/lit/ - Literature

>>14960448
A-prior presuppositions as to the nature of good and evil and what they constitute.

You can say the exact same thing about every mother who brings a child into a world knowing that he will suffer and die.

Following The Problem of Evil to its ACTUAL logical conclusion requires that you be an antinatalist and a literal misanthrope--which all Atheists are, so I suppose that is evidence to my point. Everything else is just sophistry. The only serious option is to make axiomatic changes to your definitions of good and evil so that you can produce a result that is actually coherent.

I.E., for example, that a Perfect God would have no reason to create a universe at all that is intelligible along these lines, ergo there must be some BENEFIT to imperfection that justified our creation and thus our suffering. That suffering therefore has an innate value. You don't need to look too far to find proof of this, it's called basic plot structure.

Stories are about conflict. Ergo, adversity MUST exist for a story to exist. Ergo, sentient life MUST suffer because adversity requires it, and there is no other way to justify existing at all. This is as fundamentally true as a square and a circle being mutually exclusive shapes.

>b-but that would mean that
Yes. That would mean that God is a storyteller and that if you have ever written or told a story in your entire life that was anything other than a pure description of non-events, you are Evil by Epicurus's definition. We are characters in a story, and there is no moral component to the Author which genre he chooses to write us in. We can only pray that the story has a happy ending and that Salvation awaits us after death.