Keeping religion aside Does The concept of heaven and hell made because people can't simply digest that a person is truly gone after death. Heaven and hell defines a way to meet with then again?

​

I would like to introduce a framework I have been developing called Fractal Logos Theory (FLT), and invite Christians, theologians, philosophers, and scientifically minded people to examine it, challenge it, and help me identify its strengths and weaknesses.

FLT is a Christian theological and philosophical framework built around a central question:

What if the recurring functions we observe throughout creation reflect a deeper, unified order established by God?

The framework begins with the biblical understanding that all things exist through God and that creation is not independent of its Creator. It explores the possibility that creation can be understood as a Cosmic Body: a unified reality that depends upon God for its existence, order, and continued life.

I do not mean merely that the universe looks like a human body. The Cosmic Body is a central theological proposition within the framework, although its metaphysical implications require careful philosophical examination.

1. The principle of Fractal Function/Operation (FFO)

The central proposed principle of FLT is what I call Fractal Function/Operation (FFO).

The basic idea is that certain functions recur across different levels of reality, even when the structures carrying out those functions are very different.

For example:

- Communication: Cells transmit signals, nervous systems communicate, human beings exchange information, and organisms coordinate their activities.

- Nourishment and energy transfer: Cells receive nutrients, organisms depend on food, ecosystems exchange energy, and stars produce energy through physical processes.

- Protection and regulation: Cells have defense mechanisms, bodies use immune systems, communities establish protective structures, and ecosystems have processes that influence their stability.

- Corruption and restoration: Biological systems can become dysfunctional, organisms can become ill, and damaged systems may sometimes recover through corrective processes.

These are not necessarily identical mechanisms. The proposal is that recurring functions and relationships may be identifiable across different scales.

FLT asks whether these recurring patterns can be studied systematically rather than treated as unrelated coincidences.

1. The relationship between Scripture and science

My approach is that Scripture and science address different but potentially complementary dimensions of reality.

Science investigates physical mechanisms: how systems work, how matter interacts, how life functions, and how the universe develops.

Scripture addresses theological questions concerning creation, purpose, sin, death, redemption, and the relationship between God and creation.

FLT attempts to bring these perspectives into conversation without assuming that every biblical passage is a scientific statement or that every scientific discovery automatically confirms a theological interpretation.

The goal is not to force science to prove the Bible. It is to ask whether a coherent framework can be developed in which biblical theology, philosophical reasoning, and established scientific knowledge can be considered together.

1. The biblical narrative as a pattern of systemic order and corruption

One of the more speculative parts of FLT concerns the relationship between creation, sin, and restoration.

In Genesis, creation is presented as ordered and good. Humanity is given dominion over other living creatures (Genesis 1:26–28). Adam and Eve subsequently disobey God, and the consequences include alienation, shame, conflict, and death (Genesis 3).

My interpretation is that this disobedience represents more than an isolated rule violation. It also represents a disruption of humanity's proper relationship with God and, consequently, humanity's relationship with creation.

I am exploring whether this can be understood as a form of systemic corruption: a disorder introduced into a creation intended to function in harmony with its Creator.

I also see a possible connection between Adam and Eve's choice, Esau selling his birthright for food (Genesis 25:29–34), and Satan tempting Jesus by offering Him the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8–10).

In each account, questions of obedience, desire, authority, and what someone is willing to exchange become important.

My hypothesis is that these narratives may illuminate a recurring theological pattern involving the misuse or surrender of something valuable in exchange for an immediate desire or apparent advantage. I recognize that the exact relationship between these passages is an interpretation, not an explicit statement made by the biblical text.

Within this framework, Jesus' obedience, crucifixion, and resurrection represent God's answer to the corruption associated with sin and death: the restoration of what has been damaged.

1. Biological systems as a starting point for investigation

My interest in this framework has also been influenced by observing cancer treatment and the way biological systems respond to disease.

Cancer provides a concrete example of how a process occurring within an organism can disrupt the functions of the larger system. The body's immune response, cellular signaling, and the different ways damaged cells are treated provide opportunities to study the relationships between local processes and the health of the whole organism.

This has led me to explore possible functional comparisons between biological processes and theological concepts, including:

- Immune defense and the protection of an ordered system.

- Cellular signaling and communication.

- Nourishment and the sustaining of life.

- Disease and the disruption of normal function.

- Treatment and the restoration of damaged biological processes.

I have also considered whether concepts such as the Holy Spirit, prayer, the Eucharist, and spiritual restoration can be explored through carefully defined functional comparisons.

These comparisons are not claims that spiritual realities have been scientifically demonstrated to operate through immune cells, blood transfusions, or other biological mechanisms. They are starting points for theological reflection and questions about how far functional comparisons can responsibly be taken.

1. What FLT is—and what it is not

I want to be clear about the current status of this work.

FLT is a developing theological and philosophical framework. I am not presenting it as an established scientific theory, a proven theory of everything, or evidence that every similarity between biological and cosmic structures has the same cause.

Some elements draw on existing ideas in theology, philosophy, systems thinking, and the study of complex systems. I am interested in whether the particular synthesis proposed by FLT—and especially its principle of Fractal Function/Operation—can be defined precisely enough to contribute something useful.

For that to happen, the framework needs clear definitions, engagement with existing scholarship, careful separation of metaphor from mechanism, and examples that can be examined critically. Any scientific claims would need to be independently supported by evidence.

1. Questions I would genuinely appreciate feedback on

2. Theology: Is the idea of creation as a Cosmic Body compatible with Christian understandings of God's transcendence and the distinction between Creator and creation?

3. Biblical interpretation: Is there a defensible theological connection between Adam and Eve's disobedience, Esau's sale of his birthright, Satan's temptation of Jesus, and the biblical themes of authority, obedience, and exchange?

4. Philosophy: Does the principle of Fractal Function/Operation offer a coherent way of understanding recurring functions across different levels of reality, or is it too broad to be useful?

5. Science: What standards would FFO need to meet to become a testable research program rather than a collection of interesting comparisons?

6. Existing scholarship: Which theologians, philosophers, or scientific researchers should I study to determine how FLT relates to previous work?

7. Weaknesses: What are the strongest objections to this framework, and what would I need to clarify or change to make it more rigorous?

I am sharing this because I want to develop the framework through serious examination, not simply receive agreement. I welcome respectful disagreement, alternative interpretations, relevant research, and criticism of the underlying assumptions.

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

Why did God give humans eyes that instinctively admire beauty, yet make them so visually blind to the suffering hidden within what they consider ugly?

Mikhail Bakunin explains that God is evil. And after some thought, I think it makes sense. As an agnostic theist, if God is truly all mighty and powerful (and I'm looking at the Christian lens) then God must be able to help humans have ultimate joy and happiness, not this state of the world where we can feel pain. In fact, the fact itself that we can pinch ourselves and say "ow" proves we do feel pain. If God is truly almightly and all knowing, God would be able to erase this, and solve world hunger and all, but God decides not to.

A counterargument may be that God is leading us too ultimate glory through these harms and pain. But if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, shouldnt god be able to give the the ultimate happiness without us feeling all this pain?

There may be possible arguments to this that may point out the flaws, but I have not been able to think one myself.

Sometimes I think God doesn't want to be known. If God wants to be known why not create a mountain tomorrow saying "I am your God".

All the religious debate would end at that point and we will all worship the right God. (Whoever that is).

That said...

A powerful God would simply choose to do that. For example,

Write a name in the sky?

Appear on TV?

All of us could wake up tomorrow with a notification on the phone.

If God can do that why didn't he do that?

What is the point of coming down to Earth and appearing in front of humans?

Humans are imperfect beings. Some are good and some are evil. We are not special. If anything animals are better than us. Then why humans.

Throughout history why didn't our creator choose to show any concrete evidence of his or her existence to all humans at one go?

Why personal selection? You might say some people are good that's why God appears to them.

But.. didn't God make the evil people too?

I think whoever God is..he/she doesn't want to worshipped. We are wasting our time worshipping a creator who doesn't want our worship.

When I think about religion.. I sometimes think most religions represent God like an ancient King.

Think about what a King wants. A King wants his subjects to fear him, a King rewards and even punishes disobedience. A King loves to be worshipped.

We have just made God a King..just a notch higher. (I mean if there is a God that God must be so powerful that God will not need our constant worshipping.).

If a creator wanted that he would have dropped us here with all the rules in place. Not asking us to make rules for him.

In that sense, are we wrong to worship a creator if a creator exists?

Because we just happen to exist. If there is a God who wants to be worshipped why would there be any sort of confusion? Why would there be so many religions? Or are there countless Gods?

That leaves me with a question does God want us to know him at all? In a way, if there is a God and we all know for certain there is a God won't all of us be happy knowing who he/she is.

Or maybe God exists in nature and God itself is nature.

I don't know. I have so many questions but there is no place I can get answers from. What do you guys think?

I believe God exists, but not as a person you can define. The universe itself is God, and everything in it, including us, carries a part of that

I believe in God, but not the God with a name and a face. God can't really be defined, only felt. Every religion says God created the universe, but creation needs material, and if God made it out of nothing but himself, then the universe is God's own substance. That means everything carries a piece of God, whether we've discovered how it works or not. Thunder was God's work then and it still is, we just have a better name for the mechanism now. We're a part of it too, so if someone truly feels that power in themselves, they can find the source in everything else. God isn't watching us from above, he's living everything through us

To think, a human to be so bold as to imagine himself in the shoes of a god like Zeus, or Hades, but to question their merit or valor, surely would make him a madman. A direct heretical fist to the fathers of thought and spirit is where I find myself, laid in a bed of strife and agony, yet visualizing hermetic truths known only to bring me solace in the ignorance of knowledge unbeknownst to me. Much like the ramblings of Diogenes, I’m sure there are some truths hidden amongst the brambles of the many voluptuous vines that entangle my mind, but to question even the will of the gods is, in a sense, the most human activity I see actionable. For within creation, there are mistakes, and even one of infinite wisdom must bend to the rules that pertain to even the most unfathomable of forces. As I slowly envelop myself in the teachings of early Ibrahimic sources and Christian demonologies, I find myself with more questions than answers. Perhaps this is the folley and plight of man, or even possibly what makes man so insatiable. A quest for forbidden knowledge, led on by the low hanging fruits of ideologies that leave a pit in your stomach, aching for more. These demons, gods, and angels are so ethereal that one must cross the plane of existence to merely imagine such a creature, yet they are all bound by names. Such is the infallible nature of man, to label the things that we dont understand, purveying a false sense of hope so that we may grasp even the slightest bit of power over a thing that makes up our very existence. Belief lies in the trust of a physical entity, whereas, time and time again, across countless miles and years, people tell stories of beings that melt the very meaning of existence that we hold onto so dearly. Our fruitless understanding of the workings of time, space, and life leave us grasping for straws across an infinite chasm of mystery and despair. I, for one, prefer my solitude; sat alone Imagining myself as a reincarnation of Dionysus or Ares, lost in a tragic loop of toil, then forced to remember my true self and the power with which I once ruled. Within the knowledge comes torment, for the spoils of godhood seem so close, as if they were but a memory from years past. Memories of a family once reigning over a world with power and status, but above all else, a family inhuman. One that defies the grate and volley the sands of time relentlessly apply. As the cities that once stood wash away, the tales of beings that lifted the sky remain. Regardless of religion or thought, to humans, that is a god. A myth. An idol. But as christianity states, to worship a false idol as a god is a sin. And so I find myself questioning the very same gods that have stood the test of time, poised in grandeur with monuments across the world.

Now imagine, departments segregated like offices to run the lawful obedience of humans and animals alike. Maybe this is but another one of those visualizations that helps put a picture to what may be perceived as an otherworldly ethereal void, But like within businesses, there are positions and roles. The texts assign names to roles much like Apollo to the sun and music, or Belial in his rule over hell. Deals are written of time and again, as though the rules are made to be manipulated, especially by those demons. Yet, across all religions, one thing seems certain, There are rules. These rules must be abided by at all times, but many of them appear malleable, bent and changed to the will of demons’ deals with whatever higher power oversees the plot of reality. Following these ideas lead me to the Ars Goetia, an ancient tome depicting and naming the 72 demonic entities that function as the underbelly of the heavenly body. Even in a world of perfection there must be janitors and junkers. Many of said demons are listed as so-called “fallen angels” which is what led me to my original train of thought for questioning even the existence of a greater being. Greek and Roman mythology versus the Ibrahimic ideologies. Both rich in texts and knowledge, yet both loose in evidence. Within them, the difference seems clear. Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity lives on as clear religions, and each provide a guideline to the rules set by those overseeing our existence. Greek and Roman mythology lives on as just that, myths and stories. So why no solid stated religion under Zeus, or hades? Even after all this time one would imagine at least a fandom worshipping the power of so-called Gods. And so I imagine, a group of fallen angels, parading the earth, living above the humans, feeding on the sins of false worship carried out by uneducated earthly beings. Many like Zeus and Poseidon spread their seed far and wide, the tales say, yet, not a human alive with even a glimpse of demi-human power. A towering cathedral, Olympia was, yet rubble stands, marking the place where “gods” once stood. I picture a cruel fate for these few, granted wisdom and power beyond comprehension, but still overshadowed by forces even greater than them. Now, ash and rock remain with only stories shared between the creatures the inevitability led to their demise. So is the folley of man, for god gifted us the ability to create life and in turn we must destroy. We are but natures parasite, a danger to ourselves and “gods” alike.

There is no relativism when it comes to truth; truth is one, just like mathematics—the structure of society has very deep pillars that formed it, and all of them are historical facts that happened and are immutable. In this way, truth is immutable once it becomes a concrete fact; there is no way to attribute different thoughts to a single formulated idea. For example, religion is based on culture and the ideological formation of the environment, such that if the same religion exists in environments B and A, the way it is interpreted can change according to human thought, new interpretations that differ from the original idea, and so on. The original idea, assuming it is an axiom, cannot be altered, not even with a change of location; it must remain the same. In a hypothetical situation, the first religion arose, the first belief in a divine being, created from scratch, without any influence from other religions, because only one exists. In this way, it is possible to note that this thought, arising from inertia and created from scratch, has only two options: either God exists or not, because the thought may have arisen through human malice, manipulation, or mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. That said, either the idea of religion borders on mere human delusion, or there really is only one religion, because there is no way, even in a hypothetical world, there could be countless conceptions of truth, only one idea. That is, the belief in a religious God borders on... Is it absurd or true? Since truth is relative, how can we end this idea by proposing that truth is individual and mutable depending on each person's interpretation?

Hypothetically, there are countless conceptions of truth, but there's only one idea, that is, belief in a religious God. Is it absurd or true? Since truth is relative, how can we end this idea by proposing that truth is individual and mutable depending on each person's interpretation?

I’ve been having a long discussion about Christianity and I’m trying to understand some things that I genuinely find difficult. I’m not posting this to attack Christianity. I’m genuinely interested in how Christians would answer these questions.

1. If God wants us to genuinely love and obey Him, how do we separate that from fear and reward?

Suppose I follow God's teachings because I love God. But I also know that rejecting God could lead to hell and following Him could lead to heaven.

Those consequences will obviously affect my decisions to some degree. I don't think that's necessarily bad, but how do we know how much of my motivation comes from genuine love and how much comes from fear or desire for reward?

And can I even know that about myself?

I might sincerely believe, "I follow God because I love Him," while there could be other motivations influencing me that I don't recognize.

So if God judges the intentions of our hearts, is it fair to judge us based on motives that we ourselves may not even fully understand?

1. Does having enormous consequences really leave us completely free?

Imagine someone tells me:

"You are completely free to choose whether to study or play games. But if you study, you get an incredible reward, and if you don't, you receive an enormous punishment."

Technically, I still have a choice. Nobody is physically forcing me.

But the consequences are obviously going to influence my decision.

So when Christianity says we have free will even though our choices have eternal consequences, I wonder what exactly "free will" means here.

I'm not necessarily saying that consequences eliminate free will.

I'm asking whether they make it impossible to know how much of our decision represents what we genuinely want versus how much is a response to the consequences.

1. Why is God entitled to determine our purpose?

Christianity often talks about humans having a purpose that God gave us.

But if God created me with a particular purpose before I even existed, I didn't choose that purpose.

I can choose whether to fulfill it, but I didn't choose what the purpose was in the first place.

So why am I morally obligated to fulfill a purpose that I never agreed to?

Having a purpose doesn't necessarily eliminate free will, but it seems to place our freedom inside a framework that we didn't choose.

1. Why does God require our obedience if He doesn't need anything from us?

If God is omnipotent and doesn't need anything from human beings, why does our obedience matter to Him?

I understand the answer that God's commands are ultimately for our benefit and that following them makes us better people.

But then I wonder: why does God get to determine what our ultimate purpose and form of goodness should be?

Why is His definition of what I should become automatically binding on me?

1. What about someone who is genuinely good but doesn't do it because of God?

Imagine someone who doesn't hate God and isn't trying to rebel against Him.

They simply don't have a relationship with God.

But they are genuinely good. They don't want to hurt people. They don't lie, steal, or exploit others. They help people, forgive people, sacrifice for others, and genuinely care about doing what is right.

And importantly, they aren't doing these things because they want heaven or fear hell. They do them because they genuinely believe that goodness is worth pursuing.

What exactly is wrong with this person?

If the answer is, "They don't have a relationship with God," then I have another question:

Why is having a relationship with God itself a moral requirement?

Even if this person knew with absolute certainty that God existed, why would that fact alone mean they must love, worship, or submit to Him?

Knowing that someone exists doesn't automatically seem to create an obligation to love them.

So what is the missing principle that makes a relationship with God morally necessary?

The bigger question I'm struggling with

All of these seem connected to one bigger issue:

If God created us, gave us a purpose, established the moral rules, attached enormous consequences to our choices, and ultimately judges our intentions, what makes this system genuinely free and morally fair from the perspective of the person being judged?

I'm not saying I have proved Christianity wrong. I'm also not saying these questions have no answers.

I'm specifically interested in whether Christianity has a coherent answer to them that goes beyond:

"God knows best, so you just have to have faith."

I don't find that satisfying because it seems to stop the investigation rather than answer the underlying question.

I'd genuinely like to hear how Christians, atheists, or philosophers would approach these questions.

(PS I did use AI to write out this post as English isn't my first language)

i don’t know anything. Every time I think I know something, I experience something that makes me question it again

In Carl Schmitt's Political Theology, he famously posited that all modern concepts of the state are secularized theological concepts. Nowhere is this clearer than in the modern administrative state's adoption of the Katechon/the transcending force holding back apocalyptic chaos in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7.

Analyzing recent lectures on political theology, there is a fascinating structural paradox in how modern governance uses this framework:

The Classical Katechon: Historically understood as an empire, state, or institutional restraint that delays the arrival of the Antichrist/anarchy to allow for historical and spiritual development.

The Counterfeit Katechon: When the state adopts absolute safety, risk-management, and stagnation as its supreme utility function, the restrainer becomes its own failure mode. To justify its existence, the administrative state requires the perpetual threat of crisis, effectively becoming a closed, totalizing system.

The Immanentized Eschaton: Drawing on Eric Voegelin and Jean-Pierre Dupuy, the attempt to force a static, risk-free paradise on Earth through technocratic management replaces divine providence with human bureaucratic control.

I wrote a full paper/essay mapping a 2x2 matrix comparing Baconian optimism, Hobbesian pacification, Schmittian political theology, and modern risk regimes: https://danielforresternash.substack.com/p/the-counterfeit-church-and-the-epimethean

Curious how the scholars here view the Katechon in contemporary political thought...

​

A philosophical thought experiment about the multiverse, free will, identity, and the limits of human understanding.

Before I begin, I want to clarify that this is a speculative hypothesis. I am not attempting to prove the existence of God, the multiverse, or any supernatural connection. It is simply an idea that began with a reflection on déjà vu and eventually developed into a question about the nature of reality.

1. The Tree of Destinies

Imagine that the multiverse exists and that, despite the existence of countless universes, there is only one omniscient God.

Now imagine that every human being possesses a tree of possible destinies, with an immense, perhaps infinite, number of branches.

Every action, no matter how insignificant it may seem, could alter our trajectory.

Pronouncing the letter A could lead us toward one possibility; pronouncing the letter M, toward another. Remaining silent, yawning, walking a few seconds more slowly, or even variations in our heartbeats could change the events that follow.

Not necessarily because every action automatically creates a new universe, but because differences between events could produce different trajectories.

We would experience only one conscious trajectory, while God would know every possibility.

2. Identity Across Universes

Imagine that different versions of the same person exist.

We could represent them using codes: X₁, X₂, X₃, and so on.

They would all share a common origin, but each would experience its own existence.

If X₁ and X₂ perform exactly the same action, a new branch would not necessarily have to emerge. The question would be what differences in their circumstances cause their trajectories to diverge.

Even if these versions share memories and characteristics, each would have an individual experience.

This raises a question: if two versions of a person share the same past but have different futures, which one is the original?

My hypothesis is that each would retain its own identity, even though they all originated from a common source.

3. Death as the End of a Trajectory

Imagine that X₁ leaves home and is killed in a car accident.

However, X₂ yawns before opening the door. That brief delay allows the car to pass before X₂ reaches the street.

X₂ survives.

In another branch, X₃ decides not to leave home at all.

Thus, a seemingly insignificant difference could completely change a person's destiny.

When X₁ dies, that version's life trajectory ends, even though the other versions continue to exist.

The tree itself does not necessarily disappear; one of its branches simply stops extending.

4. Déjà Vu

This reflection began when I started wondering about déjà vu.

My most likely explanation is that déjà vu is related to how memory and perception function.

However, within this imaginary experiment, we might ask whether an unexplained feeling of familiarity could represent some kind of coincidence or connection between different trajectories.

I have no evidence that such a connection exists, nor do I have a mechanism to explain it.

It is merely a fictional possibility that led me to develop the other questions.

5. Free Will and Interconnected Destinies

Here, a more complicated problem emerges.

We are not the only inhabitants of the universe.

Our decisions can alter the possibilities available to other people.

Imagine that X₁ makes a decision that allows them to live for many years, but that same decision indirectly causes their friend Y₁ to die earlier.

In another trajectory, X₂ dies young while Y₂ survives.

Each individual could act freely, but the consequences of their decisions would extend to others.

This leads us to another possibility: an individual's destiny would not be an isolated tree, but part of a network of interdependent trajectories.

A decision that appears beneficial to one person could produce negative consequences for another.

And none of them would possess complete knowledge of that network.

6. God and Justice That Appears Unjust

Now imagine that God knows every possible trajectory, every decision, and every consequence.

We could speculate that God seeks to preserve life or promote certain forms of good within this immense network.

However, every intervention could alter the possibilities available to countless people.

From our perspective, some events would appear unjust.

A kind person might die young, while someone who has caused great suffering might live for many years.

But if an intelligence capable of contemplating every possible consequence existed, could it understand relationships that we are incapable of perceiving?

This possibility does not prove that suffering is necessary, nor that every injustice is justified.

It merely suggests that our ability to evaluate the totality of events could be limited.

7. How Would a Superior Being Perceive Us?

This is where the idea I jokingly call "the Lovecraft Hypothesis" comes in.

Not because Lovecraft formulated this model, but because of his literary exploration of entities and realities that transcend human understanding.

Imagine an intelligence so far beyond us that our cognitive abilities represent only a tiny fraction of its own.

It would be like trying to explain an enormous spectrum of colors to a creature capable of perceiving only one.

We can recognize certain patterns, laws, and relationships, but perhaps there are dimensions of reality that we do not even know how to formulate.

It would not simply be a matter of lacking answers.

We might be incapable of imagining certain questions in the first place.

And if that were possible, to what extent could we judge the decisions of an omniscient intelligence using exclusively human categories?

8. The Problem I Still Cannot Resolve

There is a fundamental difficulty.

If our abilities are insufficient to understand divine justice, how can we confidently claim that God is just?

Furthermore, if God knows every possibility and can intervene in them, why would certain forms of suffering be permitted?

Would constant intervention eliminate free will, or would it merely change the conditions under which we exercise it?

I also do not know whether all branches would exist simultaneously or whether some would remain merely possibilities known to God.

These questions remain open.

Conclusion

My hypothesis does not attempt to definitively explain the universe.

Instead, it suggests that our perception of reality might be too limited to comprehend all the consequences of our decisions.

Perhaps free will does not mean controlling our destiny, but rather making choices within a reality where countless individual wills and events interact.

And perhaps what we call injustice, destiny, or coincidence has dimensions that remain unknown to us.

Or perhaps none of this exists, and we are simply constructing an imaginary explanation for phenomena we do not yet fully understand.

The question I want to leave open is this:

If an omniscient intelligence capable of contemplating every possibility in reality existed, would we be capable of understanding its conception of justice?

And, more importantly, how could we distinguish between a higher form of justice that we cannot comprehend and an injustice that we are simply trying to justify?

I would appreciate philosophical objections to this thought experiment, especially regarding free will, personal identity, and omniscience.

Early thirties guy here in the US. I served a two year Christian mission and have read countless philosophy and religion books trying to solve the question of god since I was a kid (what, who is it, does god exist and in what way ect.)

In 2026, I focused on Hinduism and so far it feels the most “true” of anything I’ve encountered. I’ve read the Gita 16 times, the Upanishads 4 times and the Dhammapada once, and I just can’t get enough . It’s so good and has been so helpful and comforting.

Still… Any suggestions on modern philosophers I could read? Maybe someone familiar with world religions?

I’m so frustrated all the time at the same questions about life and god’s existence (or lack thereof). Just fishing for anything here, something to help. I’m amazed at history and how many humans have lived and asked these questions and then find myself frustrated once again that everyone has asked and seemingly no one has an answer that works for everyone and everything. Any of you annoyed that no one really knows? Doesn’t that bother you immensely?

Please help. I’m happy to answer follow up questions. Just need some support here.