The idea of a God often doesn't add up when we look at the universe. Stars, with their endless energy, power life across countless planets. This abundance suggests that life could thrive without the need for violence or killing.
If a benevolent and omnipotent God created everything, it would make sense for such a deity to design a world where all life could coexist peacefully, drawing from the boundless energy of the stars. However, the reality on Earth is quite different. We see a world driven by competition, predation, and survival of the fittest. Animals kill for food, and humans have a long history of violence and conflict.
This inherent need for destruction contradicts the idea of a benevolent creator who would provide for all living beings without suffering. The existence of endless energy sources like the sun suggests that life could be sustained harmoniously.
Therefore, the harsh realities we witness challenge the concept of a man-made God intended to explain and justify the world. It implies that our understanding of divinity might be flawed or that the true nature of the universe is more complex and less centered around human beliefs.
What would be the point of living/evolution if all was made peaceful and abundant from spiritual inception?
It's a fallacy to suggest that because stars give off abundant energy, the universe must then be a perfectly harmonious creation except for our one little backwoods planet of backward savages. And that this proves no God exists too? And that other planets arent violent or self-destructive because they have no Earth-based religion?
There is ample evidence to assert the reality of positive and negative extraterrestrial beings. From what I have researched, reptillian beings are notorious for using dirty nuclear energy as oppposed to cleaner, "zero-point" energy used by advanced human species throughout the universe.
God is as real as the sun and rain, but if you get burnt or drown it isnt his fault/proof he doesnt exist.
Living implies sentenced from inception towards point of death. Few suggest progressivism towards points to tempt many to ignore sentence/sense/perception within perceivable origin.
Point implies "end of sentence"...
Hold your breath...can you negate the need to breathe? What if negation implies ones de-nial of position?
What if few suggest a conflict of reason (positive vs negative) to distract one from being able to negate ones position through ignorance?
Zero/cifre/cipher aka arithmetic/arithmos/tell-craft/numerology etc. tempts ONE to ignore that all is ONE in energy.
Sleight of hand: "there can be only one" + "all for one and one for all" + "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE.
Here's a test...if EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" implies one; then what's two? How could one double internal power of external energy?
Whats your religion?
Isn't that such an overplayed theory tho? "If God is all-good, why is there bad in the world..."
Without bad, how would you even know the good?
But most of the time, people don't look in any religion to find the answer, they would rather create their own image of God, and easily defeat that man-created image with their arguments.
Jesus is the perfect human, no fault at all. None can equal him. Not in life, nor in wisdom. If you are really looking for an answer about God, read about Jesus. If you manage to disprove him, then Christianity is wrong. If you don't, what will you do?
None.
Of those proscribed publically? None.
Christ was a gift to everyone.
I think it was a story created to make savages less savage and thats real smart i have to admit . Its like the longest telephone game of time . " so 2024 years ago there was a guy.." thats my take . I maen im not mad about it but its pretty weak.
Weird how this game of telephone managed to stay consistent with only the most minor changes that have zero impact on the message and come down to grammatical shifts. What's weak is your leaps of logic to avoid educating yourself on the only truth in this world. This post reads like some tween myspace post from a few decades ago. Dig in homie. It's fascinating how real it all is.
The problem with too many people is they look at the World and see only chaos, as they willfully ignore the Balances in the varied and extensive biological systems....
Where there are too few Wolves, there are too many plant Eaters, which makes plant food scarce, and many starve to death....
Where there are too many Wolves, there are too few Deer, and many Meat eaters Starve to death....
Balance keeps both in play, but when Man interferes directly to ""Regulate"" one or the other, the results are always devastating....
I posit that it is a lack on the Viewers part to look upon the World, or Galaxy or Universe, and see lots of abundance, and yet not see Intelligent Design due to the Balance in all of it....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There was once a King that wanted to know what was the Meaning of Life, so after much testing of his people, he had brought together many of his wisest men, and he built them a Guild, they then wrote Tomes on the meaning of life, he did not want to read them so he had them Condense all of them....
They returned with one large tome, he rejected it and had them make up Tests, to find the cream of the Crop in intellect, they condensed the Tests, all the common and all of the uncommon, and they all took the tests....
Of those who passed, Half were sent back to their Previous lives....
The rest of the guild were sent to all parts of the Known World, about 2/3rds returned, and no word of those who never returned....
The Tomes they brought back were quickly condensed, and made into one Large tome, it too was condensed several times, into a small tome of only a few pages, which the king, once again rejected....
His top Intellectuals worked in it for weeks, and finally had it down to one sentence, which he also rejected, and they worked diligently for about a week, and brought back a single word....
Survive....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is my understanding that here on Planet Man, it is the Responsibility of Mankind to be the purveyors and curators of the Entire Planet, we are placed in Charge of Keeping it, and improving our own lives Individually as we go through our Generations....
We are the ones in Charge of Keeping it Clean, not only for ourselves, but for the existence of ALL LIFE, from the Plants to the Animals to the Fish, even for the Birds....
But there's always one group that is just super Lazy, they want everything to be gifted to them without a Cost, or at a minimal exchange....
They are Monarchs, Emperors, Bureaucrats, Extremely Rich but Stupid, Socialists, Communists, and others who never have put in a single Weeks worth of Physical Labor in their entire Lives....
They are LAZY, and believe they deserve anything and everything Gifted to them if for no other reason than their existence, this is stupid, here, on Planet MAN, Everything has a price, an Exchange, every breath, every motion, every bite of Food, you must use part of your Bodys Energy in order to gain more energy, that IS life, that is Living....
The Challenge is to live better Today, than you did yesterday, and better tomorrow, than you did today, it is the WAY of this World....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The way this Universe is set up, in my comprehension, is that there are Rules for each livable Planet, they range from the Perfect Planets where everything lives in a perfect Balance, with perfect weather, and food abundantly grows everywhere, sadly, it is Boring, and tedious, and nearly no Animals live there....
There's the Midrange Planets, also rather boring, not really much of a challenge, no real exchanges for living better, no really exchanges of Energy, and most of life is provided for in half Measures, there may exist some life, but it's probably Robotic....
And then there's the Death Worlds, Planet Man is one of them, Very Dangerous, very exciting, and teeming with life everywhere you look, and a Challenge to Survive, a struggle to love & Live better each day than before, but the Exchanges must be made in order to pass the tests you encounter daily....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you cannot SEE Intelligent Design in any of this, you probably haven't Lived, truly Lived, You haven't had any struggles, You don't know what Hunger an Thirst really are, probably haven't ever had to go a few days without eating or without Water, never worked to provide for yourself, etc....
If you cannot SEE Intelligent Design in any of this, an at minimum, not even in your reflection in the Mirror, then you are coddled, and in need of a massive change of life, it is ALL by Intelligent design....
God Exists, it is not Gods responsibility to Find you, it is Your Responsibility to Find God....
That is why we have Free Will, and on this planet, Exchange by Agreement, aka Contract....
Great comment.
Thanks Fren...
Great post. Its true if you look at the world the way it is, but i feel like the origional plan of our creator would have been for us to thrive instead of survive.
Of course, and that's why Gods Command is to ""Be Fruitful, and Multiply""....
I doubt he meant Learn Mathematics....
Well, yeah. We didn’t make God, He made us.
Whats your religion ?
"If God exist, why didn't He create things the way I think they should be?"
Basically, an argument from incredulity. Also, why are all the things you mention objectively bad? Based on what standard for morality? How is it not just a subjective matter of preferences?
Why the "problem of evil" is always about the big things? Why don't you complain about how a perfectly good God wouldn't create us with the need to breath air in order to live? Just think how much cooler it would have been if we could live without having to breath?
The idea of god doesn't fit within a Copernicus/heliocentric reality but thats a whole other issues for another day. I would have to agree with the rest of your statement though.
this conversation is a conversation that intellectuals have been having for nearly 900 years. There conclusion always ends the same way, and thats that we don't have a benevolent god. We have a god that trapped us here in a materialistic realm filled with chaos and pain. Your only freedom is to rid yourself of the materialistic aspect of it by not participating. These are the teachings of "Christian" Gnostics
Yes, but that is very harsh. If that was the case, we would not exist.
We are not here for chaos and pain. But harmony and ease. Body and mind.
I say that because when i look at nature, i dont see chaos and pain. Nature is beautiful in every single way.
But that we have to endure is is something that has been put upon us by other people here, not outside.
You cant really say that we would not exist, that would be assuming you know our gods modus operandi and end goal. Which is impossible.
The world has fleeting beauty. But that's all it really is, Fleeting. The majority of our life is struggle. We are always under subversive attacks from all angles. The only 2 true guarantees in life is that we will lose everything you come to love during your lifetime, and the second is that you will die.
whats the real point? After death its either eternal nothingness or best case scenario your forced to do it all again. Im not trying to black pill anyone but i have to be real. I see the "creation" and the beauty that comes with it, but i dont see a benevolence creator.
Aka para/per (forwards) and dox/dek (to take). Few suggest doxology (taking speech) to tempt many to consent to progressivism, hence taking that which moves forwards (inception towards death), while ignoring to resist (life).
Dox contradicts para...matter cannot hold onto motion without destroying itself.
Suggested idealism tempts one to hold onto, while ignoring that addition (inception) and subtraction (death) of being (life) cannot be held onto.
a) To look at implies to lock onto aka to focus on...while ignoring that ones sight (perception) implies within the movement of all perceivable.
b) Universe implies turning (vertere) one (unus). Few suggest universe to turn many from perceivable origin towards suggested outcomes.
Creation implies out of nothing. Everything implies each thing (partials) within everything (whole) aka transmutation within everything.
Suggested creationism tempts one to ignore perceivable transmutation of motion through momentum (inception towards death) into matter (life).
Here's a test...create anything suggestible without using everything perceivable to "create".
One cannot perceive creation, because all perceivable existed before ones perception came to be.
a) Living implies one (partial); dying implies all (whole)...only within loss (inception towards death) can there be growth (life).
b) -ist (coexist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (co-existentialism) aka ones submission of self into bondage to another aka religion (Latin religio) - "to bind anew".
c) CO (together; with) contradicts EX (expression) because expressions put together repress each other.
Sleight of hand: "Express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
d) Peace/piece implies being apart from one another as partials within whole. Few trick many to ignore that by tempting them into a perpetual conflict of reason (peace vs war), while ignoring that reason is the foundation for all conflicts and wanting to come together in "peace" contradicts nature differentiating pieces by setting each one apart from one another.
Competition implies ones consent to take a suggested side within a conflict of reason against another...which tempts one to ignore being (life) driven (inception towards death) apart from one another.
a) How could it be ours if we "stand under" others?
Are many students stand under few teachers? What about many followers standing under few leaders or many slaves standing under few masters?
b) What if suggested pluralism (our, we) tempts singular (one) to ignore self discernment?
Being implies center (perception) of circumference (perceivable)...believing implies ones consent to the suggestion of another.
To believe tempts "being to leave" ones position at center, while inclining outwards. How does one belief? By free will of choice. What does choice imply? Center of balance. What does choice at center of balance choosing to incline outwards towards "chosen ones" suggestions imply? Imbalance!