>>42039232
an evil god like the demiurge
Or
an evil god which is the supreme

>>42039232
>the creator still chose to create
Or he just wasn't able to do it better.
The Demiurge is not necessarily seen as evil in Gnosticism, just as ignorant and limited in his creativity.

>>42039236
I don't believe there is a supreme god. The universe is eternal. There is a god (little g) who is the ruler of this world/false reality. Humans can also become gods.

>>42039246
do you believe that this god gave us our minds?

>>42039252
No. I think we originally came here from another place, and are currently trapped here.

>>42039254
oh ok then i don't have much to say then, so like gnosticism

If you said yes i would call you reatred and bring up descartes evil demon

>>42039232
existence by an evil god is illogical

Ok first what would be "Evil" in a world view that overarching god is evil, as classical theology understands Evil to be the absence of good as god is the source of "good", so we will just invert it so that good is the absence of evil.
So Evil is the substance and good is just a lack of that substance, so god is evil and goodness is a privation of god.
This god would not create anything, as Being is understood to be an act of good under an theological reasoning, so god in its goodness and his nature would naturally gives being, this also means that this god wouldn't exist. so its literarily an impossibility if we are going to be consistent under theological understanding.

>>42039263
A god which may be "presived" as evil but is just ignorant would make more sense though
like>>42039240

>>42039232
good for you son

>>42039263
You're fucking retarded.
For God to be good the following criteria has to be met.
1. He is truly good to his sons, thus he permits them to dissgree with goodness and be evil.

And there

>>42039307
>God doesn't really need to be evil for death and evil to exist.

Yeah he does. If he was purely morally good he would create a natural world (again, not even including humans, so you can't cry muh free will) where suffering and anguish don't exist. But he didn't. He specifically chose to condemn trillions of animals to an endless loop of torment stuck maiming and killing each other to survive.

Unless you're a retard who thinks good = whatever God does, in which case I'm not interested in talking to you

>>42039232
Satan rules this world with the permission of god. Read the book, nigga.

>>42039320
>thus he permits them to dissgree with goodness and be evil.
No he doesn't, since supposedly he sends them to Hell. Withholding punishment for something until a later date doesn't mean that thing is "permitted"

>>42039326
Explain how it's not evil of God to permit Satan to rule the world?

>>42039338
No, I mean that I dissgree with abrahamic views. I think goodness not only permits, but allows, concedes and encourages evil because that may bring joy to his child.
If you're an apex being, the least of your concerns is a masochist or a lecherous slut or a sorcerer.

god is getting more powerful

File: 1698362160472073.jpg (140.4 KB)

140.4 KB JPG

A purely good God would not create a hirarchy. All beings he would create would have the same status and power as he has. It would be a truely egalitarian and democratic universe of God peers, living in immortal perfection.

>>42039400
hierarchy* Is natural human good.
Fuck of you leftist retard

>>42039232
>I believe in an evil god.
Okay.
You are sentient, and thus can evaluate things.
Everyone can.
I judge you evil.
See how fun that is?

>>42039400
Would you accept, if God gave you nigh-omnipotence and a universe to rule for yourself? So you could show God how it should be done and you can create your perfect world?

>>42039232
I believe that our world is two gods clashing. One an evil inferior god which is grounded in quantity, and the other a noble benevolent god which is grounded in quality. What we experience as life is just the battle of these two sources of knowledge playing out in real time.

File: 1772021542061675.jpg (31.2 KB)

31.2 KB JPG

>>42039477
>Would you accept
sure

File: Lord Brahma gathering.jpg (144 KB)

144 KB JPG

>>42039491
Okay...that is what the demiurge is doing.
That already is what you did.
It's what we all did.
Every soul in samsara begins with their own universe.
THIS *gestures all around* is what the result of imperfect beings thinking they can make a place that is "perfect."

>describe God
God is God
10/10 accuracy

>>42039324
>good = whatever God does,
Yes because good is goodness itself

>>42039505
What other beings do is not my fault.
I would be a good God.

>>42039526
>Yes because god is goodness itself
According to himself.

>>42039521
>"Do you know what a circular argument is?"

>>42039532
So you wouldnt do anything if the people in your world started raping and killing and making others suffer?

>>42039534
If you accept an omnipotent being, good HAS to be defined by said being.
Where else would it come from?
You've got three choices.
Either God defines what is and isnt good.
You want to say YOU are the ultimate definier of them.
Or you are saying there is something above God that defines these values, in which case why wouldnt THAT be God, and not the powerful being under its rule?

>>42039534
According to theology retard


https://mrfoxre.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/2-05-st-augustine-evil-and-privation/#:~:text=St%20Augustine%20says%20that%20the,appreciate%20when%20we%20are%20healthy.&text=St%20Augustine%20tells%20us%20that,You%20cannot%20make%20dark.&text=And%20in%20the%20universe%2C%20even,compare%20it%20with%20the%20evil.&text=For%20the%20Almighty%20God%2C%20who,good%20even%20out%20of%20evil.&text=Explain%20what%20St%20Augustine's%20response,Christian%20respond%20to%20this%20statement?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/privation-theory-of-evil-and-the-evilgod-challenge/050C2F9C50B75D0CB929ADB2351059A8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good#:~:text=Theory-,Evil%20as%20privation,by%20a%20thing's%20essential%20nature%22.

>>42039539
They wouldn't do that in my world. There would be peace and harmony. It would be a paradise realm.

>>42039320
can you reword that please, i didn't quite catch what your saying

>>42039546
So yes, according to himself and people who worship him.

>>42039548
>They wouldn't do that in my world.
Why not? what stops them?

>>42039549
don't*

>>42039545
>If you accept an omnipotent being
The issue is that YHWH is not actually omnipotent. He just claims to be.

>>42039550
Nice, so you established that your a retard which doesn't even understand theology

>>42039555
>YHWH
Checkedd, but who said anything about any specific being?
>If you accept an omnipotent being
DO you, or not?
If not, then what are you talking about when you say "god"?
Why use that word at all?
Why not just say there is no God?

>>42039556
You're*

>>42039232
I believe op is 16

>>42039552
The offer was:
>if God gave you omnipotence
>and a universe to rule
That means I can decide what's real in my universe. And I would decide that it's a world of peace and harmony. All people would be saints, no being would have to suffer. There would be no death, no sickness, no aging and no conflict, only happiness.

>>42039568
It's not 2012 anymore, nowadays teenagers think it's hip and cool to be an online christian and daydream about being a crusader. Trad Christianity is in, Atheism is out. Get with the times grandpa.

>>42039571
Op your still a 16 year old faggot which doesn't understand theology.

>>42039575
Why would I accept theology (copes) from agents of our enemy, Yahweh?

>>42039538
>do you know what a faggot is?

>>42039578
So anything against your world view is just cope even though logic and reasoning is involved?
Nice for verifying that you are 16 retard

>>42039569
>I can decide
So you'll stop them in vitro.
And they'll only do the thing you want.
> no conflict
What if they want to do something different than another person, and they cant reconcile?

>>42039578
Why did you ignore arguments not made by them?

>>42039582
All of the "logic" and "reasoning" is done with the assumption that Yahweh is good. that's why I called them copes, because it's people trying to convince themselves that their god is good when he obviously isn't

>>42039320
hey so I'm still wating your rebuttal for my argument is pretty incoherent, can you reword it please so i can better understand your position

>>42039594
Not really retard

1. The Ontological Argument (Anselm and Descartes) https://study.com/academy/lesson/descartes-ontological-argument-premises-criticism.html#:~:text=Critics%20of%20ontological%20arguments%20often%20appeal%20to,the%20perspective%20of%20God's%20state%20of%20being.
https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5203011#page=62

2. Scholasticism and Neo-Platonic Logic
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181597
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181604

3. Modal Ontological Arguments (Modern)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254414
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12938

and more

>>42039584
With omnipotence (a concept that doesn't make sense anyway) I could have a universe with beings I want, without forcing anyone to anything. They would just be happy, peaceful, virtuous, holy beings because I want it to be. My will would not be forced on them, it would be the reality, so nothing could be outside of my will. That's what omnipotence is.
>but that's not logical
Doesn't matter. An almighty God can do things beyond logic and causality.

dark are the powers of hell

>>42039618
>My will would not be forced on them
I didnt ask about your will.
Please try to answer the question.
>What if they want to do something different than another person, and they cant reconcile?
There are two people who arent you, who want incompatible results.
Is that another thing that is limited and restricted away in your universe?
What if I am in your universe, and WANT to be in conflict with someone else?
I cant do that?
What do I do, then?

>>42039633
>There are two people who arent you, who want incompatible results.
No they wouldn't. All people would be saints and spiritual masters. They would have no desires, no ego impulses, no craving for anything. They would all be united in spiritual love for each other.
>What if I am in your universe, and WANT to be in conflict with someone else?
You wouldn't be there, as my universe is a place of holy people.

File: pepe king.jpg (84.6 KB)

84.6 KB JPG

>>42039613
>retard dystheisic gets silenced

>>42039613
Summarize. I don't have time right now to read several papers.

>>42039650
>No they wouldn't.
So they arent allowed to disagree with each other about anything ever?
No football?
No discourse?
No surprises?
Everyone in all existence would always want the exact same thing at the exact same time?
That sounds like slavery and Hell.
But you do you.
>All people would be saints and spiritual masters.
Most saints and spiritual masters are in conflict with another one.
>You wouldn't be there
No, no I wouldnt.
I wouldnt want to be in a place controlled by someone who doesnt allow anything but their own conception of perfect.

>>42039659
Summarize?? are you fucking retared
you said
>with the assumption that Yahweh is good

I provided sources and arguments suggesting otherwise, this is a critique on your premise not an explanation of the arguments
I don't have time right now to Summarize it for you, do it in your own time if you can mix that with your school work XD

>>42039596
still waiting...

>>42039674
They are still operating with the assumption that God is good, even if it's not Yahweh outright. I don't believe he is, and there is far more evidence to conclude that he is not good than that he is good.

>>42039664
>football
:)
I think you can't really imagine a higer spiritual world.
Anyway, I leave the thread now.

>>42039686
Of course I can.
The world you talk about exists, it's God's realm.
It's just that your conception of it doesnnt allow for people to ever disagree with God.
God's version DOES.
Those souls get to come here.
You and I are here because we wouldnt play along with the saints and pure people.

Apologetics are all about explaining why god is still good even though he does/allows things that are obviously evil. Even a brainwashed person's conscience still tells them when something is wrong so they need copes to reassure them that god is actually still good even when deep down they know he isn't

>>42039684
Holy fucking shit XDDDD

>They are still operating with the assumption that God is good
Not a single fuckinng one does that, all of them reason their way to a good god
You stated that they all give reasons that god is good from pre assumption, i said no and provided multiple arguments and papers against that claim and then like the dumbass you are just regurgitate the same point again XD


Do you even know any of the terms (not papers the Terms) i provided?
Seriously you have no understanding of theology yet you still make such strong theological claims about god, dumbass XD

>>42039711
>all of them reason their way to a good god
Their reasoning is incorrect. If I was an omnipotent God and my nature was good I would do a much better job.

>>42039704
Is it ever possible for someone to consider something as evil, and then change their mind with new information or a different perspective?

>>42039232
I believe in a morally neutral creator

>>42039716
what enlightened perspective do you have to arrive at to think people getting maimed or killed in natural disasters (directly caused by god) is not evil?

Everyone likes to say in Isaiah 45:7 that "he's not talking about MORAL evil, just calamity!" Well directly causing calamity and hurting people as a result is itself morally evil. If something would be evil if a human did it, it's evil if God does it. Divine command theory is one of the most vile, dangerous things you can believe.

>>42039711
ecks dee
>holds up spork

Wish I could spit in your face.

>>42039596
What argument? Being unable to read isn't a fucking rebuttal.

>>42039232
Romans 14:10-12 ESV
[10] Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; [11] for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” [12] So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Matthew 7:3-5 ESV
[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? [4] Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

>>42039736
>posts texts from the evil god's cult
Not helping your case.

>>42039715
Your so arrogant its hilarious, XD

>Their reasoning is incorrect
How can you be so sure, you don't even know what a single one of those fucking arguments

>If I was an omnipotent God and my nature was good I would do a much better job.
the hubris is ridiculous XD
no wonder you are 16

>>42039723
Can this morally neutral creator be fair then?

Let’s say I like living but wish I had a better life for the 20-21st century, with less evil, allowing more good but still some difficulty.

Would it see it as fair, balanced, etc?

>>42039725
There are several, and most of them have been presented in this thread.
But you were decrying apologetics as a whole, not any specific argument.
Are we past that?

>>42039743
Your fixation on me being 16 and your incessant use of emoticons makes me think that actually you are the one who is 16.

>>42039750
>But you were decrying apologetics as a whole
A perfect God wouldn't need apologetics. His perfect word would be completely self evident and not open to interpretation.

>>42039731
Are you mentally impaired?
I made a rebuttal to your claim
You "made" a rebuttal to mine, your rebuttal was really incoherent and unclear, so i asked you to reword it

Or was that to much for you to understand

if the creator of the world were evil
wouldn't that mean
the world is evil?
huh?

>>42039232
I suggest no god at all is also consistent with the suffering and injustice we see in the world.

>>42039751
ad hominem LOL

>>42039756
>A perfect God wouldn't need apologetics
He doesnt. His view is perfect.
> His perfect word would be completely self evident and not open to interpretation.
You dont understand the point of religious texts.
That's okay. That's what apologetics are for.

>>42039751
Nice, anyways talk to me when you read just 1 piece of academic literature relating to theology retard

>>42039768
I've been having these discussions with Christians for a couple years now and I'm starting to think they literally just can't conceptualize the full implications of words like "omnipotent" and "omniscient" actually are.

>>42039765
>>42039770
>being so mad you reply twice to the same post

I guess I must have hit a nerve

>>42039246
The universe is eternal but god exists?

what's the point of god, isn't he supposed to create?
You conceptual view on god is incoherent, unless if you expand on what you mean on an eternal universe

>>42039784
>The universe is eternal but god exists?
Why is that preposterous to you, but when asked who created God, you say God is eternal?

>>42039776
Okay?
I'm not Christian nor Abrahamic, and I will take this as concession that you are actually fine with apologetics and would like to continue.
What is your issue with omnipotence and omniscience?
Do you think pointing to this universe somehow negate them, as if THIS is God's perfect or even only place?

>>42039792
>What is your issue with omnipotence and omniscience?
I don't have an "issue" with those concepts. What I was getting at is you people always say things like "well god had to do x because y". Key word: HAD. Who is making God subject to conditions?

>>42039795
I dont say that.
God never HAS to do anything.
God has whims, not needs.
Can I stop being "those people" at some point?

>>42039797
This thread is aimed at Abrahamic conceptions of God, who they portray as a king/despot. So if you don't believe in that I'm not sure what this thread really has for you.

>>42039779
1. you refuse to meaningfully engage in any points
2. you have literally NO theological knowledge
3. you depend on Ad hominem to run away
4. it wasn't even me who called you out on the fallacy
5. You haven't even heard of popular moral theological arguments
6. You model of god and the universe is incompatible
7. your model of god is deeply confused

in conclusion you are a deeply confused dystheisit who doesn't have the slightest bit of theological knowledge

>>42039804
>You model of god and the universe is incompatible
I forgot to mention, I don't think Yahweh is eternal either. The universe is. Yahweh is a liar through and through.

>>42039804
And you act shocked when someone so retared pisses me off

>>42039803
>This thread is aimed at Abrahamic conceptions of God
No it isnt. OP starts with a belief in an evil God, doesnt say Abrahamaic or anything restricting it to just that.
That conception is wrong.
Is that the only thing you have knowledge of, and you dont want to hear about other conceptions of God?

>>42039809
Don't bother op is just so high up his ass that he would reduce everything just to cope even though hasn't read 1 piece of theological arguments or logical reasoning

>>42039746
The world isn't fair so there's no reason to believe the one who created it is

>>42039806
not the guy you are responding to, but two thing.

1. So you think Yahweh is real but not eternal (and for the sake of this question i am going to steel man you and assume that you have the crude culture understanding of god and just work form that),
so my question to you is
What do you think he came from, seeing as he is not eternal and your model of the universe is,
additionally what is your reasoning that he is finite

2. >>42039758
Respond don't be a pussy

>>42039830
things*

One last thing, what would be Yahweh purpose seeing that he exists, he obviously didn't create this world so what does he do and why

>>42039830
>What do you think he came from
Created by another god (likely his father, El)
>who created him
Turtles all the way down, since the universe is eternal. Gods begetting gods begetting gods. They're like the Q from Star Trek.

>>42039828
If I die and meet him can I not convince him to let things become fair?
Neutrality could also mean fairness and not one sidedness of good or evil, maybe even logic

>>42039839
>>42039839
>Gods begetting gods begetting gods
Hey just to let you know that your make believe fancy cosmology is logically impossible as you would fall into and infinite regresses, but i doubt you would even know what that would mean.

additionally you missed my point
>what is your reasoning that he is finite
ig your eyes skimmed to fast and you missed that question lol

therefore more your super quick eyes eyes skimmed my other question were i asked you
>so what does he do and why

finally
Answer my question you pussy bitch
>42039758

>>42039839
Is the universe evil?
That is your true conception of god - the impersonal eternal universe.
You dont seem to believe god is evil, you just dont accept this line of powerful beings as god, despite the label you put on them.

>>42039857
>fancy
Fantasy*

>>42039860
>>Is the universe evil?
The Universe isn't an entity. It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.

>>42039868
>It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.
People say this of god.
>The Universe isn't an entity.
Yes it is.
You meant to say it isnt a person.
And yes - it would be an IMPERSONAL conception of God.
So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.

>>42039784
>isn't he supposed to create?
Well he doesn't, read Genesis again. "The waters" already exist when Yahweh shows up and starts letting there be things. That's Tehom, the pre-cosmic ocean. It was a universal belief in the ancient near east, not only in early Yahwism.

>>42039876
>People say this of god.
Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not. They say he is all good or "omnibenevolent"

>>42039877
NTA but Tehom is obviously outer space.

>>42039880
>Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not.
Yes they do, and the bible says he does as well.
>They say he is all good or "omnibenevolent"
That is their judgement of god, not the fact that he creates good and evil.
And it doesnt really matter what THEY say.
I was asking you.
So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.

>>42039877
The vast waters and oceans symbolize chaos and disorder in Jewish thought. This illustrates that God embodies order as He creates harmony from the disarray.

Anyways I'm not Christian so don't assume that

>>42039886
>Yes they do
Then go on /his/ right now and say God is the creator of evil, see what happens.

>>42039894
Why? No. You get your own proof.
And it doesnt really matter what THEY say.
I was asking you.
So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.

>>42039894
He wouldn't, he only posted here so he can hopefully confuses the x sctizos,

And yet he has been bitched two different times
>>42039857
>>42039804

/thread

>>42039885
Nope. Tehom is the prima materia before it's been ordered into forms. That's all Genesis says Yahweh did if you read it closely and know about its cultural context.

>>42039851
God is a force of nature. He isn't bound by man-made concepts like good and evil. He's a lion who kills you because he's hungry and just because he can

>>42039904
>he only posted here
I am not OP. I am asking OP why he says he believes God is evil fro creating good and evil, when he believes the universe is neutral even though the universe is the source of good and evil.

>>42039857
Why is infinite regress impossible but somehow God existing forever and never having not existed totally reasonable to you? If everything requires a cause, why is God exempt from that?

>>42039901
not the guy you was talking to, but yet again you are a fucking retard, the burden of proof would be on you as you made the claim that
>Yes they do,
you need to substantiate that

>>42039913
XDDDD
>Why is infinite regress impossible
XDDDDD

go to sleep bro you know literally nothing XD

>>42039914
>you made the claim that
I made the claim that it is said of God that he creates good and evil.
Have you not read the Bible?
YOU wanted to make a populace statistic claim of who says it.
Go ahead and present your statistic.

And it doesnt really matter what THEY say.
I was asking you.
So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.
Everyone can see that you absolutely refuse to touch this. Coward.

>>42039923
ARE you fucking retrared
>I was asking you.
I literally said
>not the guy you was talking to
Holy shit

>>42039931
>not the guy you was talking to
>thjat means I cant be asked a question
I was asking you.
So a god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.
You want to jump in, you can answer the question.
It's a simple question.

>>42039919
So why is God exempt? You need to answer the second part of my post.

>>42039923
>Coward
??
you
>>42039857
>>42039804

yet you are calling others Cowards, comical

>>42039938
Neither of those are my post.
And you still havent answered a simple question.
Coward.

>>42039935
I jumped in to clarify that the burned of proof was on you, nothing out, if someone in the crowd points out a mistake during the debate it doesn't meant that he goes up on the fucking state to debate now.

>>42039944
>I jumped in to clarify that the burned of proof was on you
You were wrong. the claim was of a statistic, and the burden is on them to provide the statistic.

>>42039942
>Neither of those are my post.
Never said that they was, i was showing posts which you haven't responded to because you was to reatred and had nothing to you dumbass.

>>42039936
because if everything had a cause and there was not an something which was nessery then this would result in everything being contingent (caused) on something else to substance itself, hence causing an infinite regress, i didn't respond because if you don't even understand how a fucking infinite regress impossible i see no point in talking to you

>>42039947
No it was on
>Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not.
>Yes they do, and the bible says he does as well.
retard

>>42039962
thats what i was pointing out

>>42039959
>showing posts which you haven't responded to
I was never talking to them, moron.
>>42039962
>Generally people in Abrahamic religions do not.
>I dont believe your statistic.
>Provide proof.
>go on /his/ and see what happens!
>No. Provide your own proof.
There. The wording fit your autism now?

>>42039959
Something always existing with no cause or explanation is more nonsensical than infinite regress, because it is not logical.

>>42039973
so you are not op XD
Don't make me fucking laugh with this weak ass attempt of diversion

you made the claim that
>>It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.
>People say this of god.

you was the first to prepose this in the first place hence the burden of proof is on you dumbass

I don't care what the other guy said, that doesn't concern me hence i never got involved with the meat of the argument,

I cant keep talking to a retared who already got bitched two times, its frying my brain
>>42039857
>>42039804

>>42039987
>is more nonsensical than infinite regress
something which is completely illogcial can not be more or less logical dumbass you dont even know what an infinite regress, respectfully stfu

>>42040010
If the concept of infinity is logical to you then it doesn't follow that you would believe the person of God is eternal (i.e. existed for an infinite amount of time)

>>42040001
>so you are not op
No.
>>It is not good or bad itself. There contains both within it.
The person I was talking to, I think OP, said this about the universe as an explanation for why the universe is not evil.
I responded.
>People say this of god.
Because that is exactly what the Bible says about God, and thus if the universe does this and is neutral, then it should mean when god does it God is neutral.
>you was the first to prepose this in the first place hence the burden of proof is on you
So you are not aware that God in the Bible says he created good and evil?

>>42040019
>If the concept of infinity is logical to you
*is illogical to you, is what I meant to say

>>42040019
>If the concept of infinity is logical to you
I'm going to assume that you meant illogical retard
never said that; i said that concept one god creates another god which creates another god of eternity is an infinite regress hence its illogical

>>42040028
>infinity isn't illogical
>infinite regress is illogical

What about the infinite regress is it that makes it too difficult for you to understand?

>>42040024
yes you are stop lying
>People say this of god.
>Because that is exactly what the Bible says about God, and thus if the universe does this and is neutral, then it should mean when god does it God is neutral.
>you was the first to prepose this in the first place hence the burden of proof is on you
>So you are not aware that God in the Bible says he created good and evil?

still haven't provided proof that People say this of god.

File: file.png (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB PNG

>this thread

>>42040037
idk that the fact that you are trying to justify an infinite regress or that you don't understand how an infinite regress is impossible scares me more.
An infinite regress is not the same as infinity, look you don't even know what an infinite regress is so respectfully pick up a book or two because you have no idea what your talking about

this is so tiresome

>>42040040
>yes you are stop lying
lol retard
>still haven't provided proof that People say this of god.
So you arent aware.
Isaiah 45:7 has God saying he creates such evils.
>>42040044
The fact that the retard suddenly mixed people up is endlessly frustrating.

>>42040044
kek can i be the pepe laughing please

>>42040051
>you don't understand how an infinite regress is impossible
An entity always existing with no explanation is not more logical than infinite regress. At least infinite regress can be followed back forever, eternal God is just a brick wall.

>>42040056
Again you have to provide proof that People say this of god. i don't care what bible verse you have, a lot off people don't even have a full understanding of the bible

>>42040056
Again if you follow the responses back its op, stop trying to fucking lie

>>42040063
You think an infinite regress logical

GG have fun

>>42040065
>i don't care what bible verse you have
The Bible is people saying it.
And again.
I never cared what other people say.
I asked a question of the person I was talking to.
You mixed us up in an attempt to be logical and failed in every way possible.

>>42040069
Not OP.
I disagree with OP.
I was asking them a question.
You fucking retard.

>>42040071
Yes i did anon your right, your so so right.
my philosophy savant who thinks the infinite regress is logical you so logical XD

>>42040077
>who thinks the infinite regress is logical
I havent once said that phrase in any of my posts, you moron.
That is another anon.

>>42040069
Someone else should read our reply chain and chime in.

>>42040065
>>42040069
Not anyone you guys are beefing with but the anon is right a infinite regress illogical

>>42040087
whatttt my philosophy savant! yes you did
>At least infinite regress can be followed back forever, eternal God is just a brick wall.
hence trying to justify it

>>42040077
NOOO
dont say that my my philosophy savant who thinks the infinite regress is logical is right your not

>>42040098
>>42040091
*

>>42040088
you know what yea i was wrong you aren't op i was a bit retraed for that,mb
at lest i have the honestly to say that
But your still a reatered for think an infinite regress is logical

File: 4chan screen.jpg (455.8 KB)

455.8 KB JPG

>>42040098
>yes you did
Not my posts, retard.
There are two people in here disagreeing with you.
I have never once used that phrase in my posts.
Go ahead and quote any post you think is mine.

>>42040123
just admitted that you wasn't op?
wtf are you doing

But your still a reaterd to think an infinite regress is logical

>>42040126
>think an infinite regress is logical
I have never once used that phrase. That wasnt me, anon.
Promise.
I wasnt the guy talking about that concept with you.
Quote the post you think was me.

File: hentai.png (193.8 KB)

193.8 KB PNG

>>42040128
exact word fallacy
>>42040063

also anon XD

File: Screenshot 2026-03-01 020027.png (30 KB)

30 KB PNG

>>42040128
you know what anon we are both kinda retared (granted im a bit less retared)

you like hentai.
I like hentai
lets call a truce, its 2 am for me i need to sleep

File: 4chan screen 2.jpg (436.4 KB)

436.4 KB JPG

>>42040132
You have a problem with hentai?
Do you think that is supposed to be embarrassing?
Are you a child?
>42040063
Not me.
Want to try again?
You were wrong I was OP.
You are wrong I am the guy with whom you were complaining about that phrase.

>>42040143
Bye, coward.
You never answered my question.

>>42040145
>>42040063
>Not me.
ok don't lie, we can actually run a chain of response for that one, this is fooling no one

File: 4chan screen 3.jpg (391.2 KB)

391.2 KB JPG

>>42040153
We can do this all night.

File: Screenshot_20260108_040629_Samsung Internet.jpg (1000.5 KB)

1000.5 KB JPG

>>42039664
>That sounds like slavery
your ISKCON theology is literally the Hindu equivalent of American protestant Christianity
>Most saints and spiritual masters are in conflict with another one.
Yeah, like how Shiva worshippers say that Shiva is the causeless cause of all causes, word for word like ISKCON followers describing Krishna

Dharmic religions also blame victims for their suffering based on HYPOTHETICAL crimes from HYPOTHETICAL past lives

>I wouldnt want to be in a place controlled by someone who doesnt allow anything but their own conception of perfect.
That is literally ISKCON's version of Heaven. Their god also kicks you out when you disagree with it. Or even better when you stop worshipping him after growing up in the broken-person trauma factory that is ISKCON then he decides to torture you by causing bad circumstances that never happened to you before in your life and using a sadistic abusive person to torture you, and give you nightmares about him, and attack you in a dream after you pray to him about something and then don't follow through with it, and when you pray to him about something else you almost completely stop being able to remember your dreams after that. Krishna destroyed my life and has been torturing me for 3 years since I stopped worshipping him. No one believes me. I read someone say they got serious bad luck after throwing out a Ganesha statue. Hinduism shouldn't be dealt with by foreigners.
Half of ISKCON are secretly still Christians anyway. All you guys do is create broken people and broken children and broken families.
Indian spirituality to non-Indians is like an unexplored forest on an island that humans have never inhabited. You have no idea what you're getting into, and the presence of evil is tolerated.

>>42039232
What's a God? I don't understand the post.

I empathize with a God, must be a very lonely existence.

>>42039232
>create a reality where animals have to kill and eat each other to survive.
eh i mean, what if it is just evolution, then life is just inherently morbid. so i don't know how much i blame god for that.

>>42041076
There's only so much room on this planet.

>>42039232
>animals have to kill and eat each other to survive.
What's evil about that?

>>42041219
Same question, who cares if a bunch of biological robot go around killing and eating each other, it's not like a deer just had his higher aspirations of becoming a doctor snubbed out by a wolf.

>>42041219
>>42041654
I mean, I can go even further, imagine if the wolf fails to kill the deer, is the deer now going to suffer from ptsd, is the deer now going to repeat the incident in his head every time he goes to sleep, is the deer going to grab the bottle and have anxiety issues or something??

>>42039232
>I believe in an evil god. It's the only thing that makes sense

if spiders were religious would they curse god when no prey wanders into their webs? surely they would picture an evil old spider laughing at them, diverting all bugs elsewhere to punish them specifically for some spider transgression; improper web design perhaps. i say this because despite what we like to believe, human beings are not the main characters of the universe

>>42039400
a god like that would be akin to a game developer designing a video game where you can never lose. it would not be a game worth playing or a universe worth living in

>>42039252
Depends on the context. The entire Self is derived from the Monad, Source, whatever you want to call it, while ego is a tiny sliver which has very strong parallels to Yaldabaoth in gnosticism (Except I can't give a concrete answer as to why ego exists; I have a theory that ego is a sort of "confinement" for the Self--and also a filter, because if we suddenly had complete ego dissolution we would not be in a functional state. Yaldabaoth on the other hand introduces cosmic abandonment into the story. This thing suddenly pops up and is promptly abandoned. It doesn't have a damned clue what's going on or why it exists in the first place, and instead of trying to find out, it just fucks around building retarded shit and proclaiming itself God)

I'm a little fuzzy as to how accurate gnostic cosmology is as a whole, but the one place where it's extremely applicable is society: Society is a false world governed by the arbitrary whims of pedophiles and their pet shabbos goyim, often at the expense of Natural Law. Nature on the other hand is much closer to the Monad because it operates almost exclusively on Natural Law.
>But what about the horrible things in nature?
I hear you, and this is something I'm still trying to figure out, and the best answer I have so far is that there's some kind of interplay between syntropy and entropy, where all the bad things are really just incoherence being introduced. This is ultimately a more fundamental dynamic than the creation of a false world, which is why it still holds sway over the false world.

Even without pedoes enslaving people, even if there were no such thing as a demiurge archetype, there's still the problem that we're building an internal model of reality because of how we exist. We can't take it in all at once, our perception is limited, so we have to make do with internal simulations.

>>42039232
that evil god only controls this solar system.
outside this solar system the laws of physics completely change, not just physics, but the laws of reality entirely.

of course the evil god's "science" teaches you a false version of what lies beyond the solar system

>>42040847
>literally the Hindu equivalent of American protestant Christianity
No, but you dont have the understanding to see the differences.
Do you want to be taught?
>Their god also kicks you out when you disagree with it.
Yes. That was what I said.
Please try to pay attention before you sperg out>>42039700
>The world you talk about exists, it's God's realm.
>It's just that your conception of it doesnnt allow for people to ever disagree with God.
>God's version DOES.
>Those souls get to come here.
>You and I are here because we wouldnt play along with the saints and pure people.

So...you trauma dumped that a bunch of people raped you as a kid, and that somehow disproves a philosophy?

File: hq720 (5).jpg (71.8 KB)

71.8 KB JPG

>>42039232
God isn't evil but he did plan for evil to occur because his judgment is perfect and if this is the path he laid out then his path is perfect.

>>42040156
you know you what inspect is right?
we don't need screenshot proof to prove it as we can just do it ourselves, seriously you are pretty retared if you think that can fool anyone

>>42040087
you
>>42040077
me
>>42040076
you
>>42040071
you
>>42040069
you
>>42040065
me
>>42040063
YOU!!! wow
>>42040051
me

so your weak ass attempt to try and fool anyone with your inspect tool is pathetic, yet like a child you call me a coward without even owning up to your retaredation

>>42041931
>>>42040069 (You)
>you
meant to say me

>god
Does God have to be all-knowing? Or are we talking about a creator? If there is a power behind creation, why do we assume it knows everything? If there is a creator behind this universe, it could just as well be an evolved civilisation capable of such a feat. Creation doesn't necessarily imply you know everything that will happen with it, around it etc. You can have sex and create new life, have a baby. That doesn't mean you're always on top of your child in all aspects of existence. That is actually a retarded thing to assume. Yeah, it's a shitty analogy, but just something to think about.

>>42039232
the answer is in the picture's source:
>I can do no wrong, for I do not know what it is
There is no benevolent nor malevolent God; they are attributes which either depend upon or are both expressed in totality by God, depending on how you look at it.
It's reductive to say that God is one thing or another, they can only be all things or none of them.

File: IMG_20260207_165053~2.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

/x/, do you think good must permit and even allow itself to promote evil for the sake of happyness?

>>42041968
good without evil, as well as evil without good, is then only nature. Nature can provoke happiness alone.
Nice aim improvement.

File: 4chan screen 3.jpg (351.1 KB)

351.1 KB JPG

>>42041931
Oh good morning. you are still wrong and stupid.

>>42041968
Not for the sake of happiness, but for the sake of sentience.

>>42042008
Nigger it doesn't matter what screen shot you seen you can just change it with inspect, any 3rd party can just follow the chain and see that it is you

File: Screenshot 2026-03-01 123129.png (21 KB)

21 KB PNG

>>42042036
sent*
seriously this is pathetic

>>42042036
You can autism tantrum all you want.
I never talked with you about infinite regression, that was someone else.
You also still havent once tried to answer my question.
you never ever will, because you know you were defeated and are too cowardly to admit it.

You were wrong about me being OP.
You are wrong about me being infinite regression guy.
You could not quote a single pot of mine even using the phrase.

>>42042040
but its fine because your a philosophy savant who try's to justify an infinite regress

Reatard Xd

>>42042047
How about instead of insisting on being retarded, you just ask ME what my thought on infinite regress is?
Because I am not the person you were arguing with before.
As I have shown many many times and you have never once been able to show any evidence for.

>>42039471
>>42039505
>>42039545
>>42039557
>>42039633
>>42039700
Here - all my posts you could engage with, none of which are mentioning or arguing about any infinite regress.

>>42039716
This is where I think I first interacted with you.
>>42039750
>>42039768
>>42039792
>>42039797
>>42039809
And some more of that chain, all my posts. No infinite regression.

>>42039232
Pathetic

>>42039860
This might also have been the chain, this si the last time I had any serious engagement, and had the person - I think Op - trapped into saying either the universe is evil for allowing good and evil, or God isnt evil for allowing good and evil.
>>42039876
>>42039886
>>42039901
This is where someone jumped in to try and quibble on burden of proof because they cant read past a fifth grade level.
>>42039912
>>42039923
>>42039935
>>42039942
>>42039947
>>42039973
Gotta break this to avoid spam filters.

>>42040024
>>42040056
>>42040071
>>42040076
>>42040087
>>42040123
And there is when I start screencapping.
All my posts in the thread.
I'm really sorry the other anon ran away and you dont get to harp on them any more.
I dont agree with an infinite regress, there are many eternal things.

I really hope you are happy to have degenerated the thread into this.

>>42042044
>You were wrong about me being OP.
Already admit that because im not a coward and i can say when im wrong

>You are wrong about me being infinite regression guy.
No you said>>42040063
hence trying to justify it

>You could not quote a single pot of mine even using the phrase.
Pot nice
>At least infinite regress can be followed back forever, eternal God is just a brick wall.

>You also still haven't once tried to answer my question.
What question?
On how an infinite regress in this situation is impossible (the fact that you don't know this is shows your incompetence)

Many philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, argued that an infinite chain of causes is logiclay impossible because it fails to explain the existence of anything at all. If every god in the chain requires a creator, none of them are truly "self-existent" or "uncreated." in a sense Thus, an infinite chain doesn't explain the source; it just pushes the question back forever.
If every god requires a creator to exist, then no god in the chain actually possesses the power of "existence" on their own. They are all just borrowers. Without an original, uncreated source (often called the First Cause or Unmoved Mover), the entire chain has nothing to stand on.
Do you understand now you fucking retard

But look
You are EXTREMELY disingenuous, so much so that you had the gall to say that this >>42040063 was not you (seen here>>42040145 and here>>42040123) even though if anyone reading this was to follow the chain of responses then they would find out that, it is in fact you. You are so disingenuous that you was to go into inspect and screen shot it as if that means anything.

Seriously you are pathetic

File: 4chan screen 3.jpg (637.4 KB)

637.4 KB JPG

>>42042084
Alright, dude.
That isnt my post.
I cant convince you any other way. You are blind in your faith because it gives you an excuse to not engage with who is actually here.

>>42042094
Look dude it is, I already did the chain myself
>>42041931
Stop fucking lying you pathetic coward

>>42042084
>What question?
>>42039860
Is the universe evil?
That is your true conception of god - the impersonal eternal universe.
You dont seem to believe god is evil, you just dont accept this line of powerful beings as god, despite the label you put on them.
>>42039901
it doesnt really matter what THEY (or anyone else at all in the world or in theis thread) say.
I am asking you.
A god - impersonal or not - that creates both good and evil is not evil, but neutral.

This question.
This was the last time I had any serious engagement before people ran like little bitches from serious questions.

>>42042099
Wrong. you are stuck on one post that isnt mine.
I never bothered with infinite regression. That was someone else.
I dont agree with infinite regression, and never argued aboutr it with you.
You still cant answer my wuestion, and ran from it like a coward.
You have been wrong every time you have tried to guess who I am.
Wrong about me being OP.
Wrong about me being regression guy.
Too much of a little bitch to engage with who is here.

>>42042102
The person you was responding to wasn't even me, so no wonder i had no clue what you was on about.
And in fact i don't care about whatever your saying, i never was the person you was responding to here >>42039860 so i am under no obligation to respond and even if i was i still wouldn't as this is 4 chan?

>>42042107
>>42042084
Look you are a disingenuous bastered who edits pictures even when you can follow a chain back. you will never change your cowardness,
you can have the final snarky comment atp,
what a waste of my time,
i have no one but myself to blame for engaging in this retardation

>>42042122
>And in fact i don't care about whatever your saying
Then you have no value.
Let me know when you are through being a little cowardly bitch and can answer a simple question.

>>42039246
Oh. You're just a small minded moron.

"Small g" "gods" do not make conceptual sense at all.

>>42043496
You don't think there could be beings who are stronger than us but arent the supreme god? Its you who is small minded

>>42039263
>as Being is understood to be an act of good under an theological reasoning

That's where you're wrong, kiddo

If there were only one god and that god were only evil, things would be much worse than they are. But the inverse also applies.

File: file.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>42039232
Using images of your dead loved ones who you just want to see again to keep you trapped in a reincarnation loop so they can keep farming you forever. Absolute pure evil and malice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGP0JNhDgCU

I believe in a Loving God. I'm also The Nobody.

https://youtu.be/5J5ZUu3MLWs?si=ARsQJ_nvpKO7rycP

>>42039232
There are trillions and billions of worlds... we may just be one of the shit ones for all we know. Our knowledge of the universe and it's worlds is down to knowing only one planet... ours.

if God were truly EVIL there'd be absolutely NO shit talking about God whatsoever...God is of tolerance and grace

>>42044373
>if God were truly EVIL there'd be absolutely NO shit talking about God whatsoever.

Why? How do you know?

>>42039232
You can't have life without death, for all things that begin must eventually end. You can't have death without life borne from nothing, dead matter taking a field trip through a lived experience or two before being reabsorbed into the vast mass of unaware, unthinking matter.

Besides, at least when it comes to animals, rarely - though there are exceptions - do they end the life of their prey with any notion of malice or cruelty or superiority. It's out of necessity.

If you happen to be right though, I would thank them for making the time that we do have really feel like it counts. The Demiurge is a pretty cool guy after all. Flawed, but who isn't?

>>42039935
>You want to jump in, you can answer the question
You sound very controlling.

File: online vampire.png (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB PNG

>>42042140
The other anon has no reason to be of "value" to you.
>little cowardly bitch and can answer a simple question.
He wasn't even person you was responding to in the first place?
He literarily cant run away from anything because he never in the race in the first place. are you mentally challenged?
>>42044577
this anon was right in his assessment; your ego is so high up your ass.
good for the other anon for choosing to stop responding to you, you vampire

Maybe dying isn’t such a big deal, you retarded faggot.

>>42044577
It's an offer. One you and other anon failed.
It's a simple question, why cant you answer?
Or like the whiny bitch after you that thinks they matter.
Lots of feelings hurt.
No ability to think.