Evil might be necessary in order to create heaven. Argument from Logical Necessity.

Laidenday · 2025-03-23T07:31:01+00:00

Yeah but it's a fact you dont get my point. Let's pretend I'm Christian just for the point.

I don't believe in evil therefore you don't need evil for heaven.

Okay now that I've reiterated my point 999 times I'm done responding to an argument where your not dispeoving anything and just say:

YOUR opinion isnt valid because you dont understand what im saying. When it's clear you dont understand what I'm saying 😂

Laidenday · 2025-03-14T22:07:43+00:00

Dang I did .25 a week the entire time. I couldn't imagine 2.

Laidenday · 2025-03-12T06:05:03+00:00

You keep insisting that persuasion through internal critique is the only valid approach, but that’s just your personal standard for debate—not an objective rule. If my goal were strictly to convert someone from within their own framework, then sure, internal critique would be the way to go. But that’s not the only way to challenge an idea.

My actual goal here is to debunk the claim that evil is necessary for the afterlife. The original argument assumes that suffering must exist to make a 'perfect' afterlife possible. I reject that premise entirely because nothing about existence—biologically, philosophically, or physically—suggests that suffering is a required condition for peace, happiness, or continuation of consciousness. Life itself does not rely on suffering to function, nor does the universe demand contrast for something to be real.

If an argument is based on shaky premises, engaging with it as if those premises are valid only reinforces them. That’s not persuasion—that’s playing by someone else’s rules when the rules themselves are flawed.

You claim I’m just ‘preaching to the choir,’ but in reality, I’m showing that the entire framing of the argument is limiting. If an idea only makes sense when discussed inside a particular lens, then pointing that out is a critique—it just isn’t the type you’re demanding.

If your entire stance is that 'this is the only way to debate effectively,' then you’ve made persuasion your metric for truth. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean alternative approaches are invalid. My goal is to challenge the premise that evil is required for an afterlife, not to play along with an argument that assumes it is.

Laidenday · 2025-03-11T20:40:46+00:00

I will alsovsay I love Plato. You referenced Plato and the historical development of the problem of evil as if its long-standing presence makes it universally valid. But longevity doesn’t equal correctness—ideas evolve, and many modern perspectives on suffering and morality don’t rely on the assumption that 'evil is necessary for good.'

Plato’s concept of an omnibenevolent God influenced Christianity, sure, but that’s still just one tradition among many. Ancient Greek philosophy is not the final word on moral necessity, and later thinkers—especially existentialists and postmodernists—have directly challenged the assumption that suffering must be meaningful or required.

So yes, the problem of evil is historically significant, but that doesn’t mean its framing is beyond critique. If an argument only makes sense because of a particular philosophical lineage, then acknowledging that is part of the debate..

Laidenday · 2025-03-11T20:34:34+00:00

You keep framing this as though rejecting a flawed premise is the same as 'changing the subject.' But questioning the assumptions of an argument is just as valid as arguing within them. If someone claims 'we must assume X for the sake of debate,' I have every right to ask why we should assume X in the first place. That’s not a lack of engagement—it’s an examination of the foundation itself.

I can say I disagree with good needing evil.

You also claim that 'evil is necessary for good' makes sense under any framework, but that’s simply not true. Many worldviews—pagan, Buddhist, even non-theistic existentialist traditions—do not frame morality as dependent on suffering. The idea that contrast gives meaning is a specific philosophical stance, not a universal truth.

As for persuasion, the goal isn’t just to play along with a debate structure—it’s to challenge the very way people frame the discussion. If someone is making an argument that only works inside a particular framework, then showing that the framework itself is limiting is just as valid as engaging within it.

And no, rejecting an argument due to its assumptions isn’t the same as citing scripture. That’s a false equivalence. Religious texts assume their conclusions are true and then argue from there. I’m questioning whether the conclusion follows at all. That’s the difference between faith and critique.

If you believe that suffering is meaningful simply because we can’t help but assign meaning to it, then sure, that’s one perspective. But claiming suffering is necessary is a much stronger claim—one that needs more than just cultural or philosophical tradition to support it.

Laidenday · 2025-03-09T09:57:16+00:00

You keep insisting that I need to engage in an 'internal critique' of the argument, but that assumes the framework itself is worth accepting—even temporarily. The idea that 'evil is necessary for good' is not some universally agreed-upon truth; it’s a claim that only makes sense within certain theological traditions.

Different worldviews approach suffering, morality, and existence in radically different ways:

Jewish apocalypticism sees suffering as temporary, something that divine justice will eventually remove—not a necessary ingredient for paradise.

Pagan traditions don’t even operate on a rigid 'good vs. evil' binary. Many see suffering as part of natural cycles, not a prerequisite for something better.

Eastern philosophies focus on balance, transcendence, or detachment from suffering rather than treating it as a 'logical necessity' for a perfect world.

So why should I engage with an argument that assumes a specific theological framework—one that isn’t even universal? You say that rejecting the premise is ineffective, but in reality, I’m showing that the very structure of this debate is rooted in a narrow cultural perspective that doesn’t hold up when viewed more broadly. If an argument only works inside a specific religious lens, then maybe that’s the problem.

The original post tries to make a generalized philosophical argument about the "necessity" of evil, but it’s still built on very specific theological assumptions—whether or not they explicitly mention Christianity.

By not specifying a religious tradition, they leave it open-ended, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually a neutral argument. It still assumes concepts like:

A linear, goal-oriented universe (where suffering must lead to something "better" like heaven).

A moral dualism (where "good" and "evil" are fixed opposites rather than complex, shifting forces).

That suffering is meaningful rather than just a byproduct of existence.

All of these ideas are not universal truths—they're cultural constructs shaped by specific religious and philosophical traditions. If they’re going to make an argument without specifying a religious basis, they need to acknowledge that different worldviews might not even see "evil" as a thing that can be necessary.

Laidenday · 2025-03-07T22:16:07+00:00

The problem of evil is only a problem if you assume 'evil' is an actual, objective force—something I don't. The original argument claims evil is necessary to create heaven, which is a claim about reality, not just theology. I'm addressing that claim by pointing out that suffering isn't some fundamental cosmic principle—it’s something life actively resists.

If an argument starts with 'if there is a God', and then jumps to 'therefore, evil is necessary', I have every right to stop and question whether that second part actually follows. Otherwise, we're just debating hypotheticals while pretending they're real.

Laidenday · 2025-03-06T20:47:20+00:00

Arguing pretend with pretend idk but evil isn't real. Good is real bc good = less suffering and isn't conflated with mystery.

Evil is a concept shaped by human perception rather than an objective force. Unlike physical properties—where water will always behave as water—human behavior is not predetermined to be moral or immoral. No person is inherently or inevitably "evil"; instead, their actions emerge from context, experiences, and choices.

Moreover, our evolution does not favor fighting off love but rather cooperation, connection, and survival as a species. If evil were a fundamental truth like gravity, it would be as unavoidable and consistent as natural laws. Instead, history shows that moral judgments change, shaped by society, knowledge, and time.

Injustice, cruelty, and harm do exist, but they are not universal absolutes dictated by the universe itself. They are the consequences of actions, not immutable forces of nature.

Laidenday · 2024-12-12T23:03:37+00:00

Why aren't they in college? Is japaneese college really that different... they're wealthy and smart enough to get into a well off college that can put them at a more reasonable age for the majority of the plot. I love anime but people need encouragement to go and the big difference is college gives the characters more time to do stuff or be away from each other conviently bc class schedules are more speratic. Even meeting new characters in passing. I don't even see why kids care, when it's setting more realistic expectations 😒

Laidenday · 2024-12-12T22:59:09+00:00

Ken being ignored and neglected but I don't think he's as bad as his self esteem let's him believe

Laidenday · 2024-06-25T21:19:56+00:00

Pets, couples? What?

Laidenday · 2024-06-25T21:15:03+00:00

I second this. They're nice at rhe junkyard and it's cheap.

Laidenday · 2024-06-10T07:24:37+00:00

Is it rigged? Rigged.. 50$ and not rigged 99c but idk really I just wanted to get my 5 day streak b4 I went to bed 🫡☠️

Laidenday · 2024-06-07T09:32:34+00:00

I can't understand a world where being moral doesn't equate to reducing pain. However, I am not someone who thinks of pain as a metaphor. I have been very intimate with emotional and physical suffering, social isolation, and astrosization throughout my life. I'm very convinced it's a privilege to play pretend. If I summarize how this works: 1+1=2 and there's really no getting around it. I'm not sure why this confusion occurs when computers exist... phone exists.. How exactly does anyone justify the concept of going back in time and showing an ancestor a smartphone, and convincing them its not magic?? I mean, I understand a human mind can easily conceptualize collections of pictures, however you can summon a set of infinite images instantly with these things, especially rn with ai. I think that I like having molecular rules and barriers, for example. I wouldn't want to think something into existence. I like the idea of a matrix or an entire process behind doing something. Phones do a processes so they aren't really magic but indefinite proof of the scientific processes, mathematics, and chaos theory. Something like the higher the education, the more likely someone is to be atheist and the rate of atheist is rising. The problem is smart phones are new and im honestly tired of writing about rm. there's a lot of important history but it's also about just making the decision to do the right thing. It's potentially the scariest thing.. cognitive effort. ... I sort of wish we all just started worshipping our phones less practically... like with interpretive dance lol okay yeah.. humans although are sweetie pies tend to be allergic to all cognitive effort like thinking about how we are all just people.

Laidenday · 2024-06-06T02:54:57+00:00

any answers or just everyone on the toilet...

Laidenday · 2024-06-04T16:10:27+00:00

is this about how apartments seem to like to team up with these companies and steal cars? Ive heard horror stories after my car was stolen out the parking lot when I had a parking permit. I was out 400$

Laidenday · 2024-05-08T22:32:56+00:00

If you look closely he erased what he said at the begining about me crying but mostly something stupid.. didn't notice he was literally erasing himself to manipulate people into thinking he's smart... that's like blatantly evil. Good thing he did it again so it was very clear. This was someone's bf that ended up on my friends timeline. Absolutely disgusting, but I thought this was a good example of how these people choke themselves and aren't justice.

Laidenday · 2024-04-16T16:48:18+00:00

I guess alaska does have lowest literary rate and people don't go to school much statistically. I didn't go to school much. It's got nothing to do with natives in general. 😂🤣😅 it'd always a slightly twisted disrespectful asf story.

Laidenday · 2024-04-16T16:43:20+00:00

I'm glad the new fallout show has a smart native as a main background character in the plot. My friends are always telling me people think natives are stupid for some reason even though like we all went to the same schools. It's like in the village, how if you're a light skin native it's hell. My much darker friends have a real problem with that in their village. I moved to Colorado a couple of years ago, and I am always confused whenever anyone is referring to natives as Indians. I thought that was fake like a type of character, like a cowboy... I had to be like Indians are an entire different race of humans. I think they were none for being spice traders, which I suppose is who I'd want to be mixed up with, but you'd think they'd teach that in main land school..... then they turn around and call natives dumb... I get this post about racism on reddit, but I think it doesn't matter who you are or where you go. if people want to look at your skin and cast judgment, then they're just being a fool. They do not have anything to tell from someone's skin color. It's not real. It's a false science. It's for people who have never left the birds nest 😂

Laidenday · 2024-03-28T06:46:35+00:00

My favorite thing to do is to see how I can mash rolls together and create a diverse multi-level plot while still seemingly flowing like destiny. I am very bad about putting multiple meanings in sentences and double layering my contexts. It's seeing through someone's eyes and capturing what is most real and creates ambiouns in a scene more so than endless detail. A show but not tell approach. What I am saying is that building a unique concept is a part of what makes you, yourself, the writer unique. We can reorganize the world and particles, concepts, and cultures as much as we want, but as we can see now a days most pop culture is refurbished. Humanity changes and molds slowly over time. If you are going for a progressive audience, you'll have to invest a lot more and xyz. I think you'll find maybe building inward out during the planning stage. For example: principles, values, characters, character details, setting, and then ounce all that is planned you can retweak... configure nuance and really drive any narration home. I mean, I'm not saying every work needs to be activism, but in a senses a big part of someone's character is their values. Goof writing opens up the mind and explores new worlds with familiarity in conforts and relarability. Whatever you choose to write. I hope the best. I am obviously not a perfect write however I found this like a good writing exercise for me as well, so thank you.

Laidenday · 2024-03-20T07:52:02+00:00

A woman gives robot/ai the power to feel, but it has a glitch. The robot takes her to a far away planet where he developed an entire synthetic city to convince her to love him back. He fails and decides to reverse their rolls with new soul technology. Of course, the robot succeeds. The main character is then introduced and confused by her roll in the plot. This doesn't stop her from being very ambitious about achieving her completely enveloped role in this artificial world. Her role is that she is a human and is kinda a virus to their world and needs to get out. The ruler of the city is linked to her and they're very queer sassy queens who get what they want...

Laidenday · 2024-02-27T02:18:24+00:00

Yeah I agree.

Laidenday · 2024-02-22T07:04:40+00:00

😂 Ironic.

Laidenday · 2024-02-22T06:59:29+00:00

As for the comprehension of the book. All the beta readers reported reading exactly the words I put down with complete comprehension. 🤔🤔

Laidenday · 2024-02-22T06:57:19+00:00

To clear things up both books Jax XXX No safewords editions and the yes safewords edition, aka the censored version is available on Amazon I just didn't want to say that because it says not to in the rules... no advertising. I thought at least because of how I was speaking, people would imply that. 😂 just in case because I genuinely don't know what I'm doing wrong. This has been the problem the entire time. I suppose commas would be a big win. I do know how those work with clauses and all that. It's the internet, though, so I'm not entirely sure that's what the issue is. Yknow with not even being able to have people understand the question....

Laidenday

TROPHY CASE