I get that. Also, I’m not a math guy. I’m an author. I’m sure my clever alliteration of the cafes of carracas and Boulevards of Bangkok was one of your wastes of space.

First, I’m not insulted. I do not consider myself great, but I’ll say that 99% of the population thinks the Bible is crap that they don’t understand, so I’ve been aware for a while most people aren’t going to get me. I’ve found my biggest sin is expecting people to read at all. Anymore, if it ain’t on TikTok, it ain’t going viral.

Second, reasonable consumers of philosophy were only part of the intended audience. Concerned parents, superhero fans, movie critics, lay religious people, lots of folks. Actually, I wrote it kinda hoping it would be read by some producers at Warner Media and originally posted it on Superhero boards. It didn’t take root as well as it did here.

It’s also a part of a larger continuity of blog posts on my blog that are heavily theological. Basically defining why Satan hates God so much: he is a libertarian who thinks nothing determines the universe.

So as I said, what to you is filler is someone else’s insight.

What to you is filler is somebody else’s insight.

No, Thanos is ranked higher than Ego because loss is worse than repair.

Slavery as evil does not regress to moral relativism. Ask anyone. Existence within a reality where one is forced to do what they don’t want to do is objectively worse than a reality where everyone can do what they want to do. Freedom is objectively prefereable for all people, and, if libertarianism is false, and reality is determined by perfection, then it is possible, and the ideal function of the system, and therefore not broken, so it is good.

Correct. Everyone dies. Everyone goes to God. So then say, the destruction of the Amalekites in the book of Samuel, while not fun, is more palatable. It’s a sad and tragic effect of this godless world, but any innocent Amalekites are okay now.

So this is why, to the theist, Thanos just ain’t that bad. Killing just isn’t as bad as enslaving.

Luke and Han killed zillions of Storm Troopers. Leonidas and the Spartans killed zillions of Persians. In the Revolutionary War, the Brits killed tons of Americans. Americans killed tons of Brits. None of this is fun. “Thou shalt not kill.”

But those Storm Troopers, Persians, Brits, and Amalekites are okay now.

I can’t name the source. Incommunicable personal experience. Disregard it if you want. And it’s not a word for word quote. A different language was used and the concept of hope was understood with more depth than Thanos was referring to. It may have been more of a “I know that you will be remembered” or “the purpose of your destruction is to be remembered.”

But you’re right. I’m sorry, but I cannot source this for you, so feel free to disregard.

I don’t take a position on Thanos here. One difference between Thanos and the Messiah is that Thanos is not the representation of an omniscient God. All I say is that Thanos thinks he is helping out, but his snap is portrayed by the filmmakers as being indiscriminate, and therefore mass murder.

Marvel assumes atheism here. It’s an atheistic movie designed to appeal to atheists, and from that perspective Thanos makes a pretty decent bad guy.

But as I mention in the essay, Messiah will come and some people are gonna get killed. But in that context, they’re only going to get killed on this earth. And as for the ultimate fate of all beings, only the truly evil will be gotten rid of. And TBH, I have a theory that the evil ones may leave reality voluntarily. Exercising their free will.

This will happen around the year 3,000. Hence, “I love you 3,000.”

Satan will have three choices.

1 - kneel before the king. 2 - go back into the void. 3 - merge with infinity.

I think he will choose to merge with infinity and be gone.

And, we will remember what he did when he was here, and we will freely choose not to walk in his footsteps.

So what you’re saying is that the perfect state of being is you being in a universe where you are being forced to do what you don’t want to do?

Saying the snap denies you existence assumes the non-existence of the afterlife. So making the snap an act of supreme evil is fundamentally an atheistic position. I would agree that for atheists, Thanos’ ranking as a bad guy goes up a number of notches.

Whats interesting, though, is the concept of the second death. That after we die here, some people will also at some point cease to exist from the afterlife. But the assumption is that those who suffer the second death are truly evil. So, if you suffer the second death, it’s because you freely choose to enslave and cause loss.

The destroyer must be destroyed.

So sure, Satan is going to say that his removal from reality is evil. Darkseid is going to say that his destruction is a bad thing.

What would you want said that wasn’t said?

Interesting, as the Messiah said “I hope they remember you” when Satan fell.

I didn’t say Thanos thought it was indiscriminate. I said it was portrayed as being indiscriminate. I did add your quote of Thanos to the essay, though, to clarify that Thanos certainly thought it was not indiscriminate.

No, philosophical libertarianism is the bad guy. It’s not my definition of free will.

I mention that he is evil insofar as his killing is indiscriminate. So I don't say that he isn't evil. I say that his evil is paltry because he thinks he is doing the right thing and is portrayed as a somewhat relatable character, and that the fundament of his evil, killing, is something that good guys do as well.

The villain that I would say was hardly evil was Ego. I don't mention it in the essay, but he is somewhat evil because he doesn't ask people if they want to be fixed. But his evil is also paltry, because he basically just wants to fix people.

But these two just pale in comparison with Darkseid because he is absolutely unrelatable and the portrayal of his slavery is to turn the hero of the series evil.

So they are all three evil. Ego just barely. Thanos moreso. But Darkseid absolutely. And the difference is in the application of libertarianism.

By coincidence I also wrote an essay mixing philosophy with superheroes. I define good and evil in it. Hate to tell you buddy, it’s real. It’s only man-made in the way the color red is man made. Men made words for something that is there.

Since they posted this, I’m going to post an essay I wrote on supervillains and libertarian freedom. Watch them remove it.

Of course I rebutted it. Anyone who rebuts the problem of evil has rebutted the inductive problem of evil.

And don’t contradict yourself. Gratuitous suffering is a synonym for unjustified suffering.

The inductive presentation of the problem of evil. Like, the existence of evil doesn't disprove God, as my article shows, but the existence of a LOT of evil is supposed to PROBABLY disprove God? Like, how stupid can you be? And notice all of the assumptions made in that Stanford link. There's just so much evil and no use for evil! Well, my post demonstrates that there is a use for evil.

It, the inductive presentation of the problem of evil, is just so stupid. It reduces the logical analysis of the issue to a tantrum. Like, evil doesn't disprove God, so let's just whine.

Most people on the internet, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm not meticulously discriminating. It means that the internet population is what it is.

You actually come off kind of like a heathen internet troll, TBH.

After reading the Stanford article linked, I understand this to be a completely different issue than the one I’m addressing, and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.

This has nothing to do with the failure of the problem of evil to disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. You are aware that’s what the problem of evil is, right? It’s an effort to disprove God. It fails.

Can you link me something comprehensive about this? It seems ridiculous on its face. And improbability vs. impossibility and quantity of evil have nothing to do with induction vs. deduction.

Explain. I do not know what you mean by an inductive problem of evil.

Their lack of assurance does not constitute a logical objection to the solution of the problem. The problem of evil is supposed to be an objection to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. It fails because of the reasoning in the post. That people aren’t sure God exists has nothing to do with the fact that the problem of evil fails to disprove God’s existence.