Donnadogsoth

Does a descending knife cause a pear to bifurcate? Only if you believe in Newtonian materialism. A Leibnizian would counter that nothing strictly causes anything else, but the pear splits in two in perfect harmony with the descent of the knife. So with your electrode and its associate emotion. Do you have any objection why God should not therefore be love, without needing electrical stimulation to achieve that state?

That's so if the human mind follows matter, that we are puppets of matter, so that we can say a brainscan demonstrates brain activity "causes" an emotion. But, what if the human mind, as every experience tells us, precedes all matter? Before we can look at a brainscan and see the "cause" of our emotion, we have to exist as mental beings, and as shown earlier, all material predicates are functions of the subject. The monads are windowless and uncaused, except that God has created them and orchestrated them into an apparent material cause and effect, that we might rationally understand and act in the Universe. The human mind is therefore antecedent to all causes aside from God. Our emotions are not "parts" of us any more than God's love is a part of God; we are both partsless and unified.

Can you give me an example of where a cis white male can hit someone and can't be hit back? Cops don't count, they are an authority, not a race.

"Freedom" can mean a descent into libertinism which degrades a population's ability to resist tyranny.

It is? Where?

Cis white males can hit you but you can't hit them back?

Is brain activity in any meaningful sense "good for neurons" or is it all just serving the collective's (mind's) purposes?

So...you don't like God because he's a meanie?

The Internet is too dangerous to be allowed to be free forever, and forces will be launched to destroy that freedom. The only questions are when and where specifically, and how to stop this destruction.

The devil weeps to be redeemed And it is granted

What relevance does the desirability of a God have? If he exists he'll still exist no matter how desirable one finds him to be.

Because action does not exist without emotion. That's why fictional “emotionless” beings like Vulcans are so erroneous. An emotionless being would not act, because he would have no motivation. The unemotional wave-particle needs a motivation in order to do anything, or refrain from doing anything. The capital emotion is love, the most efficient emotion befitting the divine simplicity is love. Ergo, the Origin must have love, and act from that emotion.

The evidence is that Stef doesn't like Gods to the point of putting up this "Gods are complex" strawman instead of seeing what Christian theology actually teaches. Yes, I believe in the existence of the Christian God. By “Nowhere does it follow that a simple God cannot also be subtle” I'm augmenting the OP's submission that the Christian God is theologically said to be simple.

Stefan says that all gods are portrayed as complex because he wants to complexify them out of existence. Nowhere does it follow that a simple God cannot also be subtle.

The Origin would exist outside of the cause and effect sequence in terms of its own internal operations, and, so, its love would be not in response to stimuli but would be part of the original stimuli of the created Universe.

If you have no further information to offer, I'll stick with what I have.

Then, how do you know the archetypes given are not universal?

Care to suggest universal values?

Archetypal female aspirations: Relationships, shopping, and half!

Principle of sufficient reason: it must have a sufficient (emotional) reason to do what it does or else it would do nothing. The emotion most associated with creativity is love. A curious, creative child is the one we're proud of, not the indifferent, distracted, sulking, or malign one.

A machine or particle is a sense object. Minus the sense impressions associated with them, what's left?

A king has...a pussy pass which grants... privilege!

You might find this article interesting. How a Young Black Man Became a Race Realist

I'm saying that existence cannot follow from non-consciousness. In other words, if existence exists, it exists as an experience. There is no sensory, conceptual, or emotional datum that can exist by or in of itself, apart from all consciousness, just like a debate cannot exist outside of at least two debaters. The Origin must therefore be conscious. Why is the Origin conscious? Because there is no intelligible alternative.