A problem with Leo’s explanation of god?

[johnlocke18]

Either god is infinite love by definition or it s not. It’s not if evil is a part of it, even in perception. If there is a god, it can only be either all powerful or all good. It can’t be both. Evil wouldn’t exist if it was both, because if there’s evil that means it’s limited and needs to create a distinction and gets bored or lonely, or that it’s not all good. And you can’t just say it’s a paradox because either it’s infinite love by definition or it’s not. Saying evil is only in our minds still means evil is apart of infinite love, which would mean it’s not infinite love by definition. 

[johnlocke18]

Basically, if it’s infinite love by definition, evil can’t be apart of it. Any objections like it’s beyond my understanding, it’s unlimited, or it’s a paradox just means you’re not saying what you mean. Either it’s all powerful love or it’s not. Which it’s not if evil is apart of it in any form.

[JuliusCaesar]

Quite correct, evil literally has no existence in any objective sense. And awareness of good and evil arises out of the fear of death and vice versa(knowing good and evil also creates the fear of death). But the truth is that death itself is an illusion as well, so evil is an illusion created by fear of another illusion.

[johnlocke18]

@JuliusCaesar Yeah but that doesn’t address my point. If it exists even subjectively, then it exists. Which would mean by definition god isn’t infinite love. 

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, johnlocke18 said:

Evil wouldn’t exist if it was both

Evil has never existed.

Evil is just those parts of yourself which you hate & fear.

Since YOU are God, if you hate or fear yourself, you thereby fool yourself into creating evil.

Evil is just your twisted perception of yourself.

It's like you are punching yourself in the nuts and upset at God for it, not realizing that you are God.

If you don't like evil, stop imagining it.

[johnlocke18]

@Leo Gura Then god isn’t infinite love by definition if even the idea of evil exists. Either god or myself is infinite love or not. 

[johnlocke18]

@Leo Gura There can be nothing outside of infinity by definition, and if there’s fear or self deception then it’s not love by definition. Either you mean infinite love or you don’t. 

[JuliusCaesar]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Evil has never existed.

Evil is just those parts of yourself which you hate & fear.

Since YOU are God, if you hate or fear yourself, you thereby fool yourself into creating evil.

Evil is just your twisted perception of yourself.

It's like you are punching yourself in the nuts and upset at God for it, not realizing that you are God.

If you don't like evil, stop imagining it.

The problem is humans don't know that they can undo evil. They think it's some kind of real quantity independent of their own mind.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, johnlocke18 said:

@Leo Gura Then god isn’t infinite love by definition if even the idea of evil exists. Either god or myself is infinite love or not. 

Love includes all possible evils.

Your idea of love isn't actually Infinite Love, it's egoic biased love.

By rejecting evil you are being selfish and finite.

[JuliusCaesar]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Love includes all possible evils.

Your idea of love isn't actually Infinite Love, it's egoic biased love.

By rejecting evil you are being selfish and finite.

But Leo... to most humans loving evil is unfathomable. They think their selfishness and fear is a virtue. How do you propose that they change?

[johnlocke18]

@Leo Gura Both definitions of love means deep pleasure or deep affection of something. Egoic or not. So, evil by definition can’t be apart of it. Otherwise, you’re just using the wrong word and not saying what you mean. 

[Leo Gura]

@johnlocke18 You are too stubborn to hear what I am telling you.

[johnlocke18]

@Leo Gura It’s not that I’m too stubborn, you’re just not saying what you mean. If you don’t mean reality is infinite affection or pleasure, then don’t use the word that means that! You’re not understanding my point, but I get what you’re saying. You’re using love in place of the word acceptance. But you’re too stubborn to accept you’re just changing the definition of a word which causes misunderstandings, then you blame the people you’re using it towards. 

[JuliusCaesar]

1 minute ago, johnlocke18 said:

reality is infinite affection or pleasure

This is basically correct. Though love isn't really just an emotion since it's also everything that has nothing to do with the feelings of a sentient being.

[johnlocke18]

@JuliusCaesar The definition of love is either affection or pleasure, and if everything is that then evil can’t be apart of it. And since people are capable of perceiving things as evil, that means evil is apart of it, which means it isn’t love by definition. You guys aren’t understanding what I’m saying. 

[JuliusCaesar]

1 minute ago, johnlocke18 said:

@JuliusCaesar The definition of love is either affection or pleasure, and if everything is that then evil can’t be apart of it. And since people are capable of perceiving things as evil, that means evil is apart of it, which means it isn’t love by definition. You guys aren’t understanding what I’m saying. 

It's funny you say I don't understand what you're saying. Let's put that theory to the test. My understanding of your argument is that since evil is the opposite of good, it's impossible for everything to be good if evil exists which in the human experience it does.

[johnlocke18]

@Leo Gura You said everything is love, which the only definitions mean affection or pleasure. Which isn’t true because other things like pain exist, illusory or not. You can’t blame me if you’re not using the word that you mean. You’re not addressing my point that you’re using the wrong word and confusing people. Either it’s infinite love or it’s not, and either that’s what you mean or it’s not. 

[johnlocke18]

@JuliusCaesar The reason I’m saying you don’t understand me is because you said it’s an illusion, when I already explained even if it’s an illusion that means it’s still apart of everything, meaning not everything is good. So you didn’t address my point. 

[JuliusCaesar]

Just now, johnlocke18 said:

@Leo Gura You said everything is love, which the only definitions mean affection or pleasure. Which isn’t true because other things like pain exist, illusory or not. You can’t blame me if you’re not using the word that you mean. You’re not addressing my point that you’re using the wrong word and confusing people. Either it’s infinite love or it’s not, and either that’s what you mean or it’s not. 

You're arguing that objective good vs evil exist. If that's true, a physical heaven(a place where evil doesn't exist) and a physical hell(a place where only evil exists) would be possible. But good is only good when compared against evil and vice versa. In the physical heaven, since only good would exist it would have no alternative, and therefore the concept of good would lose all meaning. The same occurs in a physical hell, since only evil would exist and has no alternative, the concept of evil ceases to make sense. A logical consequence of this, is that in order for reality to be absolutely good it necessarily has to include evil otherwise good would impossible(and therefore it'd be impossible for reality to be good).

 

 

[johnlocke18]

@JuliusCaesar I’m not arguing that objective evil exists so you’re still not getting my point. I said illusory or not, meaning subjective or objective. Even if evil is illusory it’s still apart of everything meaning not everything is good. You’re putting words in my mouth. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by johnlocke18