And then calls doing so malignantly useless? — wonderer1

The word used was "encourages" not demands or implores. Rather, if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way.

THAT it is malignantly useless, doesn't mean we are thus malignantly indifferent to it.

we only know what it does. Likewise, we don't know what G*D is, only what it does : to serve as a hypothetical explanation for the existence of everything in our world. — Gnomon

I hate to bring in Wittgenstein here, but some of his ideas can be useful in these debates. That is to say, you must try to not mix "language games" of the personal god variety and the philosophical god variety.

Generally, in everyday usage, "God" is referred to as a personal deity. In Western tradition, it is of the Abrahamic variety, and has a certain theological baggage that goes with it.

Your use of "God" here is rather derived from the Greek philosophical tradition of a sort of "Ground of Being". There is The Good, there is the Demiurge imperfectly creating from the divine Source, there is the One of Neoplatonism and the manifestations of the One that go from darkness to Light, etc. With Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, you had a proto-notion of "Many worlds". Perhaps with Spinoza, this was advanced even further. With modern theoretical physics, you have it more empirically correlated, as a theory to solve things like quantum superposition in experimental physics.

So in this case, "existence of everything", can indeed open ideas.. For example, the possibility of worlds more "perfect" than ours. These universes, I would contest are NULL set universes. That is to say, there is no need for anything, as it is an absolute perfect state. Its everything and nothing. Imperfect universes, like our own, have individuation, forces, movement, "things happening". Certainly ones with "sentient life" represent a variety of imperfect universe with "wants", "needs", "pain", and "suffering". These are less than average universes.

Anyways, it is important to know this distinction, as it is easy to move from "God is what exists", to "God is that being that directs us and commands, and has a Will for us to follow, in his divine plan". In these debates, people often try to combine them. And I get why, in the Middle Ages, the combination of Neoplatonism and Gnostic notions were combined to create Judaic and Christian forms of mysticism that expanded the Personal deity to "The philosophical deity". And so the category errors and language game confusions continue.

Can it be thus the case that if an infinite set of infinite set of universes exist, then some of these have deities.. that could be said, yes. If that is the case, then we must add in EVERY possible thing that can ever possibly exist, including the Spaghetti Monster. That is to say, in this logic, the Spaghetti Monster exists in one of the many universes. But, is that really where you want to go with the conclusions to your reasoning?

I think religious traditions are a mixture of good psychology, bad science, and lots of random circumstances from their historical development. It can be hard to separate them. I think serious religious traditions are on the edge between pseudoscience (like astrology) and a genuine area of study in its own right, which as of yet has no name. When properly understood, I think religion, psychology, and morality are all actually only one subject. I would invite you to study this subject. You can do much of the work without even getting out of your chair (although using something or another as a guide would be very helpful). — Brendan Golledge

It all comes down to "why do anything?". Once you go through the dialectic, it leads to questioning procreation and survival. And rightfully, it questions modern secular philosophies like hedonism, "economics as religion", and existentialism. This doesn't mean to then turn to the warm embrace of religion. That is a falsehood as well.

However, the universality of some religious ideas (the One, Nirvana, etc.) can counteract the absurdity of minutia-mongering. If you JUST figured out how that transmission works, you would be a better person, more useful. If you JUST figured out how to start an innovative X, more useful. If you JUST figured out how to solve the meaning and essence of words (philosophy of language debates), or the best physics model (theoretical physics debates), or know the intricate details of any subject, you will be edified with your knowledge. You will be BETTER, you will be USEFUL. QUESTION ALL OF THIS THINKING, whether you think minutia-mongering is more USEFUL, makes you BETTER, or you think MEANING comes from delving deeper into the minutia of a topic at hand you think is important.

As for the "religious experience", people generally seem to mean "flow states" or "meditative psychological states". These are ways to preoccupy the chatter of the restless mind.

Stop with the strawman, schop. My counter argument emphasizes the following
As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof

Actually we seem to agree on this, though you would be hard put to say so because you seem like discord over agreement in your posts, and you seek it out in the most aggressive ways possible.

That's the basis of my "Communities for Catharsis" and "fellow-sufferers of compassion" notion. You can ask more about if you want, but it seems like you don't care nor have the empathy to even understand, so carry on with the discord :mask: :mask: :broken: :death:

Yeah, like e.g. "anti-natalism" (i.e. destroying the village (h. sapiens) in order to save the village (h. sapiens)) – I agree, schop. After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable and reducing — 180 Proof

Now you are just reflexively trying to counter anything I say and strawmanning them in the worst possible terms to for cheap rhetorical point scoring :roll:. One must read charitably before one tears down. You've barely done that.

I see you qualify your view as "one who sees...". Your beliefs get a pass from me. Anything more to it than what you happen to believe? That is, are your vocalizations expressions of belief only, or are they categorical in nature? E.g., "I believe life sucks," v. "Life sucks!" — tim wood

Yes, of course. Antinatalists believe that procreation is an injustice the one born. Someone might ask, "Why talk so much about such an unpopular opinion?". And the answer is similar to what you said here:

Or a simpler view: unjust law is like a dog that bites, or worse; a hazard and harm to the entire community. And there are ways to handle such things, but they must be done, they don’t just happen by themselves or by accident. — tim wood

By radical I mean only that we are all subject to law, even when we live in places or in such ways that it seems not to affect us – injustice hurting us all. As such a danger to the well-being of the community, and the practitioners enemies of the community. Or a simpler view: unjust law is like a dog that bites, or worse; a hazard and harm to the entire community. And there are ways to handle such things, but they must be done, they don’t just happen by themselves or by accident. — tim wood

Ironically, you make the case for why one who sees the injustice of procreation would be so vocally against it.

Neither claiming nor implying such, how does "heroism" equate to "masking the reality" when a hero is usually someone who defies reality, fatally risking herself, rather than someone who denies reality? :chin: — 180 Proof

Creating a false narrative cannot solve the problem of suffering. We must first recognize and understand the inherent suffering at the core of life before any meaningful action can be taken.

It is simply a realistic acknowledgment of the malignantly useless aspect of existence, as described by Ligotti, which includes suffering and the futile pursuit of meaning. From this recognition, we need to build communities centered on catharsis and empathy across all walks of life. Such communities would foster a universal understanding among those who suffer and a collective commitment to not impose these burdens—or the "forced project" of existence—on others.

The Nietzschean emphasis on transforming suffering through willpower and attitude prolongs the system of suffering by shifting the burden onto the sufferer. It employs a gaslighting trick, suggesting that the suffering isn’t inherent/structural and that it’s a result of the individual’s failure to reframe their pain. This approach implies that it is the individual who allows suffering to persist, rather than addressing the deeper, structural causes of that suffering.

Philosophical pessimism, as I have laid it out, encourages the development of communities based on real understanding and support, rather than superficial optimism.

We rebel against a whole host of things:
Public policy
Bigwigs in power ("corporations" the "elite")
The economic system
Consumerism

Yet the biggest program we are supposed to accept is the "project" of life itself? This is amounts to rebelling against the biggest project/structure of them all. I see no problem to do this as we often do with any other unjust system.

Absolutely. The indispensible virtue. With courage, cheerful-defiant pessimism (e.g. Nietzsche); without courage, resentful-defeatist pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer) – singing the blues :death: :flower: or crippling anxiety :cry: :sad: , respectively. — 180 Proof

@Tom Storm

Masking the reality with heroism is yet another coping mechanism. Nietzsche's performative resilience is existential gaslighting and a dismissal of what is the case.

I certainly see this argument. And many people don't even get the distraction of the minutia, the quips, the empty achievements. — Tom Storm

I like that "get" here can be taken two ways:
1) They don't "get" to have these distractions.
2) They don't "get" that these are just distractions.

If you meant it so, clever. If not, still fits.

Still worshipping Algos I see :) — I like sushi

See here:

Someone lives for the quip at someone else's expense on philosophy forum — schopenhauer1

I find this particularly interesting. How this might work.

I've often thought that a key reason people contrive families is to be distracted by an interactive domestic soap opera. — Tom Storm

There seems to be an aspect of control in this no? You want to control and direct a cohort and see the drama play out for your amusement.

At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS as Ligotti would say (all caps included).

Someone lives for the quip at someone else's expense on philosophy forum, or the new book they want to read on "A Thorough Exposition of the Syntax, Semantics, and Meta-theoretical Foundations in First-order Predicate Logic with Modal Operators and Non-Classical Propositional Calculi: An Intensive Analysis of Completeness, Soundness, and Decidability in Formal Deductive Systems".

Just add Engineering, Programming, Advanced Mathematics, Physics, Soil Physics, Library and Information Science, Spectroscopy Data Analyst, Petroleum Geologist, Tribology, Actuarial Science, Metrology, Crystallography, Ocean Sedimentology, Nuclear Waste Management, Paleoclimatology, Bibliometrics, Combinatorial Chemistry, Geomorphology, Epidemiology of Rare Diseases.

Fuck it dude. You can mine the fuck out of the minutia and it still won't get you out of the MALIGNENTLY USELESS dilemma.

Technically procreating babies will eventually lead to their death
— schopenhauer1

Dumb. — Lionino

If you're worried about causing the death of a child, it is not. Don't start what ends in death. It's just taking your logic and applying it equally to the consequence of one's action.

No, it is not. You have to learn how to use words correctly before starting an argument. — Lionino

You willfully ignored what I said or just ignorant. That's okay, a lot of people can't seem to string together the basic fact that it is a political action. When you procreate a child, you are saying "YES" to certain outcomes for that child. You are voting for a certain "way of life", assenting to it, agreeing with it, promoting it, forcing others to follow it even. In fact, you can't do something any more patriotic than that. You wonder why procreation and declining fertility rates are discussed? Yeah, economics start to collapse without children to be monkey laborers to keep things going. But if you VOTE (procreate) YES, and force others into the system, you are voting for something.

• Code of Ani c2500 BCE
• Code of Ur-Nammu c2100 BCE
• Code of Hammurabi c1760 BCE
• Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
• Analects of Kongzi 475 BCE
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law 451 BCE
• Law of Manu 200 BCE
• Code of Justinian 529 CE
• Tang Code of China 624 CE
• Sharia (Quran) 632 CE — 180 Proof

**Good timeline, but it was the move to make the code of ethics attributed directly from a singular God of the Universe, who wants humans to act a certain way, that is the innovation (aka ethical monotheism). This of course, creates the problem of extremism, because of it's the God of the Universe, and not just the whims and demands of a king, however powerful, there is no way around it for those who believe it's binding. Since especially Islam is a "universal religion", it isn't regionalized or "nationalized", but then becomes a struggle (Jihad), and if the religion promotes violence in the name of protecting the religion from infidels, you have a serious problem on your hands globally, for groups that want to take that interpretation.

Greco-Roman ethics were tied to reason, and were amenable to various "Schools" and interpretations. They weren't permanent directive from the god(s). Greco-Roman religion (not philosophical ways of living like Stoicism et. al), was often a combination of the civic (pray to the city-state's deity or deities), the personal (one can take on mystery cult religions like Mithras, or other foreign forms of spirituality), and the familial (worship the household deities and build home alters). There were too many cross-currents of beliefs for there to be one strong ethical "way of life", for good or bad.

**You can attribute that to a combination of Judaism around the Babylonian Exile mixed with influence from Zoroastrianism.

Even the "Mandate of Heaven" and Confucianism was really more about following traditions and proper relationships (socio-political hierarchy), not necessarily about a "Code of Laws". Hinduism was not a monolith, and had several major (and hundreds of subsects) of various ways of following the gods. There were themes, but nothing quite "codified" in detailed prescribed belief and action, other than priestly rituals.

My original statement had been that women should be free to decide whether or not to have children.
I didn't go into tedious detail, but reproductive autonomy - which I thought was fairly obvious - includes accurate information, the availability of safe birth control, and freedom from coercion. Where these three requirements have been met, the birth-rate declined to a sustainable level. I assumed this was well known. — Vera Mont

:up: Once people are educated, they generally have fewer or no children. The education just doesn't go far enough. When it becomes a moral issue and less economic/lifestyle issue, the education is at the optimal level.

"Utopia is when we can kill babies". — Lionino

Technically procreating babies will eventually lead to their death, so since we KNOW this...

"Utopia is when my politics is in place". — Lionino

So apparently when you PRESS/FORCE people into this system (the one currently in place called existence/modern society/economy/governmental system/biological being), THAT is not politics? Naive indeed.

Outstanding.

They do, like it or not. And vice versa. But the influence of each on each is so diluted by numbers that it makes no discernible ripple in our personal decision-making. — Vera Mont

Clearly the collective efforts of procreation, government formation, and economic activity has all contributed to the 'YES MORE OF THIS!" side of the equation. Pessimism takes a different view. Can you fight "City Hall"? No, but sometimes it is the fight that matters most.

I don't understand why you continue to use the 'game' analogy. It is more like a training or a learning process in my opinion. — boundless

That's the GAME then.. training, learning, etc. It doesn't have to look like Chess or Monopoly or Basketball! It's an obstacle course of choosing between options, and sometimes the game puts participants in vicariously tragic positions, despite seemingly good decisions. So, it's a game of obstacles, suffering, learning, etc.

The reason why I brought Christian Universalism here (a view that lately I feel drawn to BTW), is that ultimately in that view the end result is positive*. — boundless

Same critiques as MoK's then:
Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!?

But anyway, for your first question... well, I don't know. Maybe a 'loving, perfect God' creates because it is an expression of its nature (this doesn't imply that God is ontologically dependent on created things but creating is an expression of God's nature...). If this is the case, then, creation doesn't come from a 'need' or a 'lack' in God but it is simply an expression of the nature of God.
But also you might ask, why such a God created a world structured like ours and not another. Well, I don't know how to answer that, to be honest. Did God create other worlds, different from ours? Well, I don't know and I don't know how a universalist might respond to that (same as before).

(*also, I don't think that an universalist must say that all suffering has a 'purpose'. In my previous post, I was speaking about the concept of 'punishment' in this kind of view) — boundless

God's nature? That makes it seem like God himself is following a rule he cannot escape. There goes the all-powerful part. Again, do you see why this God looks very human to me? And as with my question to MoK, are we talking the Biblical/Abrahamic God or some personal notion?

Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. — MoK

Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!?

I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive. — MoK

Same critique as above.

I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine. — MoK

But are specifically discussing the "Abrahamic" God from the Biblical narratives here or is this just MoK's own version of things?

I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. — MoK

You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. So here we have the following:
1) A perfect god wouldn't have needs
2) A good god wouldn't want suffering

Now you can contest this, but then that's my point, what is a perfect and good god? Generally, a perfection doesn't lack anything.

Now if I was to be real abstract about it, I would again point to the idea of a multiverse whereby everything that exists is god, and thus, at the least, one of the universes has to have the shit end of the stick with suffering. If not one, then vastly infinite amounts perhaps, and we are but one of them.

So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally. — MoK

All we have to admit then is that THIS god you describe, the one Just-Centric god that rules this universe is not perfect. Our disagreement comes from our definitions of perfection. For me, a perfect being has no needs, is not dissatisfied with its own supernal nature. Thus, whatever deity it is that devises a plan whereby they play out acts of goodness and badness, and acts of godliness and sins and acts of "Holy Hosannas!" and repentance to appease the God. A god that has a plan for a universe whereby people must act in a way to bring about a future World to Come apocalypse, where he then reveals himself in his full glory after an absence.. Whatever else it is, that is not perfection in that it is a designer of a game that it is playing. He creates the players, he creates the systems, and wants to see the players play ball in the system and see how it turns out.

That is a very human-like god. That makes sense since humans created it. A god that needs humans (to play his game), is a god that NEEDS things. That is not perfect. As far as humans needing god, I can think of plenty of reasons for that:

Psychological:
The fear of death, pain, trauma, meaninglessness, and the unknown, combined with the desire to avoid punishment for wrongdoing and find justification for good deeds, are all aspects of a collective version of individual conscience. This collective conscience addresses its own issues by providing a means for individuals to repent and alleviate guilt over their misdeeds within a communal context.

Historical/cultural: The Judhites, on their return from Babylonian Exile used previous myths, traditions, and prophetic literature of a prior literate class that centered around Jerusalem to create a more systemized belief system, shaping a henotheistic system into a strictly monotheistic one...

Anthropologically: To explain natural phenomena and life's mysteries. It helps societies establish a shared set of beliefs and narratives that promote cohesion and continuity across generations.

I find this similar to an OP I had a little while back. You may have commented on it actually:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14936/page/p1

I don't believe there is a "we" for me to prevent or understand or influence. — Vera Mont

Interesting. I believe this all takes place in a certain setting we call society, no? Seems people (by default) have influence over you by default.

Not up to you or me whether the universe continues. Chances are, it will proceed regardless of our sense of its worth. If you don't want to stay in it, it's you prerogative to leave. When the effort becomes greater than the rewards, I'll take my own leave. I do not presume to direct other people, either way. — Vera Mont

We can prevent it for others though, and follow the Pessimistic framework I laid out. That is to say, the default is that we should all by into the conditions of this universe (philosophies of acceptance.. Taoism, Humanism, Existentialism, Nietzscheanism, our current mode of Economics as Religions.. our everyday mode of living in this economic system). We can collectively view it in its correct context rather than participating in the Yay-saying.

As I said in a previous post:
1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.

2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.

EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.

I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation. — boundless

The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"?

Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?

Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans. — boundless

But this is quite evasive of the question I am asking and putting on the human. Why would God give a shit to have creations that need to go on a journey? He's perfect right? He has needs to see this VERY HUMAN STYLE game play out? This isn't very lofty. Kinda what a human would make up if playing a game of "do good" variety.

no, I didn't. Both non-being and dial-a-wish are perfect in their self-containment, so I didn't see anything to address. — Vera Mont

The broader framework for that discussion was, "Is THIS universe worth continuing if it doesn't meet those type of perfected/utopian standards?". Of course my answer is "No!". And my follow-up if you say, "Yes", is "Why is your answer EVEN an excuse, just because you CAN?". Any answer you provide shows your own vanity (hobby-horse), regarding the issue of positive projects for other people to have to ENDURE (find a good job, relationships, pleasures, projects, travels, hard work, achievements, whatever it is you think other people must endure in this non-utopian world).

The juxtaposition of the multiverse versus the limited universe of the ancient Near East is amusing.

I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation. — boundless

The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"? It doesn't matter if the game ends in eternal damnation/bliss, or temporary purification/purgation, or whatnot. The idea of eternal damnation or temporary (the rules of the game) don't matter here, just that THERE IS A GAME.

Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?

Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans. — boundless

But this is quite evasive of the question I am asking and putting on the human. Why would God give a shit to have creations that need to go on a journey? He's perfect right? He has needs to see this VERY HUMAN STYLE game play out? This isn't very lofty. Kinda what a human would make up if playing a game of "do good" variety. And GUESS WHO IS THE CENTER OF ATTENTION IN THE GAME- HUMANS!! OF course! We truly are images of God, who is a reflection of us, that is.

As I said in a previous post:

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety.

The idea of a god who is not all powerful, who sacrificed himself to become Jesus, who in turn was sacrificed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, belongs to a respectable theologian whose work I read and whose book title and name I can't remember.

I do like to write with some levity and in a jokey way. I'm not trying to make my "thought" more accessible -- I'm expressing an idea which includes the advisory that we should not take all this stuff too seriously.

I don't know whether I believe in god -- omnipotent, hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin -- or not. Most years not, some days yes. The family and institutional programming we receive early on is generally hard to overwrite. So, I used to like to read theology (a limited sample, anyway, mostly very liberal stuff). I haven't read any for maybe 20 years. Is there a Theology Anonymous group? I could get a 20 year pin. — BC

This is a fun theology (not for Jesus I guess). Good fanfiction if you will (they are all varieties of fanfiction of course). But what does it even mean to "take away sins of the world"? If we are talking Pauline sin of Adam's eating of the apple and getting kicked out of Eden, then okay.. What did this change? If god sacrificed himself for human sins, why did he need to do that perfunctory act if he could have just did it without killing poor ole Jesus- or I guess himself (?). At this point, it's like we are just interpreting poor rules made up by a Dungeon and Dragons designer on a poorly thought new early edition...

Which was? This can't happen, so why bother thinking about it?
So why bother responding to it? — Vera Mont

In Schop's conception, the animal being's (human/animal condition if you will) essential nature is to suffer dissatisfaction. Thus, a "utopia" would be the opposite of this, that is to say, a world where there were no needs or dissatisfaction whatsoever- and that would be literally non-being, or at least some kind of permanent Nirvana state.

As far as why bother thinking about it, "utopia" itself means "no place", meaning it was never meant to be a concept that can be attained, so if we are discussing concepts which can't happen anyways, I am just giving you one metaphysical version of this concept of a perfect existence.

We could. It's harder now we've overcomplicated and pissed on everything, but I guess we could try. — Vera Mont

So you didn't directly address this version of utopia either. Remember, it isn't some ideal political state in this conception of imagined (not realistic) existence, but rather one whereby you can EVEN turn the dials down to make things more interesting (more suffering), or turn it back if its too much. You can decide if how boring, easy, or hard, you want it. You still have needs, but you can adjust the intensity. You still get bored, but the intensity of how you achieve your survival and entertainment is completely adjustable. As I said:

...a world whereby we still had needs, but they could be met whenever we wanted. We could turn the dials to make it harder if we get bored, turn it back if we want to go back to easy mode. There is no suffering in the "want" sense of the word. We still "lack" but those desires can be fulfilled easily, without tension. Everyone is harmonious in their actions. There is no struggle.

Then of course there is the idea that our flawed universe is the product of a Demiurge. The Gnostic accounts suggests a creature of some malignancy. — Tom Storm

I think the Gnostics were simply unintentionally early advocates of the Many Worlds Hypothesis in theoretical physics :D. As I said to MoK:

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1

It is against wisdom if God can create God but wouldn't create God, instead creating creatures who must undergo all sorts of troubles and sufferings. Therefore, I believe that God cannot create God therefore the creation, like it or not, looks like the things that it is, people suffering but evolving, and people do wrong so they get punished... So here we are involved in something people call life, like or or not, we have to play it out. — MoK

This all makes no sense, so I'll leave you to your own musings unless you want to explain your use of "against wisdom" here. Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety.

@Joshs and @boundless

Who is this ‘one’? Schopenhauer made the mistake of thinking the ‘I’ who wills as a metaphysical subject. But the ‘I’ , and with it the world it makes sense of, changes its meaning completely , but subtly, every moment. You are not the same you from moment to moment , so blaming whoever came before ‘you’ makes about as much sense as blaming the you of yesterday for your current woes. You have a chance to start over again with each tick of the clock, because it s a subtly different you and a subtly different world. The question is what are you going to do with that opportunity? I happen to think that the concept of non-being is a metaphysical chimera, a notion of death as pure nothingness that we invented and used as either a source of threat or comfort. But it is a human-invented illusion which only exists when we summon it as a thought. And when we summon it, it is fraught with suffering because built into the concept is a reminder that we currently fail to achieve what it promises. Imagine killing yourself , only to pick up right where you left off, with all your sufferings, questions, imperfects, but without the memory of your past history. I think something lien that is closer to the case than the metaphysical notion of pure nothingness. Them d of peace you’re looking for in the metaphysics of pure nothingness can only be found by getting in tune with the continual flow of change. Transcendence of suffering is an active, dynamic achievement that must be continually repeated. It’s about discovering the unities, patterns, relations in the flow. — Joshs

My only suggestion from the View of Pessimism is as I laid out in another thread:
@Tom Storm asked me for my response to the problems of modern secular philosophies (like humanism/hedonism/economics as religion/and existentialism..even Nietzschean nihlism):

I am wondering what his response to my response is. Never heard back :).

1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.

2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.

EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.

Fair enough. A comprehensive series of accounts. Boredom seems as good a reason as any. Perhaps a desire to share boredom and to see what ridiculous things creatures will do to distract themselves. — Tom Storm

The darker version of this is Mainlander's god:

Mainländer was confident that the Will-to-die he believed would well up in humanity had been spiritually grafted into us by a God who, in the beginning, masterminded His own quietus. It seems that existence was a horror to God. Unfortunately, God was impervious to the depredations of time. This being so, His only means to get free of Himself was by a divine form of suicide.

God’s plan to suicide himself could not work, though, as long as He existed as a unified entity outside of space-time and matter. Seeking to nullify His oneness so that He could be delivered into nothingness, he shattered Himself—Big Bang-like—into the time-bound fragments of the universe, that is, all those objects and organisms that have been accumulating here and there for billions of years. In Mainländer’s philosophy, “God knew that he could change from a state of super-reality into non-being only through the development of a real world of multiformity.” Employing this strategy, He excluded Himself from being. “God is dead,” wrote Mainländer, “and His death was the life of the world.” Once the great individuation had been initiated, the momentum of its creator’s self-annihilation would continue until everything became exhausted by its own existence, which for human beings meant that the faster they learned that happiness was not as good as they thought it would be, the happier they would be to die out.

Rather than resist our end, as Mainländer concludes, we will come to see that “the knowledge that life is worthless is the flower of all human wisdom.” Elsewhere the philosopher states, “Life is hell, and the sweet still night of absolute death is the annihilation of hell.” — Ligotti

You can't help what ideas you are attracted to. The reasoning and justifications come later. For me the god hypothesis doesn't offer anything useful when it comes to sense making. — Tom Storm

But perhaps most notions of god are actually like a meme or mind virus with inbuilt mechanisms. If you convince people that god will CURSE or DAMN YOU, it would be harder for you to resist in talking bad on him.

As an aside, god has no explanatory power - we don't actually know why or how creation was made or to what extent god has any control over creation or, in fact, how many gods there might be. We don't know if god is good or to what extent they care. The events on earth suggest a negligible commitment to the welfare and happiness of creatures.

Is god good? Is god love as many believe? The idea that god is good seems to come from the fan fiction and just because an old book says a thing, doesn't mean would believe it. — Tom Storm

Fan fiction is a great label for it.

You remind me of a philosophical David Sedaris :rofl: . Witty, yet insightful. Here's a more recent article of his from The Atlantic: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/17/notes-on-a-last-minute-safari

There is another contrary claim about God that deletes the "omni" prefixes, leaving God with only some power, some knowledge, and some, limited, presence. This God is still a creator, but not the manager of the expanding universe. This God is profoundly loving, but doesn't have perpetual patience and isn't above getting very angry with us paragons of animals, us crowns of creation, and smiting us when He just can't stand us any longer. The ultimate expression of this very loving God is that He became man in Christ. God ceased being God. — BC

A god with out the "omni" oof. This is indeed a very human god, and I guess we are created "In his image". An imperfect god is one you don't want to fuck with, because like a petulant child-king, he has an ego that gets pissed if you don't recognize him and play his game. Take your pick: cursed, damned, exiled, obliterated. I know we've had this one posted before but apt:

God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist! — Vera Mont

I think you missed the entire idea behind #1.

If people pooled their talents, resources and opportunities, they could create something very close to the fabled human-based Utopia. — Vera Mont

I think Schopenhauer's point is that something akin to a Hegel-Marx materialist solution to human dissatisfaction is itself misguided. And by this I don't mean a specific system whereby it ends in a communist society, just the Salvation-Through-Economics/Government aspect. But yes, we can try.

As you and I know, no one is really motivated to pursue suffering for its own sake. One endures suffering and hope it leads to a reward, a release from suffering. Is suffering necessary? If we aren’t motivated to suffer for its own sake , what does motivate us? — Joshs

What about the pessimist-antinatalist view? The desire for non-being is just as much a unifying interpretation as any life-affirming doctrine. The pessimist-antinatualist wills the perfect and pure living thought of non-existence, and tries to live over and over through this thought, this vital organizing interpretation. The thought requires suffering in that it can only appear as a resistance to , or escape from the chaos it addresses. — Joshs

Well, you kind of answered the first part with the last part of your post. Why the need for motivation? You well know the Schopenhauerian insight into dissatisfaction. One is always playing a game that one did not and cannot choose. Accepting suffering is just the default because we have not killed ourselves. I don't see a problem with understanding this "unifying interpretation". Resistance, catharsis with fellow-sufferers, empathy with fellow-sufferers, and not unjustly putting others in the game of suffering seems to be the best course based on what is the case. Acceptance can be said to be the Lie for the Conspiracy to continue. Indeed procreation is political, as one is force voting for another that suffering IS INDEED necessary (for others to play out), just as you do. See, don't you like the suffering game? As long as it doesn't get too much in the red (which it often does for many people), it's great to have obstacles and then overcome them! Yay!! We are so arrogant in our hubris, not giving any pause to if the game should be played at all, if it is just to begin with. If perhaps acceptance isn't just a farce coping mechanism perpetuated down the ages..

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours. — Vera Mont

I had a prior post that went over these two notions of utopia- a sort of metaphysical one and hedonistic one...

1) Schopenharian utopia. God could have created a world whereby there was no "need" for anything. All of creation was perfectly fulfilled in everyway so that it was like a nothingness Nirvana state of non-being. No lack of anything. No need for anything. This can only be imagined from afar, as we don't know what that really is as people living in a universe that is certainly not this state.

2) Common utopia. God could have created a world whereby we still had needs, but they could be met whenever we wanted. We could turn the dials to make it harder if we get bored, turn it back if we want to go back to easy mode. There is no suffering in the "want" sense of the word. We still "lack" but those desires can be fulfilled easily, without tension. Everyone is harmonious in their actions. There is no struggle.

But then here we come again to the "all too human" aspect that struggle is somehow "what makes us human and what makes life worth it". I contest this fully and wholeheartedly as being a gaslight-y kind of answer. That is to say, if you can't beat them, join them. That is to say, obviously, if we don't kill ourselves, we have to accept that this world with it's struggles has to be good enough. The struggles instead of being "an evil" are incorporated as "necessary" to make us "grow" or to make us "appreciate the good", etc. But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful?

Oh meant to add @Banno to the above too.

What if, something like Christian universalism is true? Do you think that in this case suffering is still unacceptable if God exists? — boundless

So to answer the question, yes I it would be.. Here is my reasoning:

Contention: An all knowing, all perfect being would be nowhere near anything like the characteristics like a human. He wouldn't be a petty self-absorbed, narcissistic, sadistic tyrant-spectator-king. He wouldn't be curious. He wouldn't be like a teenage genius game designer who wants to see how his game plays out, not knowing the tiny variations, but understanding the overall outcome.

So there is a well-established tradition since at least the time of Judaism around the Greco-Roman era (300 BCE- 600 CE) that God (that is to say Israel's deity, the one and only) created Man as a sort of experiment in how a free-willed entity would act if given the choice, and not the certainty of knowing God and his Will. This article explains it well, and I highly recommend reading all of it to get the sense of the main beliefs and debates surrounding it:

The belief in free will (Hebrew: bechirah chofshit בחירה חפשית, bechirah בחירה) is axiomatic in Jewish thought, and is closely linked with the concept of reward and punishment, based on the Torah itself: "I [God] have set before you life and death, blessing and curse: therefore choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Free will is therefore discussed at length in Jewish philosophy, firstly as regards God's purpose in creation, and secondly as regards the closely related, resultant, paradox. The topic is also often discussed in connection with negative theology, divine simplicity and divine providence, as well as Jewish principles of faith in general.

Free will and creation
According to the Mishnah, "This world is like a vestibule before the World to Come".[151] According to an 18th-century rabbinic work, "Man was created for the sole purpose of rejoicing in God, and deriving pleasure from the splendor of His Presence... The place where this joy may truly be derived is the World to Come, which was expressly created to provide for it; but the path to the object of our desires is this world..."[152] Free will is thus required by God's justice, "otherwise, Man would not be given or denied good for actions over which he had no control".[153]

It is further understood that in order for Man to have true free choice, he must not only have inner free will, but also an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely, this is the meaning of the rabbinic maxim, "All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven".[154]

According to Maimonides,

Free will is granted to every man. If he desires to incline towards the good way and be righteous, he has the power to do so; and if he desires to incline towards the unrighteous way and be a wicked man, he also has the power to do so. Give no place in your minds to that which is asserted by many of the ignorant: namely that the Holy One, blessed be He, decrees that a man from his birth should be either righteous or wicked. Since the power of doing good or evil is in our own hands, and since all the wicked deeds which we have committed have been committed with our full consciousness, it befits us to turn in penitence and to forsake our evil deed.[155]

The paradox of free will

In rabbinic literature, there is much discussion as to the apparent contradiction between God's omniscience and free will. The representative view is that "Everything is foreseen; yet free will is given" (Pirkei Avot 3:15). Based on this understanding, the problem is formally described as a paradox, beyond our understanding.

The Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows everything that will happen before it has happened. So does He know whether a particular person will be righteous or wicked, or not? If He does know, then it will be impossible for that person not to be righteous. If He knows that he will be righteous but that it is possible for him to be wicked, then He does not know everything that He has created. ...[T]he Holy One, Blessed Be He, does not have any temperaments and is outside such realms, unlike people, whose selves and temperaments are two separate things. God and His temperaments are one, and God's existence is beyond the comprehension of Man... [Thus] we do not have the capabilities to comprehend how the Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows all creations and events. [Nevertheless] know without doubt that people do what they want without the Holy One, Blessed Be He, forcing or decreeing upon them to do so... It has been said because of this that a man is judged according to all his actions.[156]

The paradox is explained, but not resolved, by observing that God exists outside of time, and therefore, his knowledge of the future is exactly the same as his knowledge of the past and present. Just as his knowledge of the past does not interfere with man's free will, neither does his knowledge of the future.[153] This distinction, between foreknowledge and predestination, is in fact discussed by Abraham ibn Daud.

One analogy here is that of time travel. The time traveller, having returned from the future, knows in advance what x will do, but while he knows what x will do, that knowledge does not cause x to do so: x had free will, even while the time traveller had foreknowledge.[157] One objection raised against this analogy – and ibn Daud's distinction – is that if x truly has free will, he may choose to act otherwise when the event in question comes to pass, and therefore the time traveller (or God) merely has knowledge of a possible event: even having seen the event, there is no way to know with certainty what x will do; see the view of Gersonides below. Further, the presence of the time traveller, may have had some chaotic effect on x's circumstances and choice, absent when the event comes to pass in the present.)

In line with this, the teaching from Pirkei Avot quoted above, can be read as: "Everything is observed (while - and no matter where - it happens), and (since the actor is unaware of being observed) free will is given".[158]

Alternate approaches

Although the above discussion of the paradox represents the majority rabbinic view, there are several major thinkers who resolve the issue by explicitly excluding human action from divine foreknowledge.

Both Saadia Gaon and Judah ha-Levi hold that "the decisions of man precede God's knowledge".[159]
Gersonides holds that God knows, beforehand, the choices open to each individual, but does not know which choice the individual, in his freedom, will make.[160]
Isaiah Horowitz takes the view that God cannot know which moral choices people will make, but that, nevertheless, this does not impair his perfection; it is as if one's actions cause one of the many possibilities that existed then to have become known, but only once chosen.[161]
Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner holds perhaps the most controversial view: apparently denying that man has free will, and that instead all is determined by God.

Kabbalistic thought

The existence of free will, and the paradox above (as addressed by either approach), is closely linked to the concept of Tzimtzum. Tzimtzum entails the idea that God "constricted" his infinite essence, to allow for the existence of a "conceptual space" in which a finite, independent world could exist. This "constriction" made free will possible, and hence the potential to earn the World to Come.

Further, according to the first approach, it is understood that the Free-will Omniscience paradox provides a temporal parallel to the paradox inherent within Tzimtzum. In granting free will, God has somehow "constricted" his foreknowledge, to allow for Man's independent action; He thus has foreknowledge and yet free will exists. In the case of Tzimtzum, God has "constricted" his essence to allow for Man's ndependent action; He thus has foreknowledge and yet free will exists. In the case of Tzimtzum, God has "constricted" his essence to allow for Man's independent existence; He is thus immanent and yet transcendent and yet independent existence; He is thus immanent and yet transcendent. — Free Will Judaism Wiki

So, with all that being said.. We have a pretty good outline of what is going on here in the theological conception..

God is a curious designer type who sort of poses an experiment to himself. What would it be like to have entities that have to make "the right choices"? Presumably, if we are being REALLY charitable and include Kabbalistic thought [which came much later in history versus the orthodox religious claims of it being as old as the Torah, etc.], what this means is that godliness is in doing the commandments. They are like holy sparks to be revealed by playing out the commandments set out by God. The commandments are the written words along with all the oral traditions surrounding it (which is akin to following all the laws of a written Constitution and all the judicial interpretations surrounding its application). Thus keeping kosher, following the 10 commandments, keeping the sabbath holy by not working, etc. and doing it in correct fashion are revealing the sparks. No doubt, worshiping god through prayer or sacrifice is also part of this, especially at defined parts of the year. Sin would be straying from the knowledge and practice of the written and oral commandments. It is tempting to not follow these, as it is the easier route, but it isn't what God wants..

[Now mind you this is for a Jewish framework. This can easily be reconfigured for the supercessionist Christian framework whereby the "Old Covenant/Testament" of the Law (written and/or oral) is thrown out and the New Covenant of Jesus' sacrifice and belief in his death and resurrection and his teachings (along with whatever variation of church doctrine/theology) is what God wants.. I am just keeping with the OG Jewish conception, as it is well-laid out and makes the same point for both]

Here's the thing, even with ALL of these considerations that God wants to see these "lower realm" creations that do not "know God" make the right choices and "reveal" him through praxis (divine actions elevating the lower realms to God), even with all the fancy theological and ideas of Biblical, Post-Biblical (Talmudic), and Kabbalistic thought, still boil down to a very human like quality that does not pass this initial contention:

Contention: An all knowing, all perfect being would be nowhere near anything like the characteristics like a human. He wouldn't be a petty self-absorbed, narcissistic, sadistic tyrant-spectator-king. He wouldn't be curious. He wouldn't be like a teenage genius game designer who wants to see how his game plays out, not knowing the tiny variations, but understanding the overall outcome.

That is to say, God is STILL suspiciously all too human. He wants suffering so that "holiness" (himself basically in material form) can be revealed to his own creation. It reads too much like a game designer that wants to see his cool creation play out. It is especially odd when adding in elements like "reward and punishment" for these players.. wiping people out, condemning them, exiling them, cursing them, rebuking them.. etc. etc. This seems again all too human...To WANT punishment and reward, let alone meeting it out as divine dispensation. YOU get the World to Come, YOU get the World to Come, not YOU though.. The little creations ENDURE the negatives, because I'm curious to see how you overcome them... All too human. Obstacle course for the piddling creations. A game. Is it divine boredom then? Does BOREDOM, yet again rear its ugly head?

Mainlander has a darker version of this. The boredom leads to creation, but not so that it plays out in some game-like fashion, but because of a sort of the need to break out of its own boring unity.. He had to individuate himself to carry out a sort of suicide, akin to the "Heat Death of the Universe". Oddly, the ideas of entropy play much more into that notion.

Despite his scientific means of explanation, Mainländer was not afraid to philosophize in allegorical terms. Formulating his own "myth of creation", Mainländer equated this initial singularity with God.

Mainländer reinterprets Schopenhauer's metaphysics in two important aspects. Primarily, in Mainländer's system there is no "singular will". The basic unity has broken apart into individual wills and each subject in existence possesses an individual will of his own. Because of this, Mainländer can claim that once an "individual will" is silenced and dies, it achieves absolute nothingness and not the relative nothingness we find in Schopenhauer. By recognizing death as salvation and by giving nothingness an absolute quality, Mainländer's system manages to offer "wider" means for redemption. Secondarily, Mainländer reinterprets the Schopenhauerian will-to-live as an underlying will-to-die, i.e. the will-to-live is the means towards the will-to-die.[16] — Mainlander

:up: — 180 Proof

If someone gives Trump a thumbs up, must mean he’s right :roll:.

“Cant deny the rightness of a statement is determined by someone agreeing with someone else with a thumbs up”

“Whoever smelt it dealt it”
-Plato