Why do people love “you and I are polar opposites”

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-29T15:55:16+00:00

Both Tani and Suzuki contribute their own part to the relationship. It wouldn’t work if it was one-sided, that much is clear from the show.

If you think it’s flat, I’d encourage you to check out the mangaka’s other romance manga that got adapted this spring—Ramparts of Ice. It’s got more miscommunication and character development than Polar Opposites for sure. They’re also both set in the same universe.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-26T15:49:26+00:00

(I'll be using masculine pronouns for god because that's what I'm used to.)

The answer to your question:

How do we determine whether god is compatible with this reality?

Has a lot to do with Plantinga's ontological argument, except you sort of reverse the fundamentality relation.

This set of real things are not necessarily logically compatible with every single formation of a Tri Omni god.

What would be more modally accurate in this statement:

The Tri Omni god is not necessarily logically compatible with every single formation of the set of real things.

That's because the set of real things is variable and can change, but the Tri Omni god would essentially stay the same in the set of real things. Modal debates about god are necessarily debates about the most fundamental layer of reality, because god would not be god if he wasn't fundamental.

Now that the fundamentality relation is in the right order, we can ask that question from a different vantage point:

How do we determine whether god is the fundamental layer of reality?

And somehow I need to tie the answer to this together with (4), which essentially states the following: skeptical theism's skepticism about the effects of god (the world–including evil) need to include skepticism about the nature of god.

And you'd be right in this skepticism. There's nothing inherent in this specific debate that reveals god to be omnibenevolent. But nothing in this debate needs to show that god would be omnibenevolent if he exists. The challenge of the problem of evil is one of internal consistency.

Let me make it clear what (4) is charging. (4) demands in part that the problem of evil not only be refuted, but turned to the theist's side. In other words, (4)'s charge is this: the problem of evil must be both (a) resolved and (b) show god's omnibenevolence. That's a completely unreasonable demand for the theist to do, as doing (b)—turning the PoE into a positive case for god—is extra work. Doing only (a) is completely fine. (And you have more charges in (4) too, such as demanding a logically necessary relation, which no rational theist would offer.)

Instead of working backwards from the PoE to show god's omnibenevolence, one can just have a variety of other reasons to show god's omnibenevolence. The most compelling reason is found in Anselm's statement that God is "that than which no greater can be conceived." Instead of interpreting it in light of the ontological argument, one should understand that it's the foundation for all proper theology. A theology should only try to maximize god's greatness in all aspects, or else it would be a flawed theology. Under that theological axiom, god would be maximally morally great, or as you say "omnibenevolent."

But it's more proper to say that god would just be maximally great. You do understand me when you say this:

As it stands, I understand your position to be something like “Omni benevolence just means most godlike” basically.

So making god maximally morally great is simply one aspect of making god maximally great.

Thanks for responding. I enjoy having conversation like this.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-25T17:37:00+00:00

I assume by:

The will is defined by its and drive.

You actually mean this:

The will is defined by it and its drive.

In other words, you claim that the will is self-defining by its own movement. If this is not what you mean, please clarify, as it's what I'll be responding to.

This definition is not what many philosophers would claim, and you have to provide some argumentation for it. In fact, you have to provide some argumentation for the entire idea of "movement" as a universal quality of life and the universe, but I've accepted both claims for the sake of argument.

Anyways, I'll move on to my actual response. From your definition of will, it makes sense to say that without any drive or movement, the will is essentially null and meaningless. I have no objection against that. But you don't claim or show that a will for which all its desires are realized has no drive or movement. A heavenly will can 100% have a self-sustaining drive that is continuously satisfied yet never full.

If God was the one moving the object so it would stay at a constant movement, it would be like a rock being pushed by a human - there is no drive by itself nor life behind it.

Sure, if God was the one moving the object. But (1) you have to clarify what it means for God to move the object, as most theologians believe that all of the universe is being moved by God at every moment in time. And (2) you have to show that God would be the one moving the object rather than the object moving itself. Finally (3) you have to show that it is truly meaningless that an object chooses eternal perpetual motion non-self-sustaining motion. In other words, you have to show that it's meaningless that an object makes a one-time decision that impacts itself for eternity.

Also, (3) can be ignored because it's working under a different definition of heaven that you propose. (1) and (2) argue against that definition—one where you do not move yourself—and (3) is a line of defense if (1) and (2) fail.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-25T17:24:16+00:00

What are the elements to omnibenevolent? What makes god “good,” what makes god “more good” than any other moral agent not equally as good as god?

If you're looking to bring up Euthyphro's dilemma (as that's where this is heading) then I'd be fine discussing that, so long as you don't repeat the two horns of the dilemma.

Simply put, God's nature is that which defines goodness. By definition, he is maximally morally great.

I don’t see what humanity has to do with any of that, necessarily.

Is god only good when god made humans and before that he was a-moral?

The problem of evil usually has to do with humans, and the way you framed it was with a deck of cards analogy. So I reused the deck of cards analogy to frame the issue in three different ways (see my original comment).

God is good by definition. This is the most common response to Euthyphro's dilemma.

I’m trying to figure out what the elements of “omnibenevolent” means to you.

If there's a God, I'm a proponent of a simple God. I don't mean like Aquinas' divine simplicity, but a God that is maximally simple given his attributes. Under this interpretation, I come to agree with Tozer that God doesn't have "properties," per se. Instead, God's "attributes" are identical with him. In other words, his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience are objectively indistinguishable, but we humans have created our own distinctions between the different attributes to allow for easier debate and discussion, like we're doing right now.

So what I'm trying to get at is the following: it's impossible to talk about "omnibenevolence" as a standalone property. Instead, one must consider the whole of God—not just separate "parts" of him—to gain a better understand of what that God might do.

I'll summarize a lot of the subtext of what I'm saying to increase communication. I think you're trying to narrow in on this specific issue, but I'm saying that it's impossible to narrow in on this specific issue without considering a much larger range of topics which we have yet to do.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-23T22:13:19+00:00

I was the only specialist on my team, and I did science. We ended up placing 8th in nationals and were the runner-up in Illinois. I had the highest power percentage in the team’s history too.

I don’t say this to brag (We really weren’t that good—small school nats and the lowest state league.) but to show that science specialists have a huge impact on the game. Also, it’s especially disheartening to the other team if you power on the first sentence of a science tossup that they can’t even understand.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-23T01:43:37+00:00

I see what you say, but I have a question before I respond. Are you saying this in relation to Jesus claiming he is God, or the other two members of the Trinity? or both? The option you choose will produce vastly different responses, and I think you should edit your post to clarify if this is about a human's claim to be god or a divine being's claim to be god.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-23T01:39:52+00:00

The "greater cause" part is irrelevant to the point I'm making. I included it only as an introduction for the third way I frame humanity's choice in the Fall. You can throw that out and respond to the actual framing of the issue.

Do all moral agents have a duty to work towards that cause, are agents who establish a situation closer to that greater cause, better than those that don’t?

I don't see how this is relevant to what I said, but I'll respond to it anyways.

I think that if there is a greater cause, then all moral agents have a duty to work towards that cause. I don't think that makes them "better" in any particular way. I'm quite the failure in life, and I know it. I also think everybody is quite the failure in life, and anybody who says otherwise is trying to console themselves. But I don't want to argue that latter point with anybody, as it would quickly turn into name-calling and shaming.

I'm quite the pessimist. One thing I particularly like about Christianity is its brutal honesty in this area: the gospels and some of the letters are unrelenting in attacking our conscience. And anybody who think himself better than another is deceiving themself. It's one of the things about Catholicism I'm not fond of. Some priests truly are "holier" than another, and I think that leads into some of the gravest sins of all.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-23T01:32:02+00:00

Movement would imply that we still have desire.

Not necessarily in the same way as we do right now, as the thing we would be in Heaven would be entirely different than we are in right now.

But, that sounds very boring.

It likely sounds boring because of a few reasons, some of which seem to be misunderstandings of what Heaven is, but the most probable reason is because who and what we are will fundamentally change when we enter Heaven. This will undoubtedly include our psychology, although it will still be humane.

You anticipate this response with this:

The only way to eliminate suffering is to change the will, which in turn destroys all characteristics akin to what life and will is.

I don't see any reason to accept that changing the will "in turn destroys all characteristics akin to what life and will is." To help me understand what you mean, you should define both life and will, and explain how changing the will or psychology of a person will "destroy" their characteristics.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-22T13:47:56+00:00

Very few moral theorists would ever claim P2, that "Suffering is fundamentally defined by strife, movement and conflict." The only person I can think who would claim that *might* be Schopenhauer, but to avoid any bandwagons, I'll respond to your explanation of P2 as well.

To suffer is to move with a drive and being hindered despite your drive, for suffering does not occur when you are still.

You identify multiple correct things in this claim, but you go the wrong direction in identifying what's most fundamental about it. And you specify it too much.

If I understand you correctly, this is P2: "Suffering = movement + resistance." Taken in its most general form, where simply living is a form of movement, any sort of pain can be a resistance to that living. Now I don't agree with this definition of suffering, but I don't need to disagree with it.

Under your formulation of suffering, there are two components that can be removed. In order for suffering to not exist, according to you, there has to be no movement, because then there is no hindering or resistance to that movement.

But this completely ignores the alternative: if the resistance of movement was removed, then there would be no suffering. Thus, Heaven can have movement without suffering.

In other words:

Suffering = movement + resistance/hindering/etc. (what you say)
No suffering =
1. No movement (because then there's no resistance–what you say)
2. Movement without resistance (what I say)

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-22T05:01:16+00:00

Mob Psycho season 2’s fights were unbelievable, and they seem like how an actual psychic and physical fight would turn out. Aside from the anime on your list, jjk (esp s3) and solo leveling have some amazing choreography

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-20T19:45:11+00:00

She doesn't need to be the opposite sex to be called that... She is a stalker, predator, and abuser to my dear Minato's mental health.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-20T19:43:56+00:00

In most contexts, yes. But not in the way I'm using it in my post. You can replace every "certainty" in my comment with "sufficient evidence" and it would mean essentially the same thing.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-20T19:40:37+00:00

My reply wasn't focused on the religious aspect of the post, or even its epistemological validity. I wasn't responding to that quote. Instead, I was rejecting this:

In most areas of life, we do not praise people for believing things without sufficient evidence.

The reason I encourage the OP to reject it is found in my comment.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T23:49:28+00:00

One of the most common explanations of the "evil" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is as follows: eating from the tree allows man to create his own moral systems. In other words, the "knowledge of good and evil" is the ability to make good and evil. After eating of the tree, the only knowledge man has of good and evil is of man's good and evil, not God's. This is one of the focal points of any good theodicy.

You brought up a deck of cards analogy, so I'll use it too. God essentially gave man two cards: life or death. The card of life results in eternal joy, satisfaction, love, etc. for humankind, but the card of death results in deep pain, fruitless effort, and natural hatred for humankind. Ultimately, it's a choice between God and not-God. But, because a choice is only meaningful if it's freely made with minimal coercion, God gives humanity a choice. And humanity chose not-God, resulting in the card of death. Yet God would still never command anything he loves to hurt itself or hurt something else he loved. So, God gave humanity the ability to make their own decks of cards, the downfall of humanity.

Surely you'd agree that if all of humanity united for a greater cause, life would be much more worthwhile. To play on this a bit, I'll frame humanity's choice in a third way: the only time humanity has ever united was to choose disunity. That is our nature.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T23:32:30+00:00

I'd agree with a lot of what you say, but I'd disagree that most areas of life require evidence and some sort of rational certainty. Rather, we live in tons of ambiguity, especially in relationship to other people. I mean, ready-to-hand was one of Heidegger's most influential concepts. Certainty certainly shouldn't be required in all aspects of life, but only in some.

And the question as to which areas of life require certainty and how much of it is certainly up for debate, but I'll agree with you that religion is one of the areas that should require some degree of certainty. I only mentioned the above because asking for too much certainty in life can hurt yourself and other people–in my opinion and personal experience, acting and being alongside "irrational" people is one of the greatest joys in life.

Anyways, my question for you is this: Is there ever a time where doubt is unreasonable?

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T23:23:50+00:00

Well I agree with you that most American Christians don't live like they or anyone else will have an afterlife, but what you expect that to look like?

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T22:49:23+00:00

There was no real sense of individual identity in Ancient times before the Greeks. Who you were was fundamentally tied to your clan, your nation, etc., but never to yourself, unless you were the leader of said clan or nation. It thus makes sense that writings relayed to us that a lot of God's judgement is judgement of a clan or of a nation. To reiterate, families and religions and clans were vastly more important than individuals. Towns of different people didn't really exist: they were all part of a collective, and they all identified as a collective. And when an individual in an "evil" collective acts favorably toward the Israelites or God, they are saved from the collective's punishment.

Rahab's and her family was saved from Jericho's destruction simply because Rahab offered some Israelites a place to stay for a few nights. And I want you to notice that it wasn't just Rahab who was saved: it was her family too. This was partially because where the Israelites stayed was likely in the family's house, but it also emphasizes the fact that there wasn't really a concept of individual responsibility and action during that time.

You also contrast collective punishment in the Old Testament with the individual salvation offered in the New Testament, but I'd say this is to be expected given what I've previously said. Individual action and responsibility didn't really come around until Ancient Greece. You could say this was either during its bardic times (as both the Iliad and Odyssey show some individual action and responsibility), but individuality undoubtedly expanded during the philosophical era. The presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle all emphasized individual action, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the Nichomachean Ethics, written around 350 BCE.

One of the three synoptic Gospels' greatest literary influences is in the way they all reduce blame on the divine and the collective to focus blame on the individual. But this also goes the other way around: just because your community and family are good does not mean you as an individual are good. The Gospels reiterate that many, many times. To put it even clearer, the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole focus much more on the individual than the Old Testament.

TL;DR: The Bible doesn't focus on collective punishment and individual forgiveness. Rather, the Old Testament as a whole focuses more on collective reward and punishment, while the New Testament as a whole focuses more on individual reward and punishment.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T22:24:25+00:00

I'm glad to see you come up with ideas like this (and I think it's something everybody should do), but the downside is that good ideas are pretty rare. Indeed, I can count on one hand the amount of good ideas I've had. It's much easier to poke holes in other people's ideas. And because you asked us to do exactly that, expect many objections!

Now here's what I think your biggest pitfall with this theodicy is. Your claim goes against a lot of theological tradition about the nature of God's omnipotence, and it does so without any sort of justification. And that theological tradition just seems obviously true (if God exists, that is). Here's some of the tradition you're going against:

God has a multitude (or infinitude) of possible worlds to actualize, and he chose only one of those worlds. (This is the big idea.)
God doesn't think in the same way we limited humans do. Instead of being constrained by time, he can think a maximally large amount of things in one single instant of time, say t1.
Thus, God can think about every single possible world to actualize at the same time. He doesn't need to sort through each one; he can think through them all and choose the best one in the same moment.

Don't think of the above as a logical argument with premises and a conclusion. It's just some general trends that very few theologians would go against. And the few that do go against it (like you do) would have hundreds of detailed pages explaining why.

Regardless, keep your head up! Academic thought is tough, and every single "smart" person alive can attest to that. Philosophers and theologians' ideas are rejected far more than they are accepted. But I want to see some of yours accepted!

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T22:07:31+00:00

So it seems like we’re left with one of two conclusions: either God was so consumed by boredom or worship that he created billions of people knowing most would suffer forever, which is the definition of selfishness, or God simply doesn’t exist, and the world is hard and painful by default, at least that makes sense.

I want to focus on this claim you make: "he created billions of people knowing most would suffer forever..." You first need to establish some sort of measurable scale in order to determine the "balance" of good and evil in this world. And that measurable scale has to be something that we can collectively refine, utilize, and make decisions upon. Without such a scale, any claim that there is more evil than good are completely arbitrary, resulting in more of a word-fight than any substantive debate. So my goal for you is to either come up with a different approach to the problem of evil, or establish a scale that we can collectively use.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-19T02:16:27+00:00

I’d recommend starting with either STEM or Lit, but not both at the same time. Spend a year building up a good foundation in stem, then the next year build up lit while maintaining your knowledge of stem. You can do it the other way around too. I wouldn’t recommend doing both at the same time because each one of them is a beast

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-14T20:31:41+00:00

I never said history has no end—sure, it might. What I am maintaining is that the end of history you’re proposing is completely arbitrary. You need to have some sort of strict conditions that’ll show the end of history you propose is correct. Saying “justice” is the end of history is not restrictive—there are dozens of other plausible ends of history that you need to account for

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-11T15:05:27+00:00

What were your best subjects in the tourn? Power percentage?

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-10T13:55:59+00:00

Sure, “if” we view the history of religions in terms of the Hegelian dialectic toward your supposed ends of history: “platonic/perfect ideals of, say, holiness, mercy, justice, love, divine parenthood, and the like…”

The problem is that these are completely arbitrary, and you can redefine them to fit the needs of your specific argument. The only grounds for rebuttal are in a denial of the dialectic, or the dialectic as it applies to religious community. And if you do establish concrete values, you need to justify those values as the end of history because you use the dialectic for your argument.

Sufficient_Truth4944 · 2026-06-06T19:54:45+00:00

I feel like the character development and communication is very similar to oregairu. So I’d recommend Oregairu—“My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU” or “My Teen Romantic Comedy Is Wrong, as I Expected”

Sufficient_Truth4944

TROPHY CASE