/lit/ - Literature

>>10206771
If you cause a child extreme pain in order to save their lives in the future is that evil?

Is death and suffering evil?
If something is irrelevant in the long run is it worth changing?

Evil does not exist, the idea of a single omnipotent god is absurd

A "God" is a divine/spiritual force or entity, this does not in any way imply omnipotence

>>10206771
One way out if that there is no God. But there must be some sort of prime mover, all motion has a mover and at some point there must be the first mover who is himself not moved. The prime mover is indirectly responsible for all movement, so they may as well be considered the God.

Another way is that there is no evil, which is possible. Perhaps none of the things we perceive to be evil are actually evil.

Or perhaps God is not benevolent. A lack of action to prevent evil is not malevolence, it is merely a lack of benevolence. God could merely be indifferent to evil.

Because god made us as a deranged experiment to see what creatures with a paradise and free will could fuck up

>>10206786
>If you cause a child extreme pain in order to save their lives in the future is that evil?
no t. the guy in OP's pic

>>10206771
It implies that there is no stage at which creation becomes uncreation. In other words, it's working out of a Greek notion of God. It does not reflect the Christian God, who can only interact with the world through his children, but only if they willing obey. God can do anything, yes, but when interacting with creation, he almost totally contrained to what is physically impossible.

>>10206798
>so they may as well be considered the God.
Does God have to be conscious?

>>10206839
Define conscious

>>10206786
Wait so is God causing the pain and suffering for the greater good?

I thought I was suffering because of actions I chose which had consequences. Guess God is just is one of his moods again, and he's the one trying to hurt me.

Thanks for absolving me of my responsibility.

God cannot abolish evil as such because it results from All-Possibility, which is ontologically “prior” to the personal God; consequently, God can only abolish a particular evil to the extent that, in so doing, He takes
account of the metaphysical necessity of evil in itself. The second answer in a way goes beyond
the first, to the point of appearing to contradict it: God, being good, in fact abolishes not only
particular evils but also evil as such; particular evils because everything has an ending, and evil
as such because—being subject in the last analysis to the same rule—it disappears as a result of the cosmic cycles and the effect of the Apocatastasis. Thus the formula vincit omnia Veritas applies not only to Truth but also to the Good in all its aspects. And this means likewise that there can never be any symmetry between Good and evil; evil has no being in itself, whereas the Good is the being of all things. The Good is That which is; Being and Good coincide.

Evil is part of God's Divine Plan, but no one can know the mind of God. Catch-22.

>>10206904
So how do you know that evil is part of God's plan?

>>10206938
You just gotta have faith that the contradictory statements are true, Anon.

>>10206771
Read Gravity and Grace

Are the fragments of Epicurus worth reading?

>>10206798
>But there must be some sort of prime mover, all motion has a mover and at some point there must be the first mover who is himself not moved
wtf how do you know this?

I fucked up that posting attempt w/e

Because suffering evil is the expense of a discriminating free will, and it is the existence of evil that allows for good.
Without free will, man would be like an animal, not knowing good from evil and resigned to a lesser existence. Without evil, there would not be a good to adhere to; if God is Good, then without a good to adhere to man could not possibly strike to be God-like.

>>10206959
This OP. It unironically gave me a suicidal nervous breakdown and brought me home to the Catholic Church.

>>10206786
Sometimes suffering causes people to turn away from God. Is that going to help them in the future?

>>10206999
Christian worldview is that all things are ordained by god (but NOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU GO TO HEAVEN OR NOT THAT'S PREDESTINATIONALISM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HERESY).

So even if you fell out with God, by Christian worldview you'll just get a "divine moment" and suddenly lolconvert. Or you enjoy hell, lool!

>>10207008
Good vid on this by an Anglican priest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzqXzEvZ0

>>10207008
the only two logically coherent doctrines on the matter are predestination and universalism and I believe the Catholic church rejects both

>>10206786
Have you read the book of Job?
God literally fucks his life on a bet... God is humanity.
>What Doth life?

>>10207219
Yeah, but it's a test. Go to /pol/ and take part in the Bible studies. Jesus Christ is calling you to his arms.

>>10207225
So the devil asking him if Job is truly pure though God has blessed him was a really thought out plan?
The devil convinced God to doom him.
Seems evil enough to me. No matter if in the end he's more wealthy.

There's a couple routes you can take.
1. The material world is an illusion and therefore our suffering is ultimately an illusion also. When we "wake up" the worst of our material sufferings will seem like a fading bad dream, like running around in your underwear in high school in front of the girl you like in your sleep. When you wake up, the feelings that were so real and powerful in the dream seem laughable now, because not only was the dream an illusion, the "you" that you remember going through it was also a kind of illusion, because he only thought and felt through the dream's parameters.
2. The suffering is deserved because we are all spirits that committed great sins in the true reality and were imprisoned in a material existence in order to pay for those sins. Our state of ignorance of the spiritual, or "outer darkness", is simply part of the punishment.
3. Evil is a natural result of free will. God values free will in man and so allows it to take place although evil naturally comes along for the ride.
4. Suffering is not deserved but is a kind of test for the righteous man and allows him to assert his righteousness before God, Who then rewards or punishes him appropriately.
5. Your suffering is deserved because of your actions in a previous life and your failure to ascend to the spiritual planes.


Could probably go on and on with more actions. Many of them can be married to each other if one desires.

>>10207239

Satan is just an expression of God's personality. Specifically he's the expression of God's vengeance and desire to test humanity. Satan's goal in Job is to demonstrate to God (the All-Personality) that Job is not righteous. His argument is that he can find a situation in which Job will not act righteously but sinfully, thus proving that Job is not a righteous man but rather a man of circumstances.
Interestingly, God offers a few claims that many Christians today would consider blasphemous
>God says that Job is perfect.
>God says that Job acted correctly in his response to Satan's actions.
>God says that Job did not deserve what happened to him.
>God says that Satan convinced Him to strike Job for no reason.

The end result is that Job (who represents the Noble Sufferer, a good man facing down a horrible world) is validated by the test as righteous and rewarded by God.

>>10207321
what the hell religion is point 2?

>>10206983
Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

Without Evil, we wouldn't have anything to talk about here. There would be no Homer if there were no war.

>>10206771
>let me tell you how God should act
Epicurus was a hack

>>10207377
>>let me tell you how God should act
Don't every organized religion and most philosophers do this?

>>10207362
I was born into Catholicism, and I'm not an ethnic minority that has an Orthodox Church. I do have a deep appreciation for the Orthodox style of theology, and borrow some of it when its compatible with Catholicism, like the Orthodox view of Heaven and Hell as the same place. Really, if you strip away all the trash punitive theology that emerged during Christendom, Catholicism and Orthodox are not that different. And beside that, Catholicism just resonates with me more.

>>10206839
In the aristotelian line of argument I would definitely say yes because the prime mover ordains the world as something intelligeble, but Augustinian and Thomist arguments make a stronger case for it.

>>10207330

>God says that Job is perfect.
It is fine to say Job, and the saints in general, were "perfect" in the sense of living in accordance with God's commandments and eschewing evil. In another context, St. Paul talks about how Christians know "all things" by the Holy Spirit, but that is not to imply blasphemously that somehow Christians are omniscient like God.

>God says that Job did not deserve what happened to him.
He didn't. The saints in general are given burdens and crosses that they don't absolutely deserve, in order to atone for the sins of mankind through participation in the mystery of the cross of Christ. In fact, many of the saints specifically asked God to give them increased sufferings precisely for this reason.

>>10207391
St. John Chrysostom

Well, let us act in the same way in the case of human beings also: let us determine what is the virtue of man, and let us regard that alone as an injury, which is destructive to it. What then is the virtue of man? Not riches that you should fear poverty: nor health of body that you should dread sickness, nor the opinion of the public, that you should view an evil reputation with alarm, nor life simply for its own sake, that death should be terrible to you: nor liberty that you should avoid servitude: but carefulness in holding true doctrine, and rectitude in life. Of these things not even the devil himself will be able to rob a man, if he who possesses them guards them with the needful carefulness: and that most malicious and ferocious demon is aware of this. For this cause also he robbed Job of his substance, not to make him poor, but that he might force him into uttering some blasphemous speech; and he tortured his body, not to subject him to infirmity, but to upset the virtue of his soul. But nevertheless when he had set all his devices in motion, and turned him from a rich man into a poor one (that calamity which seems to us the most terrible of all), and had made him childless who was once surrounded by many children, and had scarified his whole body more cruelly than the executioners do in the public tribunals (for their nails do not lacerate the sides of those who fall into their hands so severely as the gnawing of the worms lacerated his body), and when he had fastened a bad reputation upon him (for Job's friends who were present with him said you have not received the chastisement which your sins deserve, and directed many words of accusation against him), and after he had not merely expelled him from city and home and transferred him to another city, but had actually made the dunghill serve as his home and city; after all this, he not only did him no damage but rendered him more glorious by the designs which he formed against him. And he not only failed to rob him of any of his possessions although he had robbed him of so many things, but he even increased the wealth of his virtue. For after these things he enjoyed greater confidence inasmuch as he had contended in a more severe contest. Now if he who underwent such sufferings, and this not at the hand of man, but at the hand of the devil who is more wicked than all men, sustained no injury, which of those persons who say such and such a man injured and damaged me will have any defence to make in future? For if the devil who is full of such great malice, after having set all his instruments in motion, and discharged all his weapons, and poured out all the evils incident to man, in a superlative degree upon the family and the person of that righteous man nevertheless did him no injury, but as I was saying rather profited him: how shall certain be able to accuse such and such a man alleging that they have suffered injury at their hands, not at their own?

>>10206771
>- Epicurus Quote implying atheism, implying he was a dumb fedora
>how to refute this?

Easy.
By quoting his Letter to his friend Menoeceus where he urged him to believe in gods, and a supreme God above them all.

"First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe..."

He thought there were gods and an ultimate God, but they were concerned with Godly matters, not human affairs, so human prayer was ineffective and we need not fear the gods intervening in our fates.

So you see he wasn't a complete retard, the only thing he was wrong about was ineffectiveness of prayer, in fact it is effective but not how the masses think it is, the purpose of prayer is not to change the will of God but to change the nature of the one who prays. And this change is divine and not merely material.

>>10207383
What do you think about Vatican 2 CCC # 841? Seems like absolute heresy to even flirt with such a phrase.
>"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. ".amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day"
"together with us adore the one, merciful God, mankinds judge." ?????

This phrase right here is utter rubbish. Catholics worship the Trinity, the God who incarnated, the one who judges mankind is Iesous Christos, not Muhammad's Allah.
I'm not even Catholic but it irritates me when people try to say things like "oh jews, christians, muslims, we all worship the same God even if we have some differences..." No we don't. Lord have mercy.

inb4 read the full context, no salvation outside the church blablabla...I know the full context. It's that specific verse that is total garbage and heresy.

What happened to medieval Catholicism? Pic related. This is the right view towards Islam, not this liberal, universal pseudo-ecumenism garbage.

t. eastern ortho

>>10207464
They worship God the Father. If we Christians tolerate jews we should tolerate muslims.
>inb4 hurr we shouldn't tolerate jews or proddie moon god theory

>>10207464
If I remember right Hillaire Belloc considered Islam to be a heresy of Christianity that went way too far and has persisted to the present. So for the Church to say that Islam worships the same God are Christianity is not that outrageous, and I feel that it's in part a call for Muslims to see conversion to Christianity as a small but fruitful jump.

In other words, I don't think that 841 amounts to the facile syncretism that you seem to think it does.

>>10207464
Not that anon, but I am Catholic and I'll give you an answer.

Basically, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council thought that the best approach to evangelising the modern world was to be conciliatory and speak more about where we agree with other religions, rather than our differences. Arguably this approach has yet to bear fruit.

>"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. ".amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day"

This statement is true subjectively, not objectively, i.e. it is true to say that Muslims THINK that they worship the one God and judge of mankind, but not true to say that they objectively do so. So the statement would be more accurate if it said:
>these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and similar to us claim to adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day"
Famously, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, which the CCC quotes, contain ambiguous wording that has come under heavy criticism.

>What happened to medieval Catholicism? Pic related. This is the right view towards Islam, not this liberal, universal pseudo-ecumenism garbage.

I agree with you. The stance since the Council has been that the Church should enter the liberal "marketplace of ideas" and stake its claim there, but the popes prior to the council constantly warned that the Catholic faith cannot be put on the same level as merely human or natural truths, or with false religions. This stance hasn't done much except to water down Catholic faith and practice among the faithful, in a bid to make ourselves more accommodating to a modern world that ultimately despises us.

>>10207472
>They worship God the Father.
"he who doesn't have the Son doesn't have the Father." 1 John 2:23
they don't worship the Father, since the Father is a Trinitarian hypostasis, whom the Holy Spirit and Son proceed from.

>If we Christians tolerate jews
>tolerate
has nothing to do with my point. We "tolerate" (terrible word) all sorts of heresies these days, but that doesn't mean we should unify with them or equate their beliefs to ours. It's simply dishonest and blasphemous.

>>10207481
>ambiguous writing
true.

>I agree with you. The stance since the Council has been that the Church should enter the liberal "marketplace of ideas" and stake its claim there, but the popes prior to the council constantly warned that the Catholic faith cannot be put on the same level as merely human or natural truths, or with false religions. This stance hasn't done much except to water down Catholic faith and practice among the faithful, in a bid to make ourselves more accommodating to a modern world that ultimately despises us.
thanks good answers.

>>10207472
>we Christians
>hello fellow Christians, how do you do?
lel, not buying it. terrible answer.

>>10207464
Thanks for clarifying that you're just faking to be Christian to larp as a crusader. I wish the rest of the board was this honest.

>>10207501
>Heh, you reject Islam? Then you're not a real Christian
Yep, impeccable logic. So tolerant. Wow. Such equality.

>>10207507
>reddit memes
Hello r/thedonald

>>10207330
>Satan is just an expression of God's personality
t. Heretic

>wow you're against abortion, islam and gay marriage? I thought you were Christian, you know Christ taught tolerance?....
>have u read the bible where it says not to judge and like love everyone or something??
t. liberal atheist

>>10207551
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

>>10206786
But suffering happens because of humanity's fall from grace you dumb shit, God let humanity be fooled by Satan and punished them with a shitty world because he's a hard cunt.

>>10207558
what do you think that verse means?

>>10206798
>so they may as well be considered the God
No because God is an incredibly loaded term, this kind of sophistry is what makes people think the cosmological argument proves the God of Christianity. There's nothing in the argument that demonstrates the prime mover is intelligent.

>>10207569
kill people indiscriminately, duh

>>10207481
>the Catholic faith cannot be put on the same level as merely human or natural truths
Yeah because when you judge its claims like you would others you see it's got flaws. This kind of holy nonsense only works if you create a special bubble for your theology that doesn't allow a critical approach.

>>10207558
The Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean we cannot show discernment between good and evil, heretics and saints, criminals and heroes. Immediately after Jesus says, “Do not judge,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matthew 7:6). A little later in the same sermon, He says, “Watch out for false prophets. . . . By their fruit you will recognize them” (verses 15–16). How are we to discern who are the “dogs” and “pigs” and “false prophets” unless we have the ability to make a judgment call on doctrines and deeds? Jesus is giving us permission to tell right from wrong.

Elsewhere, Jesus gives a direct command to judge: “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24). Here we have a clue as to the right type of judgment versus the wrong type. Taking this verse and some others, we can put together a description of the sinful type of judgment:

The jist of that verse is a warning against hypocrisy, a person enslaved to sin X or Y should not be hasty to correct others before he corrects himself, for "by the measure you judge others you too will be judged",; it's a warning against hypocrisy and pride.
A person who has overcome sin X is in full authority to discern, correct and judge someone who is still enslaved by sin X. In fact it would be good to help the sinner overcome his faults.
Hope this helps.

>>10207551
>i'm a christian because it lets me condemn the anti-white sjw degenerates
>deus kek brother
>what do you mean none of this has any basis in scripture?

>>10207451
You have yet to refute the argument at hand, which is not contingent on him or his personal beliefs.

>>10207585
>anti-white
Where did I mention race, are you feeling okay? Anyway read this >>10207584
If you have questions about scripture or what we believe I can try and answer.

>>10207600
The answer is that God is both willing and able to eliminate evil, and will actually defeat evil and dispense the appropriate mercy and justice to all. All evil is fundamentally transient and is being destroyed. Only the good will prevail into eternity.
In the final judgement the scales will be balanced. "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." 1 Corinthians 15:28 but for the time being God allows humans to "stumble" in order for us to express our free-will and genuinely come to him out of free love, not coercion nor compulsion. This freedom necessitates an open space of risk, the risk includes the manifestation of evil.

>>10207614
>dw guise God is just letting bad stuff happen because we have free will, nevermind that his punishing wrong-doers doesn't take away from their free will any more than society doing so.

>brahs come to me out of free love, or else I'll torture you for all eternity

>lol God just set up a system of suffering for shits & gigs, yeah yeah you're born into a north korean prison camp so what? deal withj it faggot who am I to fuck with the guards free will? What? Either a combination of his environment and genetics drove him to these acts or because I made him that way? shut up faggit also you're gonna burn in hell for not having found god there haha check mate

>>10206771
>then he is malevolent

Yeah... He is.
I don't see why the argument would have to go any further. I agree with that and I'm a Christian, not some larping pagan that thinks edgy gods are cool

>>10206771
Muh freedom

>>10207625
>>brahs come to me out of free love, or else I'll torture you for all eternity
>>God tortures you

the Orthodox Church teaches that both Heaven and Hell are being in God's presence and that there is no such place as where God is not. His presence is punishment and paradise depending on the person's spiritual state. For one who hates God and is spiritually weak being in His presence would be the gravest suffering. For one who is faithful, pure of heart and loves God His presence will be a beautiful Heaven. All will encounter God though.


>>lol God just set up a system of suffering for shits & gigs, yeah yeah you're born into a north korean prison camp so what? deal withj it faggot who am I to fuck with the guards free will? What? Either a combination of his environment and genetics drove him to these acts or because I made him that way? shut up faggit also you're gonna burn in hell for not having found god there haha check mate

1. Since God himself suffered, was beat and crucified, why should humans feel they are above suffering? Seems arrogant to me.
2. God suffers along with us, like a father seeing his children hurt. The difference is we forget our past sufferings, while God can never forget, not even the smallest detail remains clear to him forever.
3. All suffering is transient and is literally being destroyed. Everyone will get what they deserve. In light of eternity a few decades or even centuries of suffering is not something to have an existential crisis over. The real crisis should be your potential to damn your soul forever out of pride, egoism and pettiness.
4. Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one must do what must be done. Our incessant focus on pleasure and pain blinds us to the real meaning of life.

>>10207673
>not even the smallest detail remains clear to him forever.
>not
*even the smallest detail remains clear to him forever. He never forgets. You know what I mean.

>>10207583
The popes were talking on societal level. Religious doctrine should not be surrendered to a "market place of ideas", because then the religious foundations of society would be undermined and you would end up ultimately with nihilistic chaos and societal collapse into hedonism and oppression ... o wait.

>>10207645
>Ya I think God is evil and I'm Christian btw
>Meat? Ya I eat meat, and I'm vegan, so what?
>I'm a woman, but I identify as a man sometimes, what's the big deal?

Didn't Epicurus just believe in the traditional conception of Greek divinities, and that they did not get involved in human
affairs?

>>10207673
>the Orthodox Church teaches that both Heaven and Hell are being in God's presence and that there is no such place as where God is not. His presence is punishment and paradise depending on the person's spiritual state. For one who hates God and is spiritually weak being in His presence would be the gravest suffering. For one who is faithful, pure of heart and loves God His presence will be a beautiful Heaven. All will encounter God though.
No hell, that's good. You mentioned "hates God" and "faithful, pure of heart". How about neither, one who just does not believe he even exists without either loving or hating him (in the same way I don't hate/love Satan, just as fictional as God).


>1. Since God himself suffered, was beat and crucified, why should humans feel they are above suffering? Seems arrogant to me.
If this guarantees I'll get to go to heaven, sign me the fuck up. I already suffer temporarily for longer-term gains, i.e. running (hate running), healthy eating, lifting etc etc. I'd take this deal any day of the week.

>God suffers along with us, like a father seeing his children hurt. The difference is we forget our past sufferings, while God can never forget, not even the smallest detail remains clear to him forever.
I have no idea how you can possibly claim to know this. That goes for 3. too, just sounds like wishful thinking and making up God according to what you'd like him/the state of the universe to be.

>4. Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one must do what must be done. Our incessant focus on pleasure and pain blinds us to the real meaning of life.
1. There's no inherent "what must be done".
2. There's no inherent "real meaning of life".
Feel free to prove me wrong on either count.

>>10206771
God is such a douche

>>10207713
>what if I'm indifferent to God, neither hate nor love, can I be saved?
if a man is indifferent to God he puts something in place of God, even if he doesn't realize it, some other ideology or passion or meaning as his "highest value", which would be idolatry. Death would involve separation from your idol and encountering God, so it could be a dissatisfying eternity perhaps not totally painful, but I doubt it would be a heaven.

>God knows and suffers with us. I have no idea how you can possibly claim to know this.
God is omniscient, God loves us and is benevolent. It follows that he knows our suffering and feels for us and never forgets. Jesus wept for Lazarus. God is a personal being.

>1. There's no inherent "what must be done". 2. There's no inherent "real meaning of life".
How do you know? How do you justify this in your worldview, where is your proofs, have you dug deep into life and know what its all about?

I would say you are wrong because God is the origin, end, and meaning of our lives. He is where we come from and where we return. And God's will is "what must be done". I know this by logic, intuition, and revelation.

>>10207225
>Go to /pol/
No thanks I don’t have brain damage

>>10207758
>if a man is indifferent to God he puts something in place of God, even if he doesn't realize it, some other ideology or passion or meaning as his "highest value", which would be idolatry. Death would involve separation from your idol and encountering God, so it could be a dissatisfying eternity perhaps not totally painful, but I doubt it would be a heaven.
I don't see why this necessarily has to be the case. Any reason why you would assert this to be true?

My "highest value" is living a good life, but that's nowhere as high a value as I'd place on a God, were I to believe one existed. This is not an idol and therefore, by definition, not idolatry. What you assert death to involve is something I just don't believe to be true, and that there's no good reason to believe to be true from an outsider looking in (i.e. not already convinced of this being the case and fearing hellfire, cognitive dissonance or a meaningless life or whatever it may be were one to leave).

>God is omniscient, God loves us and is benevolent. It follows that he knows our suffering and feels for us and never forgets. Jesus wept for Lazarus. God is a personal being.
I have no idea how you can possibly claim to know this either.

>How do you know?
I don't, I'm just stating my belief in lieu of evidence pointing to anything else. This would be the null-hypothesis and so far nothing has shown it to be wrong.

>I would say you are wrong because God is the origin, end, and meaning of our lives. He is where we come from and where we return. And God's will is "what must be done". I know this by logic, intuition, and revelation.
Again, I don't see how you could possibly claim to know this to be true. What, if anything, is pointing to this being the case?

>>10207758
>God is omniscient
Does God know what decisions I’ll make?

>>10207802
Yes, and foreknowledge does not imply interference with your free-will, nor does it imply hard predestination. He knows everything, including your choices because he is beyond time and knows your character perfectly.

>>10207782
>how can you know God is good and benevolent and omniscient
follows by definition, like how a triangle has three sides or a bachelor is unmarried, except with God even his existence is logically essential to his nature, so is his all goodness and omniscience, transcendence, etc. Evil is a deprivation of good, a shadow of existence, God is absolutely real, the realist 'being' there is with no deprivation, pettiness or ignorance in him.
God is also the causeless, timeless cause of life and the world, without God there would be nothing, in fact there wouldn't even be "nothing", since nothing can't exist or be a state of affairs, by definition. The only rational and true option is God exists as the fundamental ground of being and he is the origin of all things, the sustainer of all things, and to him all things return and find their judgment and measurement and purpose.

Plenty of logical and intuitive arguments point to these things. Also we have revelation via scripture. Anyone who perceives the world honestly will see its design. Anyone who ponders causality will realize the necessity of a causeless cause, something that would satisfy the initial conditions of the possibility of the world, without itself being contingent and in need of conditions and causes, otherwise we get an infinite regress, no initial condition would ever be satisfied, nothing would exist, in fact less than nothing would exist.

>My "highest value" is living a good life, but that's nowhere as high a value as I'd place on a God, were I to believe one existed.

Goodness divorced from God and its transcendent, eternal nature, its moral order, its teleology is not good at all. But just a creation of our own, an idol.

The kingdom of God is not of this world. Does not scripture describe the devil as the Prince of this world?

>>10208047
>Yes, and foreknowledge does not imply interference with your free-will, nor does it imply hard predestination. He knows everything, including your choices because he is beyond time and knows your character perfectly.

How exactly does this not imply interference with my free will or predestination?
All this implies is an illusion of free will.

>>10206786
>If you cause a child extreme pain in order to save their lives in the future is that evil?

Yes, extremely so.

>>10206786
Is God the utilitarian monster?

>>10208047
>you have free will, but all your choices are already known. You just have to act them out and pretend lmao

Were you shaken as a baby?

>>10206771

Everything follows from a contradiction
Contradiction is God
The strongest force in the universe is entropy
Entropy is God
God is love
There is love and there is Love
Love in Undertale is Level of Violence
Brute force
Brute force is God
Teleology is God
God is dead
Death is the seal of all
God is the seal of all
God is death
Death is dead
Teleology is the movement of contradiction
A perfect being moves
God is teleology
God

>>10208156
God is when you take a fat shit and your asshole rips

>>10208130
Because it's you who does the choosing, whether its in the past, present or future, it's on you. Foresight does not interfere with your decision making process in any reference frame.
And to be precise God doesn't really have "foresight" he doesn't predict what you will do like a clairvoyant, he knows the beginning and end of all things timelessly.

evil does not exist, but is a state of a person's heart. A la designations

>>10206771
It casts things like good and evil into bizarre binaries. There is no room in this formulation for say, God to be generally but not perfectly Good.

It also presupposes that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity is the ONLY possibility, or at least the only possibility worth worshiping, without any real justification of that stance.

>>10208177
>Because it's you who does the choosing
And? All of my decisions are known anyway. Literally my whole life's choices, from start to end, are already known. What's the point? I'm going to do A instead of B anyway.
>whether its in the past, present or future, it's on you.
Evidently not.
>Foresight does not interfere with your decision making process in any reference frame.
So can I make a choice that God did not know about?

I thought Christians opposed nihilism

>>10207321

Suffering is mainly pointless. Beyond the Materialist-Structuralist explanations of pain, which are absurd even within the confines of Materialism-Structuralism, there is only the Subjective aspect of fearing annihilation and desiring salvation. The idea that you can be destroyed at all or that you are not yet perfect becomes less and less plausible the less you fear and desire.

>>10208186
>All of my decisions are known anyway.
Yes all of your decisions. They're yours, you do them, you're responsible.
The fact that a transcendent, all-knowing entity knows the beginning and end all all things doesn't negate your responsibility and your choices and your genuine desire to do A instead of B at some point in the future.

>What's the point? I'm going to do A instead of B anyway.
The point it's always you doing the doing.

>If I can't surprise God with secret intentions then I don't have free-will
No.

>>10208200
if you don't torture people they committ crimes and become abominations. Like native americans and nazis

>>10208207
>Yes all of your decisions. They're yours, you do them, you're responsible.
How am I responsible? I'm literally following a set path, given to me, under the illusion that I am charting my own course. My past, present, and future choices have been decided for me already, because God already knows what I'm going to do. Unless I am greater than your god, I can only follow what his knowledge says I will do.

>The fact that a transcendent, all-knowing entity knows the beginning and end all all things doesn't negate your responsibility and your choices and your genuine desire to do A instead of B at some point in the future.
So does this mean I can I make my own choices?


>The point it's always you doing the doing.
See the first point

>No
So can I make a choice that God doesn't know about? Or am I just following a script?

>>10208220
>My past, present, and future choices have been decided for me already
The decider was always you.
God simply knows you and your decisions perfectly.

This is like complaining that you can't change your past decisions. Yes, they were already determined by past-you. If I were to know all your past decisions would this invalidate your choosing them? No.
Similarly your future choices are determined by future-you; choices don't get negated by God's omniscience.

>>10208245
Perhaps I don’t understand. I am the one who “chooses” to do something, correct? However my choice is already known by God, as is the outcome.

In my mind, that would seem to be only an “illusion of free will”


Am I right or am I misrepresenting the argument? I guess I genuinely don’t understand

>>10206972
Newton's Third Law , every action must have a cause. Our reality exists, so there must have been some sort of creative force that caused it to exist.

>>10207571
Nothing I said pointed to the idea that God is Christian, if that's what you infer then that's up to you. There's no reason to think the prime mover is Christian, although that is certainly a popular interpretation. It's just beyond reasonable doubt that there must be some sort of prime mover. I don't know how such a concept could be thought of as unintelligent. A prime mover would have to have free will, the freest will possible, and free will is not an unintelligent concept.

Start with the cheeki breeki

Plantinga's Free Will Defense seems to me like the best way to do it.

It's basically the idea that if there was a choice between having evil and letting humans have free will, letting humans have free will would be a better world to live in.

It still has problems though, mainly the question of why there are natural disasters and other evils that aren't caused by humans. So the problem isn't definitively solved. The Greeks were geniuses. This and the Euthyphro dilemma are such great questions and have such big implications even today

>>10208429
>Newton's Third Law , every action must have a cause. Our reality exists, so there must have been some sort of creative force that caused it to exist.
Applying physics law to metaphysics lol, epic fail

>>10208576
>epic fail
I take this as a sign that you're shitposting

>>10208583
No seriously, why do you think a physics law applies to METAphysics

Its like applying a biology law to physics

>>10208583
why would a law of physics that is inductively based, have any bearing on metaphysics?

a scientific law is basically just a statement based on past events which may or may not necessarily be true in the future, depending on we observe next. either way, newton's version of physics is objectively wrong anyway (although we still use it for its predictive power).

there is no reason why anyone would assume that everything has to have a cause. the reasoning would go something like this:

1. Everything that we have observed has had a cause.
2. Therefore, everything must have a cause.

That's not deductively valid. It's the same as saying

1. All swans we have observed have been white.
2. Therefore, all swans are white.

Then they found out that black swans existed, and they changed their conclusion. Science is based on induction, and it is incredibly hard to ever make a conclusive statement based on things like that. You can say that you're sure about something with 99.9999% certainty, but there's always a chance that a new piece of evidence will prove your theory wrong.

This is not the case for deductive logic. I can definitively say that there will never ever be a round square, because my argument is based on the definition of the word "square".

>>10208586
>>10208621
Sorry, I was wrong. You guys are right.

>>10208429
>Our reality exists, so there must have been some sort of creative force that caused it to exist.
Kant BTFO the cosmological argument in the critique of pure reason, read it, it's kinda hard but very rewarding.

>>10208633
wow anon props. that was civil.

>>10207451
The Greeks didn't have anything close to an absolute notion of evil that the devil/sin represents in Christianity. Working back from his conceptions of divinity to call him a hypocrite is both anachronistic and demonstrates a lack of reading on your part. The Greek gods were not "good" or "evil", merely powerful.

>>10208621
why is newton's version of physics objectively wrong?

Suffering isn't bad, or evil.
Christian Compatibilism.

Everybody posting this shit doesn't know a bit about theology.
>>10206795
>WAH WHY DOESNT GOD FIT INTO MUH LOGIC
Back to plebbit

>>10207336
Gnosticism and some interpretations of Christianity
>>10207378
No, get your shit straight you uneducated twat

>>10209224
>WAH YOU HAVE TO PLAY BY HIS RULES NOT ABSOLUTELY DESTROY HIS NONSENSE ATHEISM BY RELIGION THAT CAME SHORTLY AFTER

>>10209330
>Suffering isn't bad, or evil.
This is your brain on Christianity, lads.

>>10209330
an omnipotent god is retarded, my christian friend

>>10209338
>sufferign is bad becuz i don liek it ;cccccccccc
Letzter Mensch
>>10209352
>Becuz i sed so

>>10209337
Pretty poor reading comprehension. Epicurus wasn't even atheist you speng.

>>10206771

>How can you refute this

Quickly and easily.

If we hypothetically accept God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then it follows that:

1. He is all-powerful, it is pointless to resist his will.
2. He is all-knowing, and therefore knows better than us what good and evil are.

Consequently, if and when we deem his will to be evil, then our judgment is both useless (because God is all-powerful while we are not) and wrong (because we are not all-knowing and God is).

Epicurus is like a little baby. Epictetus is a real philosopher.

>>10209428

The following anecdote illustrates my argument perfectly:

>In Sura 18, ayat (verses) 65–82 Al Kahf, Moses meets the Servant of God, referred in the Quran as "one of our slaves whom We had granted mercy from Us and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves".[22]

>The Quran states that they meet at the junction of the two seas (which can be a river-tributary) and Moses asks for permission to accompany the Servant of God so Moses can learn "right knowledge of what [he has] been taught".[25] The Servant informs him in a stern manner that their knowledge is of different nature and that "Surely you [Moses] cannot have patience with me. And how canst thou have patience about things about which thy understanding is not complete?"[26] Moses promises to be patient and obey him unquestioningly, and they set out together. After they board a ship, the Servant of God damages the vessel. Forgetting his oath, Moses says, "Have you made a hole in it to drown its inmates? Certainly you have done a grievous thing." The Servant reminds Moses of his warning, "Did I not say that you will not be able to have patience with me?" and Moses pleads not to be rebuked.

>Next, the Servant of God kills a young man. Moses again cries out in astonishment and dismay, and again the Servant reminds Moses of his warning, and Moses promises that he will not violate his oath again, and that if he does he will excuse himself from the Servant's presence. They then proceed to a town where they are denied hospitality. This time, instead of harming anyone or anything, the Servant of God restores a decrepit wall in the village. Yet again Moses is amazed and violates his oath for the third and last time, asking why the Servant did not at least exact "some recompense for it."

>The Servant of God replies, "This shall be separation between me and you; now I will inform you of the significance of that with which you could not have patience. Many acts which seem to be evil, malicious or somber, actually are merciful. The boat was damaged to prevent its owners from falling into the hands of a king who seized every boat by force. And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them. God will replace the child with one better in purity, affection and obedience. As for the restored wall, the Servant explained that underneath the wall was a treasure belonging to two helpless orphans whose father was a righteous man. As God's envoy, the Servant restored the wall, showing God's kindness by rewarding the piety of the orphans' father, and so that when the wall becomes weak again and collapses, the orphans will be older and stronger and will take the treasure that belongs to them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khidr#Quranic_narrative

>>10209411
I didn't say he was, Learn to read yourself.

>>10209362
>>Becuz i sed so

>becuz muh bible sed so

>>10206771
god is an evil faget
/thread

>>10209428
>>10209444
This argument is based on the unjustified assumption that God actively strives for good. In fact, it's self-defeating. You say that we cannot make assumptions of God's actions because he knows everything, but you automatically assume that God's actions are in the services of some divine good. Who knows what they're in the service in, there's nothing here justifying the assumption that they must be good for us in any way.

>>10207219
Welcome to the NFL, that's life. Who are you to question God? He's going to make you suffer pointlessly and there's nothing you can do about it.

>>10209479
I'm not a proddy.
>>10209592
God defines good you idiot.

>>10209362
>Is a Christian
>Uses "Letzter Mensch"
What did he mean by this

>>10206771

Can you?

>>10209700
And if God deemed it the most just good to condemn you to the most horrendous and painful emotional and physical tortures possible for all of eternity for no reason beyond the mere fact that he can, you would agree with such an interpretation? Of course an all-powerful God could make you agree by taking away your free will and rational faculties, but assume he did not. You would agree with that as the objectively good choice?

>>10209707
You're stuck in the past. Now is the ever-happening present. To think that it has only been a day since!
>>10209745
Nice meme
>objectively
Discarded

>>10209599
>Who are you to question God? He's going to make you suffer pointlessly and there's nothing you can do about it.
I can reject him and live my own life happily by pursuing pleasure. What now?

>>10209751
>I'm going to claim that God is the final arbiter of what is objectively good
>Oh no he asked me a question I can't answer, better just pretend there is no objectivity in a world with God
Lots of contradictions here anon, I think my work is done

>>10209751
If you've set yourself a task of reconciling Christianity with Nietzschean philosophy, then do it, don't hide behind truism-based nonsense like a Hegelian charlatan. But I content myself that you're probably trolling

>>10209592

>This argument is based on the unjustified assumption that God actively strives for good.

It's true I didn't justify that in my post. Let me do so now.

>You say that we cannot make assumptions of God's actions because he knows everything, but you automatically assume that God's actions are in the services of some divine good.

Technically, I only sought to prove that we cannot call God evil, as OP does, and I succeeded. The notion that God is good, though beyond the scope of my argument, I will address just for fun.

If God is omniscient, then he can perceive what is truly the best possible courses of action and states of affairs.

Any rational agent choses what it perceives as better over what is worse whenever it is capable.

The problem for men is that we have different and mistaken ideas as to what good and evil, better and worse, consist in. hence 'evil' arises. An omniscient God would not have this problem, and, never choosing what is worse over what is better, would consequently never choose evil over good, because good is better than evil.

The real underlying assumption here is that God is a rational agent.

I'll attempt to justify that too.

If we hypothetically accept that there is an omnipotent and omniscient God, then:

Humans (and everything else) were created by God.
Humans are capable of reason.
Reason is the primary means by which humans perceive God and speculate about his nature, as well as the universe in which they live.
God created man in his image.

It follows that if God created us in his image with the capacity for reason, and that he left reason as the only possible means of perceiving him, then God himself is rational. If God is both rational and omniscient, then he will always perceive what is truly best and choose it. Good is by definition better than evil, therefore God always choses what is good and best.

>>10209765

That wasn't me, but he's right. If you accept that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then he is the arbiter of good and evil.

When we're invited to dinner by someone, we take what we are given; and if any one should bid the host to set this or that before him, he would be thought absurd. Yet, in the world, we ask God for what he does not give us, and that though he has given us so many things.

>mfw this thread
What do I start?
The free will meme is easily one of the most brainlet thing I've ever known.
"Free will" was an excuse made up by the ancient ***philosophers*** who had absolutely no understanding of the biological nature of human brains and evolution.

Just like brainlet memers in this thread, they thought that the human mind was a magic box and that there's some random supernatural attributes to your decision making. "It's all your fault if you have evil thoughts." But that is just utterly wrong.
Through the process of evolution, the evil qualities of Mankind, be it selfishness, hatred, jealousy or violence, were all invented by ourselves for the sake of survival. It's all hard-wared to our brains, just like the impulses to kill or to revenge. It's not a matter of your choice, for it is simply bound to your instincts. And it is ugly.
If God is loving, then all humans should be loving and be biologically incapable of hatred, because the existence of hatred itself is evil. But instead, even though we may have some degree of self-control, the fact is still there - that we can't take out the root of evil inside of us, that which was once so favored by natural selection.

So what's the reason, then, for God to create a world where evil is bound to exist in all hearts of men, but not himself?

>>10207511
:^)

>>10209794
>Basing your ideas of God's behavior on homo economicus
Anon we're at the point where we can hardly justify man as a rational agent, let alone God. I wouldn't want to live in the house that you're building over that foundation, because it is a flimsy one. Rational man is a dated theory.

And even if we are to go down this road, there's no guarantee that God is rational by your understanding. Your claim that he must be rational essentially stems from the idea that man was created in God's image, but we have no proof of this. That is a particular way of interpreting what God could be, but it is by no means justified. Man could just as well be the opposite of God in every way.

Man is not a strictly rational agent and is by no means necessarily created in God's image.

>>10209847
>That wasn't me, but he's right. If you accept that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then he is the arbiter of good and evil.
He's not right, in one post he claimed that God is objectively good and in another post he claimed that there is no such thing as objectivity. Regardless, I direct you to >>10209745 on the matter of your acceptance of God's supposed objectivity.

>When we're invited to dinner by someone, we take what we are given; and if any one should bid the host to set this or that before him, he would be thought absurd.
If you were invited to dinner, and the host presents you a dinner plate full of fresh, steaming shit, you would say it's absurd to demand another meal? I doubt you would sit there with a smile on your face and scoop away at your shit pile, all to not seem 'absurd' before your gracious host. I think you've got it backwards, a the most responsibility does not lay on the guest but the host. It was the host who invited the guest into his house in the first place, he is responsible for treating that guest correctly. The guest is completely justified in demanding a change if the host sets him a proverbial shit pile for dinner. If you host a dinner, you don't determine if it was a good dinner, your guests do.

>>10209921
>Anon we're at the point where we can hardly justify man as a rational agent, let alone God.

I didn't say man was entirely and solely rational, merely that he is capable of reason. If you disagree and think we are incapable of reason then I don't see why you're having this conversation at all.

>there's no guarantee that God is rational by your understanding. Your claim that he must be rational essentially stems from the idea that man was created in God's image

That's just one out of a number of reasons I stated which you don't address. If God created man with the capacity for reason,and left it as man's only means to perceive God, then it follows that God is rational.

>If you were invited to dinner, and the host presents you a dinner plate full of fresh, steaming shit, you would say it's absurd to demand another meal? I doubt you would sit there with a smile on your face and scoop away at your shit pile, all to not seem 'absurd' before your gracious host.

I just wouldn't eat it. I have a sense of dignity, so I wouldn't whine and beg for something else. If there was enough of interest to me at the party then I'd remain until it was over. If there was nothing else of interest to me, I'd leave.

>>10209330
suffering is one of the only inherently evil things, you retard. there are a lot of good oppositions to the problem of evil, but saying it doesn't exist is literally retarded

>>10209318
it's not objectively wrong, but it only works as an approximation of stuff around the size and speed of earth. it doesn't do well with really large or small objects, or objects traveling at a high velocity. it's basically been replaced by general relativity and quantum theory.

>God is all knowing
>We have free will

Pick one and only one. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is like the oldest fucking argument in the book Jesus Christ

>>10209428
an all-powerful and all-knowing God doesn't mean that the God will be omnibenevolent.

it's easy to prove. just imagine a possible world in which God is all knowing and all powerful, but evil. he creates humans just to torture them. that world is perfectly coherent (not contradictory in any way). since it's possible, it follows that God isn't necessarily perfectly good.

>>10209979

There's no contradiction. God can order everything that happens in the universe as he pleases, and we are free to respond to those circumstances however we please. Our thoughts, opinions, principles and actions are within our control, and everything else is outside our control.

Does it say anywhere in the bible that god is 100% good and has zero traces of evil within? If not, where does the notion come from?

>>10209700
>God defines good you idiot.
that's been proven wrong ever since the Greeks. have you even read the Euthyphro?

if God chose to make things good because those things have certain qualities, then there are objectively good things. if things are good just because God chose them, then they are arbitrary and meaningless. it would also cause us to question God's judgement. it also runs into strange, seemingly absurd problems. if things are good because god commands them, then it makes sense that God could change morality as he saw fit. Tomorrow, he could change morality so that needless suffering for every person was now a good thing. this seems absurd.

it also runs into problems with the is-ought dilemma

>>10209992

>an all-powerful and all-knowing God doesn't mean that the God will be omnibenevolent.

However, as I have shown, a rational God does mean an omnibenevolent God.

>>10209794
>If God is both rational and omniscient, then he will always perceive what is truly best and choose it.

that is incorrect. how does that follow? it's totally coherent and even plausible that a God could know everything and be powerful and maybe (I don't think so but I'll grant you that) even know the "best" course of action, and then not choose to do that action.

It makes sense that there would be an all powerful, all knowing, yet evil God

>>10210023
>However, as I have shown, a rational God does mean an omnibenevolent God.
where have you shown that? i have never read one philosopher (christian or otherwise) claim that God's benevolence follows from his omnipotence and omniscience. it has to be a third quality.

>>10210025

>that is incorrect. how does that follow?

if God is all-knowing then he has complete knowledge of all that is truly best and all that is truly worst. If God is rational, then he would never choose what is worse over what is better, as that would be irrational.If God chose what was worse over what was better, despite knowing what was truly worse and truly better, then he would not be rational.

>>10210029

see >>10209794 and >>10210044

>>10210052

Also, I never said his benevolence had anything to do with his omnipotence. I said his benevolence was rooted in his omniscience.

>>10206771
God is a 4th dimensional creature beyond our understanding.

He is simultaneously infinitely capable and totally impotent.
He is simultaneously deeply benevolent and profoundly apathetic.

>>10210044
>>10210052

oh, it's easy to find the flaw in your argument.

> If God is rational, then he would never choose what is worse over what is better, as that would be irrational.

that's not necessarily true at all. there are many people that are rational yet choose to do the morally wrong or "worse" decision (for them, objectively). take rational, intelligent serial killers. there are some who have 140+ IQs and commit murders which require a ton of logical thinking, yet clearly are the "wrong" choice, both morally and practically.

it doesn't follow at all that a rational God would pick the morally good choice of action. morality is a separate intuition not governed by reason.

this sort of relates to the is-ought problem. an all knowing god could see all of the descriptive facts about a situation and still not be compelled to take any particular course of action, because descriptive facts don't translate to evaluative claims.

for instance, you could explain all of the facts to a serial killer. you could say that his victims possess mental faculty just like his own, they feel horrible pain just like he feels when he gets hurt, that they have futures and hopes and dreams that are unfairly cut off by his actions. you could say all of this, and it would be totally logical for him to then say: "So?"

you cannot derive an ought from an is. morality is a separate, intuitive process that isn't based on reason. this is why empiricists still have not provided a conclusive reductionist account of morality.

>>10210058
see above

>>10209973
>I didn't say man was entirely and solely rational, merely that he is capable of reason.
Rational and capable of reason are not the same thing. Chimps and dogs and birds are capable of reason, but they are hardly rational.

>That's just one out of a number of reasons I stated which you don't address.
You structure your argument in such a way that I don't really have to address them. Your conclusion comes to
>It follows that if God created us in his image with the capacity for reason, and that he left reason as the only possible means of perceiving him, then God himself is rational
Key word: and. If A and B are necessary for C to be true, then C is not true if either A or B are false. That's just basic propositional logic, anon.

>That's just one out of a number of reasons I stated which you don't address. If God created man with the capacity for reason,and left it as man's only means to perceive God, then it follows that God is rational.
Reason is hardly man's only means to perceive God, and in fact is a huge contributor to the death of God. Most people perceive God through faith, and faith is not reason.

>I just wouldn't eat it. I have a sense of dignity, so I wouldn't whine and beg for something else. If there was enough of interest to me at the party then I'd remain until it was over. If there was nothing else of interest to me, I'd leave.
The analogy is the God is the host, and that you as the guest in his dinning room must accept whatever plate he gives you as good. But if God hands you a plate of shit, then as you've said you would not accept that as good. If it were good, you would eat it. But God as the host does not decide what is good, you as the guest do. If God invites the universe to his dinning room and serves plates of shit all around, it is not a good dinner party simply because God says so. It would be considered an abysmal failure of a dinner party. If we're to take the analogy more seriously, and say that you cannot leave the house and you must eat whatever plate God gives you, then it would seem to me justified to even call that dinner party evil.

>>10210078
Not them and what you said doesn't particularly make sense but
>morality is a separate, intuitive process that isn't based on reason
Read Kaaaaaaaaant

>>10210078
i also want to add that people have tried to bridge the is-ought gap, but that most of the time (i'd say all of the time) it involves an implicit premise somewhere. something like "suffering is wrong". that is an evaluative claim and doesn't fit with the problem, which is whether you can get an evaluative "ought" from a list of "is"s.

>>10210070
>God is beyond our understanding
>Proceeds to list God's attributes
Hm

>>10210084
>Read Kant

I have. I disagree with him for too many reasons to list here.

>what you said doesn't particularly make sense

Read Hume

>>10210003
Desperate people. The God in the Old Testament is certifiably a cock.

LMFAOOOO AT THE FAGGOTS ITT WHO THINK GOD'S WRATH MAKES HIM MALEVOLENT

READ PARADISE LOST RETARDS

LUCIFER AND HIS GOONS RAPED HUEMANS FOR HYBRIDS

YOU'RE ALL DESCENDANTS OF SATAN & HIS CLIQQUE

NIGGAS WAS KICKED OUT OF HEAVEN FOR BEING FAGGOTS

GOD PUNISHES THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN (YOU) FOR ETERNITY

THIS IS HELL

WHY DO YOU THINK BLOOD IS RED?

WHY DO YOU THINK SEMEN IS WHITE?

READ PARADISE LOST

LINE 666 IS KEY

>>10210114
>read literal fanfic
the absolute state of /lit/

>>10210078

It isn't that easy because you failed in the attempt.

>that's not necessarily true at all. there are many people that are rational yet choose to do the morally wrong or "worse" decision (for them, objectively). take rational, intelligent serial killers. there are some who have 140+ IQs and commit murders which require a ton of logical thinking, yet clearly are the "wrong" choice, both morally and practically.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a totally rational person. To be totally rational, you would need to be omniscient.

Secondly, there is no correlation between rationality and intelligence or IQ.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-difference-between-rationality-and-intelligence.html?mcubz=1

>it doesn't follow at all that a rational God would pick the morally good choice of action.

It is irrational to choose what is worse over what is better. Good is by definition better than evil.

>morality is a separate intuition not governed by reason.

Please substantiate this assertion. I hold the exact opposite.

>for instance, you could explain all of the facts to a serial killer. you could say that his victims possess mental faculty just like his own, they feel horrible pain just like he feels when he gets hurt, that they have futures and hopes and dreams that are unfairly cut off by his actions. you could say all of this, and it would be totally logical for him to then say: "So?"

'So?' indeed. It does not follow from your explanation to the serial killer that what he did was evil. In is view, 'good' consists in the pleasure of killing, and 'evil' in being prevented from engaging in that pleasure.

I dealt with this already.

"The problem for men is that we have different and mistaken ideas as to what good and evil, better and worse, consist in. hence 'evil' arises. An omniscient God would not have this problem".

>>10210111
>bro just let me murder your son for no reason
>bro if you loved me you'd do it
>bro come on
>wow you actually were gonna do it, you're all good in my book

literally what did he mean by this?

seriously though we're talking more about just the concept of a god, not the christian god

>>10210120
>gilgamesh was fake but everything in the news is real
you are doomed to repeat your pathetic life for eternity

>>10210122
what is slave morality

>>10210114
/thread

>>10210083

>Rational and capable of reason are not the same thing.

That is exactly my point. It is th difference I posit between man and God.

>Chimps and dogs and birds are capable of reason

No they aren't, certainly not absract reason.

> Your conclusion comes to >It follows that if God created us in his image with the capacity for reason, and that he left reason as the only possible means of perceiving him, then God himself is rational

You can remove the bit about God making us in his image, only leaving the fact that he created us with the capacity for reason, and my conclusion would still be supported. It's just an additional proof that I threw in.

>Reason is hardly man's only means to perceive God, and in fact is a huge contributor to the death of God. Most people perceive God through faith, and faith is not reason.

In what universe exactly? Certainly not in the one once inhabited by Ghazali, Aquinas, Anselm and Spinoza.

>The analogy is

I know what the analogy is, I made it after all.

>God is the host, and that you as the guest in his dinning room
>If God invites the universe to his dinning room

Thats not at all what the analogy is. You've comically misread it.

God is to the world what the host is to the dinner party.

God is not the host of a literal dinner party.

The point of the analogy is that you ought to react to God's actions in the world as you would to the actions of a host of a dinner you were attending.

>>10210121
you're just presenting an ideal observer form of subjectivism. the serial killer example wasn't meant to be taken literally. basically in other words, you think that "x is good" means "an ideal observer would approve of x". in this case, the ideal observer would be omniscient.

so in any given case, two ideal observers would react the exact same way. Firth presented this the best iirc.

there are a ton of problems with ideal observer theory, but i guess i'll just pick the most glaring. when you define the ideal observer, you have to add some things. you can't just say "perfectly rational". Firth himself said something like "normal" or "impartial". many people say things like "compassionate" (to avoid the ideal observer being evil). the problem here is that it becomes circular. you say that the ideal observer would have all of the facts and would always choose the best option, and that the best option would be the best option because the ideal observer chose it. it becomes less useful the more you build into the definition of the ideal observer.

to be useful, you have to say something other than basically: an ideal observer is someone who always picks the morally right option. that is circular and useless. but the more you build into the definition, the less useful it becomes. i have no clue what a perfectly rational and compassionate person would do, because they don't exist.

>>10206771
The first point is reasonable but the second point seems very weak. How do we know that evil isn't good for us in the long run, is there really even such a thing as "evil", etc.

>>10210114
can you please explaine? you have interested me but I dont understand

>>10210158

>basically in other words, you think that "x is good" means "an ideal observer would approve of x".

That's not at all how I conceive of good.

In my view, what appears to be most rational is what what we consider to be most good.

No observer is necessary, much less an ideal observer.

>>10210177
>In my view, what appears to be most rational is what what we consider to be most good.

appears to who? you? me?

>>10210177
> If God is rational, then he would never choose what is worse over what is better, as that would be irrational.

also that statement is literally ideal observer theory. in this case the ideal observer is god. so you do agree with that view

>>10206786
Yes and yes.

Take the birth control pill.

>>10210177
also this doesn't make any fucking sense. you just switched it around. before, it was that what was good was what was rational. now you're saying that what is rational is what is good. they are different.

either way, you're being incredibly vague and it's very irritating. your use of the word "we" is annoying as fuck. my whole post was trying to understand where you think moral facts come from, and you use the word "we" as if i know what you're referring to.

Epicurus wasn't an atheist. He genuinely believes in the existence of Gods (based on tradition). But since gods, as opposed to humans, don't lack anything because they suffice to themselves and can fullfil their desires whenever they want, they don't mind human buisness and never interact with them because they have nothing to gain from it.

>>10206839
We are talking about God here, boy. What do you think? That His motus is random?

>>10210213

Human beings of course. It's a collective we.

Is English your first language?

>>10210240

It's always been 'what is rational is what is good.' >>10210058

How can you know a life without living it.

>>10210289
>Is English your first language?
are you joking? that's incredibly vague. so you define "x is good" as "a majority of human beings approve of x"?

so really it's a form of relativism. "x is good" just means "most people approve of x".

can't wait for you to come back and say "no no no no i mean (insert something you haven't said thus far that doesn't make sense)"

>>10210219

My belief in the existence of a God is entirely independent of my moral principles, which function without the need of any higher power.

>>10208633

>>10210305

English is obviously not your first language - that, or you're being obtuse. Can you seriously not see that I differentiated between 'what appears to be most rational we believe to be good' and what is actually rational? In other words, what we appears to us to be rational and good are not necessarily what are truly rational and good.

>>10210367

>English is obviously not your first language - that, or you're being obtuse. Can you seriously not see that I differentiated between 'what appears to be most rational we believe to be good' and what is actually rational? In other words, what appears to us to be rational and good are not necessarily what are truly rational and good.

>>10210386
so you're claiming that we are not truly rational, but that a truly rational person would know what is good?

if so, that's useless. unless we can figure out what being "rational" is (i think we can) then we don't know what is good.

either way you're just wrong. someone who was perfectly rational still would not know what is good without a separate faculty of morality. you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence for your case. you've just presented your view in a convoluted way. i told you why ideal observer theory and relativism and divine command theory wouldn't work and your best response was "hurr english isn't your first language" (clearly it isn't yours thought) and changing your definition altogether.

read some more about ethics and get back to me

>>10209428
>>10209444
God is truly great, philosophy btfo
:^)

>>10210412

>so you're claiming that we are not truly rational, but that a truly rational person would know what is good?

We are not inherently perfectly rational. We have certain biological attributes that inhibit our capacity to think clearly. But with time and the practice of philosophy, we can learn to become more rational, and habituate ourselves to make more rational decisions.

>if so, that's useless. unless we can figure out what being "rational" is (i think we can) then we don't know what is good.

We know what good is in proportion to how rational we are.

>either way you're just wrong. someone who was perfectly rational still would not know what is good without a separate faculty of morality.

Substantiate this claim.

>you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence for your case. you've just presented your view in a convoluted way. i told you why ideal observer theory and relativism and divine command theory wouldn't work and your best response was "hurr english isn't your first language" (clearly it isn't yours thought) and changing your definition altogether.

I've detailed a number of arguments over the course of this thread.

>>10210440

Men know that God is great through philosophy, just read Plato or Epictetus.

"For, if we had any understanding, ought we not both, in public and in private, incessantly to sing hymns, and speak well of the Deity, and rehearse his benefits Ought we not, whether we are digging; or ploughing, or eating, to sing the hymn to God? Great is God"

>>10206885
>>10206999
>>10207565
Some would point to scripture that states "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ"

>>10206771
the shortness and pain that can be life is nothing compared to the infinite joy in heaven
i geuss

>>10206786
Lol brainlet. If you have to cause pain to save the life you are not all powerful, analogy is fun for the plebbs but you just have a dick in your mouth here.

>>10208633

>>10209765
Objectivity available to God does not mean there is objectivity available to others.
>>10209768
>anything i dont like is trolling
>>10209921
I never said that God was objectively good. Learn to read

>>10210012
>its been proven wrong becuz dey sed so ;ccccccc
God doesn't care about your philosophizing, charlatan.
>it seems absurd
Sorry! God doesn't care what you think!

>>10209976
>suffering is one of the only inherently evil things,
>becuz i sed so ;ccccccccc
Back to plebbit

>>10210458
Wrong

>>10210604
>>10210600
>i'll give him a crude ad hominem of his argument, and somehow that will count as an argument!
>reductio ad absurdum isn't a valid philosophical term

it's not me who has to go back to [r]eddit friend

>>10210618
>arguments are good becuz i sed so ;cccccccc
reductio ad absurdum is only valid to shitosophers who think something not making sense in muh autistic system is a bad thing

>>10207451
>but they are not such as the multitude believe..."
yup.
God may exist and it is beyond "beyond our understanding" is a nice way of saying it is horrifying beyond comparison.

>>10207584
>hurr it actually means not what it means!
>so I can do what I want with no repercussions
You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. (John 8:15)
Have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:4)
but please, continue to larp as a self-righteous crusader and deny Christian compassion for man.

>>10210120
I want to punch everybody who calls Paradise Lost fanfic and thinks they are being clever or original. They are almost as bad as the thousands of people who think they are hilarious by reviewing the Bible as fiction on Goodreads.

>>10206771
Our definition of evil and good is wrong. How can we describe a omnipotent being

>>10210623