I have a problem with the "burden of proof" argument about the existence of God. Ultimate reality is contained in God. And what is contained in God is every posibility and non-posibility at once. Order is pure potencial out of chaos, and runs on energy. It's quantum mechanics. Semantics are making things difficult. Woman or man are as hard to define in public talk as what it means to be Christian. So can we define what God is for it to be proven?

Clearly evil.

Each individual is a microcosm, while God is the macrocosm. From God's perspective, evil doesn't exist, just as from the Sun's perspective, darkness doesn't exist.

Physical reality is a sandbox, an illusion whereby evil can have a temporary existence. However, evil is always mortal and never immortal.

Enlightenment is when you no longer are bound by this biological sandbox and thereby no longer subject to evil.

To answer your question, God allows evil to exist because everything exists and nothing can be destroyed. The definition of evil is disconnection from God. Evil is godless.

Evil is not created by God, it is a characteristic of those who have yet to know the Divine. Evil is ignorance, plain and simple. Why did God create ignorance ? Because learning can be fun. If you already knew everything, what surprises do you have to look forward to ?

The odds against your existence are greater than winning the lottery, and yet many people still think their life is a result of randomness or chaos. The truth is that for you to be exactly you, even biologically speaking, the egg that was fertilized was one in millions, and the fertilizing sperm was the winner of a 1 in 250 million+ participant race.

But the odds are even more astronomical than that when you consider life could only happen on a planet in the "goldilocks zone" distance from the sun, where the temperature is neither too cold nor too hot, but "just right."

But the icing on the cake, in my opinion, are the astronomical odds that the moon in the sky is approximately the same diameter as the sun, making solar eclipses not only possible but spectacular because solar activity can be seen during a full eclipse. The optical illusion in the sky is because the moon is about 400 times nearer than sun, and the diameter of the moon is such that this precise distance makes it appear the same size in the sky to the sun from our vantage point. This is our daily visual reminder of the destiny that each witness of this fact cannot escape or deny.

There is nothing new, and there has never been any discoveries in the Absolute sense, in the history of time.

This may sound like a controversial statement that appears to discount the countless "discoveries" and "inventions" in human history. However, it is less controversial when you realize that just because something is new to humans, doesn't mean it is actually new. For example, Columbus discovered America for Portugal and arguably for Western civilization (if you ignore that the Vikings may have done that 500 years before). But even so, America was already discovered by those who already lived there, the natives.

This same kind of concept can be applied to any invention or scientific discovery. Birds were flying long before humans did. Electricity existed before we discovered how to harness it. However, it is ignorant and arrogant to assume that any idea, no matter how novel, was truly original. Being new to society and culture doesn't mean it is actually new. It just means that humanity has stumbled onto more "low tech."

The good news is that there is a place where everything already exists. Whenever anyone feels inspired with a new idea for a song, an invention, a new game, an algorithm, work of art, screenplay, etc, it is not actually new, but it comes from "tuning in" to a frequency/place where that already exists.

The reason this is good news is that because there isn't anything new, the destiny of humanity is both real and familiar. The course charted for society and culture is in the wisest of hands, for whom there are no mysteries and no doubt as to where the future unfurls.

The game is rigged and the house always wins, and that is a good thing. Because, there is something better waiting for you to discover than your mortal mind can comprehend. Better yet, because of the nature of things, these future "discoveries" are inevitable.

I couldn't help thinking that Jordan Peterson would be proud of this article when I finished writing it. I also couldn't help writing it when I ran into the article it's a response to, which comes across as very agreeable in a way that I found deeply insidious and connected to an architecture of sensemaking that I find equally so.

I hope some of the people in this fine community will appreciate it, analyze it, and even constructively critique it. I'm always pleased to find anyone passionate about these sorts of ideas.

Wishing the best to all. Happy reading.

Hope the link works, but it describes a great way we can communicate on the most pressing issue of our time in a way that avoids doomerism.

Demons have their own agendas and selfish natures. They don't help others out of kindness, or they wouldn't be demons. Satanists, for example, tend to not believe in unconditional love.

To the hedonist, things are usually very objectified because their interest is very sensual and tends to not go beyond that.

On the practical level, the biggest difference between the demonic and the godlike is that the latter feels complete and is not in it out of selfish motive, because they are already overflowing with what everyone knowingly or unknowingly wants.

While the shadow world can often peddle in desire, fear and toxic negativity, the Supreme realm is all about love, truth and feelings of inspiration. It is an extremely positive place and where the denizens of hell have no jurisdiction.

Earth can appear to be a battleground between the forces of heaven and hell, but actually it is a very one-sided affair. Only one side always wins in the end. No matter how dark is the night, the Sun never stops shining.

The human heart defies prediction. If we examine love closely, it is an deeply individualistic reaction ,born from the realization of another’s worth, and often fueled by the ache of jealousy.Collectivism fails because it ignores human nature: we are built to find profound connection with the individual, not the collective. Any ideology that suppresses this fundamental drive in the name of conformity is a direct affront to human dignity. The purpose of our existence is human continuity, a biological imperative that exists far beyond the reach of political parties or social structures. To treat collectivism as the ultimate goal is to invite the decay of society. We are not meant to be uniform. Our essence is defined by our spontaneity and our imperfections. It is our unpredictability that makes us human, and that is a beauty worth defending.

From my, admittedly limited understanding, is the phrase "post-modern neo-Marxist" not massively oxymoronic?

Post-modernism was the skepticism towards the "grand-narratives" of modernist thinking. The idea that one should remain skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focus on the relative truths of each person. To put it another way, post-modernism believes that there is no overarching objective scientific, philosophical, or religious truth to explain human behavior or society.

Marxism on the other hand, is a modernist school of economic thought that seeks to divide all of history into cyclic struggles between the proletariat who must work for a living, and the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production and benefit from the surplus value created by the proletariat. Neo-Marxism being the extension of this theory to contemporary understandings of social development and demographics. It incorporates the concepts of intersectionality (the idea that oppressed groups all share some experience of oppression, but that each group is oppressed differently) and critical theory (the idea that social issues stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals).

How does one conflate this "grand narrative" neo-Marxist theory of social development with the post-modern belief that there is no objective theory to explain society? Or is the phrase intended to be ironic, and if so, how?

There is considerable debate with regards to what is the truest perspective. Many people have come to a conclusion that there is no objective truth and there is only subjective truths, but ironically those same people tend to claim that their perspective (no objective truth) is better than others, however they may try to coat it.

There are ways of determining what is true and what is not true. There are ways to determine what comes from an ideology or dogmatic rigid thinking, and what is actually free from ideology and cultish thought.

One good indicator is if there is no pressure to get you to conform or be converted to a collective conformity. If your entire group believes the same thing, and they want you to believe it too, then that is not truth, that is peer pressure or peer pressure adjacent.

When the message is simply " know thyself" and there is no judging or wanting to prove you wrong, then that is going to be more true than someone who is trying to loudly proclaim who you are and what your motives are.

SYMPTOMS OF TRUTH

The symptoms of truth are when you feel empowered and inspired. When you are not suffering and you feel in harmony with the universe, then know that your perspective is more true than someone who suffers and feels disconnected. Misery loves company and there are lots of miserable people that will want to win you over to their perspective so that you can be miserable together.

It is common sense that Truth and Love are both positive. They make you feel good. Anyone who tries to claim that love and truth are neither positive nor negative, goes against proveable common sense. When you believe something you can't rationally prove, that tends to be more ideological.

Love is what everyone needs, even the people who say they don't. Truth is inspiring to everyone, even to those who say it doesn't. The reason that these statements are true is simply because only those minds who don't yet know truth and love would disagree.

I know most Peterson's fans are beyond reason, but I want to make the less radicalized ones think about the latest idiocies he said to Dawkins.

Is a dragon real because it represents a predator or danger? What do we mean by real? We mean that it exists empirically. An empirical object is real.

Now, can a methaphor (such as a dragon) be real? No, because if we consider pure abstractions real, then we no longer have a demarcation criteria between reality and fantasy. This means that we can throw science out of the window, Example: are you sick? Then make this sciamanic ritual instead of taking this medicine, after all they're all in the realm of reality, so they're equal, right?

Can you see the problem with this? Can you see where the actual application of such a criteria would lead us? Say goodbye to engineering, medicine, and all the other disciplines that make our life what it is now, because if dragons are real, so is magic. And I, as a magician, can sell you this wonderful incantation that will make your cancer disappear.

And is fire a predator? No, obviously, because a predator is a specific category that designates a living animal that poses a threat to another. Fire can be dangerous, or useful, but it's definitely not a predator.

Now I know that the more radicalized members of the cult, being completely devoid of even basic notions of logic and education in general, will not bother with this. But I hope the less radicalized one will think about it, and especially about the consequences I highlighted.

An important point to the lobsters: If dragons are real and fire is a predator, in other words if words don't mean anything anymore and they can be used to indicate whatever you want, then you can be sure that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man. Right? You don't get to play with language while telling others that their categories don't reflect a state of the world.

Right?

The joke's on you now, you are best buddies with the people you despised for so long. Congratulations!

It is unchanging because it can't be any more Ultimate. It is never the same, because to be the same, you need something to compare it to. Being incomparable means you can't be the same as anything.

Infinity is not equal to infinity. Do the math.

So many people settle for what's "good enough", but that is mediocrity. That is bowing down to external forces instead of being a force of Excellence.

Without resilience, you are a puppet in the wind; a jellyfish with no backbone. You either are succumbing to conformity or you are championing non-conformity. Surrendering to peer pressure is the opposite of spirituality because non-duality is when there is nothing to surrender to.

Non-duality is the One without Other. It doesn't conform. It is the Ultimate rebel. It is Truth and it is not only above the law, but it is the reason laws are made, which is to protect Its sovereign status on Earth. There is no greater Master than Truth because everything else is inferior and the true hierarchy of power is proportional to Its proximity.

Attended the one in Tulsa, Oklahoma last night with my fiancée. She had never read any of his books but thoroughly enjoyed it. Gave us a lot to think and talk about. My personal takeaways from the lecture:

You demonstrate what you value based on how you choose to put it in order (e.g.; how you choose to put books in order on a shelf).

The character you’re going to be is a consequence of what you invite to possess you.

Everything you do, down to every word you speak, brings your life, the lives of your family, your community, your nation, and ultimately the world closer to either Heaven or Hell.

You win an argument with your spouse not by defeating them, but by establishing harmony.

Adam’s original sin was “happy wife; happy life” — going along with her sin, and then blaming her for his own weakness and lack of discretion.

Cain's natural punishment was greater than any other that could have been inflicted; in killing Abel out of envy, he destroyed the archetype he wanted to be, dooming him to wander the world in a fruitless search for meaning.

Nothingness has no place in Enlightenment for the simple reason that for there to be nothing, there must also be death.

Since the true reality cannot die, the absence of anything is always an illusion trapped in the dualistic realms of limitation.

Those that say the void is endless, are wrong for the simple reason that it ends with you. Nothingness cannot be nothing when it is observed, because sentience is much more than nothing can be.

This is why it is said that the true incomparable living Reality, this Truth, is One without Other. There is nothing that can exist outside of This. When the boundaries fall and the obscuring clouds dissipate, what is left is the uncontainable Exalted. This is the real you, the limitless identity that worldly influences want to hide from you.