/lit/ - Literature

>>16501030
>The first tenet of any religion is faith
That is fair.
>If you want definite proof of what God is or isn't, then you're never gonna get an answer
I don't want definite proof, but I obviously have found the human rationalizations of the terrible things in the world to be not adequate. If you believe the rationalization behind God letting things that seem terrible to happen is something we cannot comprehend, why would you ever try to rationalize it? Why would some things God let happen make some sense to humans for at least some of them, but in similar cases, the rationalization is just to appeal to faith that the there was an adequate one there, just one we cannot see easily if at all? It is very bizarre and appears to me to just be a cop-out whenever someone realizes their human explanation for God is inadequate (obviously that feeling is not an adequate counter-argument).
>if you did, at the very least you'd understand a similar argument
How do you know that I would understand a similar argument if you presumably don't know what arguments they made? If they made similar arguments to the ones you made, I don't really want to read all that, as it would be remarkably incomplete. Do you know anything specifically to read?
>>16501091
I don't believe God is evil. I believe either that He doesn't exist, He is not supreme, or that He is supreme but there is no way for me to ever see that.
>The only way you can maintain the idea that the monotheist God is evil is by a deist framework
Why?
>You're free to consider God evil, but you're rendering literally everything else, including yourself, evil as well.
How so?
>>16501057
Then He is not omnibenevolent, correct?
>>16501079
One could easily argue He took it away for inadequate reasons, making Him not omnibenevolent. Or that He has no reason to punish all humans coming after the first ones, so He is not omnibenevolent.
>>16501082
That is not an adequate explanation to most Christians.