# Some Thoughts on God

**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [October 16, 2026, 9:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423 "2026-10-16T21:48:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 87

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/user_avatar/www.ilovephilosophy.com/nausamedu/32/24126_2.png) [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [October 24, 2026, 10:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/87 "2026-10-24T22:28:54Z")

</div>

> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> S/he has a good point, Nulla. We need a contrast between merely surviving and real life. We need what love looks like in practice. There are different levels of love, as you pointed out. All of them are ordered by the agape (self-sacrificial gift) version. If we don’t have the language for self-sacrifice or risk-to-survival-related gift, how do you propose we learn/recognize (teach/show…) agape love?

We dont need anything.  
If i accept the fact of a god and creator, then that means it can create as it pleases.  
I can take a canvas, and i can paint my children with all that knowledge intact.  
I can paint them to never suffer, never be evil, never cause harm, never experience need or anything else.

So the answer to the question

> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> how do you propose we learn/recognize (teach/show…) agape love?

is that our creator created this problem to begin with.  
How do i propose we do anything? Thats entirely the wrong question  
The question is why were we made to not understand/recognize agape right out the box.

I dont think most people fundamentally understand what they propose when they talk about god.  
Everyone is lost in nitty gritty causality, thinking that we have to do this to get to that.  
Thats not how any of this works.

The writer of the story is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and because of that, the creator has/is omnificence  
The responsibility of god cannot be circumvented in any shape or form.  
The story you write is beholdent to you.  
There is no way in ANY form that you are not responsible for all the outcomes in the story, as the writer. You are responsible for all the characters being the way they are, for all they know or dont know, for all their shortcomings and designs, for the setting, world and it’s laws and rules as well.

There is no point in asking me

> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> how do you propose we learn/recognize (teach/show…) agape love?

Instead ask god why you were made without it. Why you were made having to learn and recognize it. Why you were instead made to be an entertainment of struggle, blood and death.

I do not mix with the idea of a god.  
If i accept that a god exists, then i will flip every card that is connected to it’s name.  
And in this reality, there is no card that would not be connected to the writer of the story.

Asking questions about learning, recognizing, growing, striving… they only make sense if there is no god. They only make sense if we are here on our own, left to our own devices to do or die.  
If thats not the case, then the entire concept is upside down cause you have been made to not know, and from there, only more questions will come, all of them pointing to one single responsible entity, and none of it’s actions can be described in a fashion that would be motivated by love or agape.

Omnificience is the only form of causality that binds the writer. That he is the source of causality.  
And thus, responsible for everything that happens.

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423)._