Is Hell or Prison the best cure for immorality?

[Rabb Allah]

At the point of self awareness the entity also becomes self determining and most likely willing to preserve its own life. We're no longer discussing the mere destruction of a physical form here, but also the suffering and erasure of a thinking being with great potential for quality of life; it's not merely the destruction of life in question, but the complexity of that life. Have I ever killed a bug? Yes. But the bug is far less mentally acute than a person, just a series of impulses strung together in a shell.

A bug is still conscious although not self aware to the extent that we are. Insects have the capability of choice, it is just less limited.

That said, I also don't go out of my way to kill bugs either; I might kill a wasp in my house, but I don't go crushing anthills for fun because that level of meaningless destruction has no purpose, it's simply cruel.

Not exactly what I was describing but the point you are making is nonetheless valid as far as animal cruelty.

Not at all; I'm well aware that this preference for conscious things if contextual. I wouldn't be averse to a justified killing in self defense, for example; there's a complicated situational metric that must be applied, as there should be with all things.

Because we live and exist in human terms, and those are the only ones that matter. What I mean by that is that an omnipotent god wants for nothing, because by definition anything he desires he could create; the only entity for whom morality even matters- in that it's a series of checks and balances designed to maximally enhance the well being of all- is something limited, like humans.

Now you are entering an old Islamic debate since in Islam angels are viewed as perfect and void of free will and always doing what God wants them to yet humans and jinn have free will and can deny what God wants them to do.

The counterpart to this is simple which is that many people find extreme happiness and pleasure when practicing a religion. So it is sort of a reverse which is that humans who need god desire god and thus often times do not care about the nature of god.
You would be surprised by the fools who convert to Islam and had perfectly good, free lives based upon reasoning and turned catshit religious overnight. I was one of them.

If you say that god doesn't need to be limited by human standards I'm fine with that, but you can't escape from the corollary, that this god also doesn't need to do anything that negatively impacts humans at all. Any breach of those human moral rules, any harm that he causes us, is completely unnecessary to him. That god, should you choose to frame him in those terms, is nothing but an indiscriminate killer and thug.

Hmm, well I guess I should be more clear on the fact that I am specifically referring to a panendeistic/panentheistic god so to say human morals are relevant to such an entity still does not make sense. As I said before, everything exist because it has to, I am not necessarily referring to modal realism since I am a theological idealist but the conceptualization for the need for a contradictory existence is mandated. How can god possess the 3 "O"s and not hold dominion or creatorship in any set of hypothetical universes? If it is omniscient then it should be aware of all things in all universes no matter their contradictory nature. The same applies for the other two qualities and natures. As I said before, God is the most superior entity imaginable plus more so you cannot limit a god no matter how hypothetical the conclusion is.
So to still say a God should be accepted upon human conditions is illogical considering it should also be accepted in accordance to the conditions of other species and possibly aliens more advanced than us. The phrase "he is our sustainer" does not mean that God gives bread and wine to people.

Or, to borrow something you said earlier, he is crushing ants for no reason at all.

I wouldn't say that God is crushing ants for no reason. Especially if those ants are apart of your body. You are asserting that when I say God I am implying that we are detached from God somehow. Considering that I assert that all of existence is a reflection of consciousness of a god then how would you apply this to god we are literally apart of god.

However, those deaths serve a purpose in extending the predator's lives. Suffering with a purpose is different from, as with your question, the needless destruction of a sentient machine, for example. One is justified- though still not ideal, since I don't think any one of us wouldn't alter things so that suffering could be avoided had we the ability to.

A computer was a bad analogy now that I think of it. Sorry but I am a techy so 90% of all my thoughts consist of binary numbers and Linux commands. I swear my brain is nothing but a 1 TB SSD .
I used a computer because I was sure you would immediately assert that is is property which of course is untrue because you assert that sentiences negates ownership.
So how about we make that sentient being your arm and that arm does not do as you command. Little more better I suppose.

---

So you are threatening to hit me? Lovely sweety, just lovely

I'm not implying a damn thing, I'm telling you to blow it out your ass because you're a pompous motherfucker that tells people their place is in hell. Any questions dear?

I never said your place is hell. It seems you have a fixation for lying dear child. You are not very bright when it comes to philosophy and especially Subjective Idealism. Nothing I can do about that since inbreeding causes severe brain abnormalities