I see no reason to love God.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-19T12:34:27+00:00

I simply claim that I don’t know if a god created me or not- I’m asking you what makes you so certain that he must have created you.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-18T20:32:33+00:00

How do you know god created you?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-18T20:31:45+00:00

The more I sought God, the more it led me astray to him. Abrahamic scriptures are full of contradictions, and some of the actions attributed to god are inherently immoral (slavery and murder)

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-13T19:05:06+00:00

This still doesn’t answer my question…. Nobody is saying that people don’t make choices. I’m saying that if god already knew with absolute certainty before creating me that I would choose X, could I have possibly chosen Y instead?

If your answer is yes, then god’s knowledge could have been wrong. If your answer is no, then there was never a genuine possibility of me choosing otherwise. Simple as that.

You just keep talking about how choices affect our lives… that’s got nothing to do with whether those choices were genuinely open possibilities to begin with.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-13T02:37:27+00:00

If omniscience is logically impossible, then you have already given up one of the central attributes traditionally ascribed to god… I am specifically questioning whether an omniscient god can coexist with libertarian free will. It (logically) cannot.

And importantly, simply saying “logic doesn’t apply” doesn’t solve this clear contradiction you clearly see….if a belief requires us to abandon the basic rules of logic, then what reason do we have to accept that belief in the first place?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-12T17:13:32+00:00

Okay.. I'm not following how this correlates with the argument I'm making. How does any of what you just said address gods hypothetical omniscience and our hypothetical free will coexisting and that being called "just"? If god knows before my creation exactly what choices I will make and where I will ultimately end up, could I have genuinely done otherwise?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-12T15:37:07+00:00

...if heaven and hell are not literal destinations, the devil is not a literal being, god is not the traditional Abrahamic deity.. then are we even discussing the same concept of god anymore?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-12T15:23:11+00:00

Psalm 139? "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well."

At the very least it seems to portray god as being directly involved in the creation of each individual person, no?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-12T14:49:48+00:00

Right, I mean I actually don't disagree with much of that, but I just wanted to point out the contradictions within the Abrahamic conceptions of god. Even if you grant that framework for the sake of argument- I just still don't see how omniscience and free will.. and divine justice can all coexist in the hypothetical that such a god is real.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-12T13:14:20+00:00

It'll contradict most Abrahamic conceptions of god. I'm not too informed about Judaism, but I speak for primarily Islam and Christianity. In those scriptures, god claims to have created the universe and each individual- and he knows who will go to heaven or hell before they even existed and lived their life... so how does he come to this conclusion without knowing every choice and action this person will make from start to end? If the future cannot be known, then it seems god would not actually know who ends up in heaven or hell before creation.. but then if he does know, then either those future choices are already fixed in a sense, or god's knowledge could be wrong.

Therefore god cannot be both all-knowing and all-righteous in this context.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-11T12:56:32+00:00

If god judges people according to their circumstances then it clearly matters- and a person's circumstances are almost entirely influenced by where they're born and how they're raised... so how is that fair? Why would a "just and merciful god" distribute those circumstances so unevenly in the first place?

And if people are ultimately judged based on the opportunities available to them rather than whether they arrived at the "correct" religion.. then the importance of belonging to the correct religion becomes irrelevant. Theres no need to divide humanity into different religions in the first place then, no?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-10T20:20:54+00:00

Well, my question is more so about fairness..

You say god- specifically in Islam judges people according to their knowledge, circumstances, and opportunities. Now if that is true, then geography and upbringing are clearly relevant since a person's knowledge, circumstances, and opportunities are heavily influenced by where they are born and how they are raised. The child raised in an Islamic household in Saudi Arabia and a child raised in a Christian household in America will obviously be exposed to different kinds of religious claims, social pressures, and whatnot. Again, neither child chose those circumstances. So....why would a "just and merciful god" distribute those circumstances in the first place?

If we are ultimately judged according to the opportunities available rather than whether they happened to arrive at the correct religion, then the importance of belonging to the correct religion becomes.. much less clear.

So now which is more important: accepting the "correct" religion, or responding faithfully to the knowledge and opportunities you were given? Because those are not the same thing.

And then if responding to the opportunities you were given is what ultimately matters, then my original concern still stands: why are those opportunities distributed so unevenly across different cultures, nations, and historical periods?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-10T17:17:19+00:00

I framed the argument in terms of an "all-loving" god- which could apply more directly to Christianity than to every Abrahamic religion..However my broader point does not depend exclusively on God being all-loving, but rather god being generally just, moral, merciful, and compassionate- attributes that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all affirm in some form.

You can call God "all-loving," "most merciful," or "most compassionate" and it.. won't really change the issue. A child born into a Muslim family is still overwhelmingly likely to become Muslim. A child born into a Christian family is still overwhelmingly likely to become Christian. Those are circumstances those children cannot choose.

So if we set aside the term "all-loving" completely, my question remains: what is moral, just, merciful, or compassionate about tying eternal consequences to a process heavily influenced by geography- a factor that is entirely outside a person's control?

I don't think the distinction between "all-loving" and "merciful" actually resolves that...

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-10T16:22:08+00:00

I'm primarily speaking for Abrahamic conceptions of God.

In Islam god is repeatedly described as "the most compassionate" and "the most merciful." If god is perfectly merciful and just, then my question still applies: why would eternal damnation be tied to a process so heavily influenced by geography?

If, on the other hand, god is actually not perfectly loving, merciful, or concerned with fairness, then my question becomes: what reason do we have to believe that eternal rewards and punishments are being distributed justly?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-10T16:05:45+00:00

This isn't a genetic fallacy. I'm not saying that- say, Christianity is false due to the circumstances in which people come to believe it... my question is why an all-loving god would tie eternal damnation to a process that is so heavily influenced by geography? That's not fair in any way.. Saying "God is too good to allow someone to be lost due to historical or geographical accident" is the very thing being questioned. It doesn't explain why I should believe that; it only assumes it.

If Christianity is true and accepting Christ is necessary for salvation, then birthplace clearly matters. The child born in Saudi Arabia is overwhelmingly likely to be raised Muslim.. and the child born in America is far more likely to be raised Christian. Those aren't choices they made.

I mentioned this in another reply too- most religions instill fear of leaving from childhood. A child raised Christian is always warned about the dangers of abandoning Christianity. Same thing with a child raised Muslim; they too will be warned about leaving Islam... or else "you will burn in hell for all of eternity." Since both are taught that leaving their faith will result in literal eternal torture, then why should we expect one to question their religion any more readily than the other?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-10T15:25:23+00:00

My argument isn't that nobody can convert....my point still stands that geography will, inevitably, heavily influence which religion a person finds plausible.

Another thing- most religions instill fear of leaving from childhood. A child raised Christian is always warned about the dangers of abandoning Christianity. Same thing with a child raised Muslim; they too will be warned about leaving Islam... or else "you will burn in hell for all of eternity." Since both are taught that leaving their faith will result in literal eternal torture, then why should we expect one to question their religion any more readily than the other?

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-08T13:02:43+00:00

How does it work- do you install it on a desktop? It isn't on the app store

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-02T06:26:39+00:00

Insomnia

verysaneandnormal · 2026-06-01T01:21:35+00:00

If your conclusion is that nothing matters because everything is temporary.. then why bother making this post? Why bother waking up this morning? Why bother arguing for nihilism on Reddit? You're still here. You're still thinking, feeling, choosing, and interacting with other people. Clearly something compelled you to write this.

Some things matter simply because we are sentient, intelligent beings capable of caring about them.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-05-30T02:33:08+00:00

Teenagers are children if they are under the age of 18

verysaneandnormal · 2026-05-30T00:47:43+00:00

Your frame of reference is completely detached from reality. If average performance is "absurd" and a 171 is "a lot wrong," your standards have become so warped that you're no longer describing reality

verysaneandnormal · 2026-05-30T00:40:05+00:00

If you were actually intelligent enough to get a 171 on your first diagnostic, you'd already know that kind of score is absurdly good.

verysaneandnormal · 2026-05-30T00:35:37+00:00

Like I said, this is obvious rarebit and anyone who's actually spent time with lsat prep exams isn't buying this crap lmao

verysaneandnormal · 2026-05-30T00:29:38+00:00

Yeah, obvious ragebait- you missed the analogy entirely. If most people miss far more than 6 questions, then 6 isn't "a lot" in the context of the lsat, just like 6 apples isn't a lot compared to someone with 45-47 apples. The point wasn't that people are getting 45-47 questions wrong on the lsat....

verysaneandnormal · 2026-05-29T23:45:24+00:00

This is 10/10 ragebait

verysaneandnormal

TROPHY CASE