“God is totally real bro! And he loves you bro! He loves everyone! He’s of peace!”
Brutal. RIP to the lil nigga 
This world disgusts me
Compassion and empathy do not belong in this world.
"Inceldom is only natural, our hypergamous feelings are nature bro!!! It's natural selection for you to be an incel bro!!!" -
Also nature:
Also nature:
People think that if god is good nature will be good and we will all live according to what's good. Even if god's good the world's horrible sometimes
In retrospect the bear also appears to be a baby. If the baby bear didn’t get this kill it also may have starved to death.
It’s ying and yang
All I know is the universe is fucked and god is evil for creating the bear and the deer just for them to suffer and struggle to survive
It’s ying and yang
All I know is the universe is fucked and god is evil for creating the bear and the deer just for them to suffer and struggle to survive
The Strong Feast on The Weak .
"Bruh, don't you understand? The omnipotent merciful God needed a servant, so He sent a bear to kill the deer so the deer can serve Him in His glorious kingdom for eternity brooooo!"
Romans 5 12
God forgot about me, it seems
you’re making the mistake of conflating natural distribution with metaphysical intention. the fact that life is asymmetrical—genetically, geographically, socially—only proves that nature is indifferent, not that a creator (if one exists) is unjust or favors one over another. this is a category error.
if a god exists, and especially if this god is not bound by material outcomes, then judging divine love by earthly success is like judging the depth of mathematics by how much money a mathematician makes. you're using the wrong metric.
the argument also assumes that suffering = neglect and advantage = preference, but that’s a projection of human psychology onto a transcendent concept. a parent may allow two children to endure very different paths—not out of favoritism, but because they understand that growth, humility, or meaning might emerge in one and not the other. whether or not this is “fair” from the child’s view doesn’t negate the presence of intentionality.
also, appealing to entropy (i.e. the universe trends toward disorder and suffering) doesn’t disprove god. it just sets the stage for what kind of god would make sense. maybe not an interventionist in sense of intervening any time something happens , but a god that allows agency, pain, and 'absurdity' as part of a larger story/plan. rejecting god because life is cruel is like rejecting literature because the book contains suffering. you're not engaging with the premise—you’re upset with the plot.
if you reject all metaphysics, fine. but then don’t appeal to injustice—as injustice implies a standard, and standards don’t exist in raw physical universe and entropy. in that view, you weren’t given a paper while someone else got a gun. no one was “given” anything. the paper, the gun, and your pain are all just particles moving toward heat death. no favoritism. just noise.
so either you're within a framework where suffering might serve a higher purpose (in which case divine love isn't disproved), or you're in a meaningless system (in which case love, justice, and preference are illusions). both are internally consistent. but borrowing emotional terms like “love” or “fairness” from one system and try to apply them to another is highly irrational and inconsistent
if a god exists, and especially if this god is not bound by material outcomes, then judging divine love by earthly success is like judging the depth of mathematics by how much money a mathematician makes. you're using the wrong metric.
the argument also assumes that suffering = neglect and advantage = preference, but that’s a projection of human psychology onto a transcendent concept. a parent may allow two children to endure very different paths—not out of favoritism, but because they understand that growth, humility, or meaning might emerge in one and not the other. whether or not this is “fair” from the child’s view doesn’t negate the presence of intentionality.
also, appealing to entropy (i.e. the universe trends toward disorder and suffering) doesn’t disprove god. it just sets the stage for what kind of god would make sense. maybe not an interventionist in sense of intervening any time something happens , but a god that allows agency, pain, and 'absurdity' as part of a larger story/plan. rejecting god because life is cruel is like rejecting literature because the book contains suffering. you're not engaging with the premise—you’re upset with the plot.
if you reject all metaphysics, fine. but then don’t appeal to injustice—as injustice implies a standard, and standards don’t exist in raw physical universe and entropy. in that view, you weren’t given a paper while someone else got a gun. no one was “given” anything. the paper, the gun, and your pain are all just particles moving toward heat death. no favoritism. just noise.
so either you're within a framework where suffering might serve a higher purpose (in which case divine love isn't disproved), or you're in a meaningless system (in which case love, justice, and preference are illusions). both are internally consistent. but borrowing emotional terms like “love” or “fairness” from one system and try to apply them to another is highly irrational and inconsistent
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
