LordFall

I think we could be getting there fast. The epstein files blew a lid on it and it's hard to burrow the fact that elites are above the law and commit unspeakable crimes now. Massive amounts of people are investigating it further as we speak and AI will only help their investigative possibilities. Exciting time to be alive. I think realistically we will enter a massive golden age of humanity if not in the 2030s in the 2040s and beyond. Which is hilarious because the global sentiment is quite pessimistic at the moment. There is a WW3 possibility looming but I believe we can either avoid it or get through it and come out better, stronger and more united as a species.

We can go point by point, that's fine. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. No.

That’s two posts of deflection , but not a single counter-argument. What I’m using is basic abductive reasoning, inferring the most plausible explanation from observable facts, paired with a simple deductive dilemma. You claim there are "other possibilities," yet you haven't named one. You claim suffering "fundamentally does not exist," which isn't metaphysics—it's an unfalsifiable evasion that deletes the data point to protect the premise. If you have an actual ontological model that accounts for biological agony without retreating into solipsism, sadism, or pretending pain is imaginary, articulate the premises. Otherwise, the condescension just reads as an admission that you don't have an answer but are too arrogant to simply admit it.

Great insight. I think psychosomatic symptoms are very real and we're in a dark period of knowledge in terms of understanding it. Also society is very in favour of suppressing your emotions for the sake of social cohesion and harmony. That has a lot of benefits but we need to be honest about the drawbacks. I'm suffering from back pain as well and I do tend to suppress my anger a lot so I will give that book a go, thanks for sharing. I have massive amounts of rage that I struggle to transmute into useful energy so I feel like I lose 40% of my energy daily by just suppressing it so it doesn't go out of control.

I did not create reality. Did you? The 3rd option is that reality created itself through the big bang or another far fetched idea if you wanna go down the atheistic route. Therefore suffering is not personal and doesn't fit the criteria for sadism. If that's your claim then fine but I would argue against that line of reasoning in many ways that I think invalidate it. The 4th option is that God created reality. Now we're discussing why he put so much suffering in it. Is it for a fundamental good reason of progress? Maybe but I haven't seen a convincing argument for it yet. An unsettling but very plausible reality is that God is similar to how he was described in the old testament and has a very cruel streak and likes to test mortals and is therefore by definition sadistic. I have not seen a rebuttal to that claim that holds up to scrutiny in this thread. Leo had a good video on the dark side of love that points towards reality behind partly ruthless by design. I think that makes sense but there are plot holes to that theory which is what I'm inquiring about.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. If that's the case feel free to explain how. Have you simply considered that you're wrong and close minded to my point? I've considered that I'm wrong and close minded to your point. After thinking about it, I don't see any evidence pointing towards that fact. You can see how what you're saying is foolish and doesn't make sense right? It's not only a bad faith argument but delusional. If you want to argue that reality doesn't exist then I don't know you're lost and on your own by your own definition. Good luck. How so? @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. Otherwise all humanity would be schizophrenic and there wouldn't really be a human race. The point is that there is a large amount of suffering and that if we understand how to counter it and evolve past it perhaps it will cease to exist for good. I agree with Joseph I enjoy most of my life. There are bitter and resentful parts to my psyche and a lot of that is aimed towards God and that's why I'm asking if he is weak or if he sadistic or if he thinks he has a greater plan that warrants all this suffering. I'm not fully sure of the answer yet, that's what this inquiry is about.

I'll point out that there are very few people on this forum that have the humility to admit they're wrong. I've had discussions on topics I'm an expert on with people with no clue and they flail out. Very few users have the lack of ego to just say ''Huh that's an interesting point, I'll think on it." I will then point you back to your own signature and let you honestly introspect on your own bias and stubbornness as I believe that's what's happening here as when I deconstructed your point you defaulted to an ego response of why didn't you ask me to clarity instead of countering the point. Asking for a coherent model to explain extreme biological suffering isn't claiming expertise. It’s holding an inquiry to basic standards of logic. I’ve laid out the arguments from first principles across 4 pages. Those who want to engage with the actual mechanics of suffering can read the thread. I'm off, good night everyone.

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

Of course it does. That's like if someone set someone on fire and their criminal defence was 'you wouldn't understand, I'm a 5D being it's beyond you.' Great, be beyond it in jail. I cannot put God in jail so all I can do is deconstruct it down to first principles.

That's how the scientific method works. You come up with a premise and you see if you can invalidate it. If you cannot you think it strongly supported until you come into evidence to the contrary. Is that learning or is that indoctrination? I do give people basic respect but I am intellectually honest. If someone tries to wave away their burden of proof with some vague "I'm too enlightened you wouldn't understand" then I will respond with heavy skepticism. It's pretty universally true that if you understand something deeply you can not only communicate it to others but do so effectively and also summarize it. Sometimes Leo says he has reached awakenings so deep he couldn't even explain them and that's perhaps true or perhaps it's delusional. He has hundreds of hours explaining credible concepts deeply enough that I respect his work and thoughts on stuff. Generally I do not give people that same benefit of the doubt though. It's a perfectly valid conclusion that someone can be wrong or biased. It could also be the case that they aren't communicating properly but if that's the case why is the burden on me to drag it out of them? Especially after I've explained my arguments in depth and they were hand-waved away by "sorry you're confused I'm too enlightened. " That doubly puts the burden on you to explain better or I think you're simply off track.

Sure that perhaps the case and hard to argue.If that is the case they should have no problem learning some game, taking some good pics and crushing on their dating life. If they have a passive attitude towards dating that's on them.

That is pure projection. I am the one anchoring directly to physical reality: biological nervous systems, nociceptors, cartel torture, and real human suffering. You are the one avoiding reality by retreating into airy abstractions about "selection bias collapsing" and "reasoning evaporating until consciousness persists." When someone is being physically tortured, that is not an abstract "possibility"—it is a concrete, localized event engineered by the laws of this universe. Calling the actual lived experience of pain "pointless subjectivity" is just an intellectual trick to avoid confronting the horrifying mechanics of the world we actually live in. You're the one that missed the point. He wrote books that sold millions of copies and gave worldwide lectures using a speech synthesizer. Hawking proved that even with extreme physical limitations, a rigorous thinker can and must communicate complex ideas clearly. I never claimed to be better than him at math.🤦‍♂️ You see what I mean by bad points? I never asked Michael Jordan for basketball coaching, where did that come from? You're trying to put me down from a pedestal that I never put myself on, I don't play basketball bro. You're also implying that people here are at the top of their field and that their competence and knowledge is beyond questioning which is not the case. I've fleshed out many other alternatives that you chose not to go down. I see it as sadism because I don't see it as a constructive move from an omnipotent being. A lot of religions portray God as quite a ruthless being so I don't see why him being sadistic is out of the question. Especially because indeed sadism is a prevalent trait in humans. I have a mild enjoyment in increasing my knowledge through debates. I am satisfied when I come to the conclusion that my understanding stands up to scrutiny. I think that's a pretty common and reasonable feeling. My attack on God is being the master of the universe and creating conditions for much worse sadism. If you fathered 10 kids and let them beat each other up and fight to the death you would be imprisoned and considered a monster. Why is that same standard not applicable to God? I think it is and that's my point. That's the Flatland Analogy. It describes a spatial illusion, not conscious agony. A 2D observer seeing an expanding circle is making a geometric mistake. A conscious biological organism being tortured is experiencing raw nervous-system trauma. Adding a 3rd or 4th dimension does not erase or negate the agony felt on the 2D plane. If a 3D architect intentionally creates vulnerable 2D beings and drops a crushing sphere through their world knowing they cannot comprehend or escape it, that architect isn't just "higher dimensional"—it is actively cruel to the beings it engineered. Claiming there is an unseen dimension where suffering magically becomes fine is just an unfalsifiable excuse to ignore the problem. As a matter of fact it's exactly my point. If God and whatever other post human beings exist indeed can control human suffering and are not affected by it then holy moly we are ruled by sadistic creatures. I don't think that's fully the case as I've stated before since humanity seems to be able to achieve massive progress and I personally believe that all crime on earth will end in the next 30 years. I'm mainly questioning why it was necessary for us to take that long to achieve it. The two conclusions I came to is God took enjoyment in our struggles which makes sense because an aspect of a mind seems to be enjoying the struggles of others in some others that it alienates. Since God creates being that are limited we are by definition alienated from divine power. The other is that it was not possible to do it any other way. It's plausible but I'm highly skeptical of that answer. I guess the universal mind could evolve over time but there are plenty of credible instances of people having been able to predict the future hundreds and thousands of years ago that I think it's provable that consciousness has an ability to be omnipotent. This is partly what awakening shows you as well but I'm still looking for an answer to the problem of evil and specifically the mass suffering of mankind.

@Xonas Pitfall I've already countered all of these points. On the God has to be everything point. There is no reason that God cannot compartmentalize things, and as a matter of fact our very existence is the proof that it is. Also your point is easily proven false as not everything exists in our reality. There are no 20 legged giraffes. You can say you can think of one or in VR you can make one but that's not the same thing as the experience of a giraffe as a biological organism. It is tricky which is why I find it worthwhile to deconstruct it. Your point here is weak though and is a simple false equivalency. An ant doesn't have the same brain structure to experience the same level of pain as a human does. They have studied this unless you want to pick apart the science on it. Unless your personal finances are in order you cannot afford to help each homeless person. If they are you should otherwise you are logically quite shallow and cruel. That's a deeper conversation on ethics and morality but is also worth having. Muscles don't have consciousness, you experience the pain. There are different ways of being finite. We could have been born as angels and experience taking walks and hunting fake beings that don't experience pain and hanging out with our friends and building businesses all the same without the design fact of extreme pain put into the universe.

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. 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 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.

A lot of these "nice guys" have many toxic traits under the surface. It's quite rare for a man or human being in general to have worked on being attractive to the other sex, have their finances in order and have done enough shadow work to not be a toxic individual. I've met some very nice and caring people who after having known for a while had some nasty character traits. The psyche is quite deep my friend, be careful not to judge a book by its cover.