrate respect.

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.

Michael Jordan is an athlete not a performance coach. If he was a poor performance coach then yes you could call him a bad coach.

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

Edited 55 minutes ago by LordFall

[Xonas Pitfall]

I'll try my best to explain this.

God is, by definition, God. If God were something else, then God wouldn't be God.

The definition of God, as you will realize through contemplation, awakening, etc., is that God is fundamentally all, or that which has no "other." There is nothing outside of itself. It is all-encompassing. So God isn't merely a "creator"; God is everything. It is everythingness.

If you agree with this definition, then you can follow the logic from there.

For God to be all, to be everything, it is in a bind that is self-defined: it has to contain both the finite and the infinite. It has to be capable of containing both limitation and unlimitedness, and it has to create limitations without bias.

Why? Because if God were limited by any bias, then God would be limited by that very bias.

For example, if I define a set as the set of all prime numbers, then I have to include all prime numbers. If I leave one out, then it is no longer the set of all prime numbers. It would be the set of all prime numbers except 7.

So everything has to exist without any fundamental bias. If God were biased toward creating a world without evil, then God would not be everything, because God would be limited by the exclusion of evil.

If God is the set of all that exists, and you remove something because "that cannot be God," then God suddenly isn't God anymore. It becomes something that does not include that thing.

You could therefore say that the only thing that "limits" God is the fact that God has to be itself, or everything. In other words, God cannot be biased toward one part of existence over another, because then it would cease to be everything. It has to take in everything and be everything.

That's the first reason.

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.

Evil and suffering exist as long as you agree to the rules of existing as a finite self. Every single moment of your life, you could theoretically end your life and exit this particular bind, but you don't want to because you want to continue living. As long as you are attached to existence, form attachments, and want things to be a specific way, you will inevitably experience some degree of pain and suffering.

Take the classic example of a gazelle being chased by a lion. Both animals simply want to survive and feed their families. Who does God give the bias to? What should the animals be fed on? Are you going to commit "genocide" against the grass and nature too? How do you decide what gets eaten alive and what doesn't?

If you're a game developer, I'm sure you can understand this yourself. It's incredibly difficult to satisfy everyone's preferences. Every time you reject a feature request from a player, for example, you could argue that you have caused some degree of disappointment or pain for that player.

And this problem continues at every level: whenever one thing is given preference over another, something is necessarily excluded or denied.

Bias is fundamental to all of this. Bias is also what separates duality from nonduality.

• Why should one thing be one way and not another?
• Why prefer this over that?
• How do I define what is evil for me and what is evil for you? What is good, and what is evil? Who gets to decide that?

The moment you prefer one thing over another, you introduce a distinction. You are saying that this should be one way rather than that way. In that sense, preference itself creates a form of duality. 

As long as you're attached to being alive and to existing in a particular way, you'll experience pain and suffering whenever reality doesn't conform to that way. Who says you're entitled to comfortable weather all the time? Why can't nature suddenly become extremely cold and bring another ice age? Is that evil being done to you? From another perspective, you're imposing your preferences onto nature by expecting it to behave the way you want.

From a nondual perspective, there is no fundamental basis for preferring one part of reality over another, because there is no ultimately separate "other" to stand in contrast to it.

TLDR; Pain, suffering, evil, and sadism exist because God is, by definition, everything. For God to be God, it must encompass both the infinite and the finite. Once you enter the finite realm, pain, suffering, and "evil" exist depending on the perspective of the observer.

• It is "evil" to paint over a beautiful masterpiece, but it can also be good because it creates space for a new masterpiece.
• It is "evil" to die from cancer or disease, but from another perspective, the body and its cells fought to survive for as long as they could, and harmful genetic traits may not be passed on.
• It may seem "evil" that God doesn't simply give you a harem of beautiful women who exist solely to please you, but from the perspective of those women, it is good that they are not reduced to objects existing only for someone else's desires.
• It is "evil" to age and lose your energy and vitality, but it can also be good because you eventually return nutrients to nature and make room for new, novel lives to emerge.

• 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.

Evil, suffering, and sadism exist precisely because you are not a bot. Because if God were biased in any way, then as the creator, God would have to behave according to that specific bias, imposing an even greater limitation on you than the limitations we already experience.

Edited 50 minutes ago by Xonas Pitfall

[aurum]

@Xonas Pitfall excellent!

 

 

 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Some questions aren't difficult because the answer is complicated.

They can simply be difficult because the question is being asked from within a conceptual frame that makes the answer impossible to see.