/lit/ - Literature

>then whence cometh evil?

the devil.

>>10866751
Imagine if God sent people to defeat evil lol. Imagine if evil is a catalyst for God's divine plan. We're 20% virus-based in our genome. All parasites will perish or convert. If they are too powerful, they will end their own existence in addition.

Read the story of Jacob. You might understand that evil is subservient, and how.

>>10866791
This, yeah.

Satan is sort of kept around as a foil to demonstrate why he's wrong about everything and God is supreme.

The degeneracy is allowed to set an example.

Also yeah, most human genetic material are bits of retroviral RNA material. Human Endogenous Retrovirus it's called. Really makes you think!

>>10866751
The Enneads

>>10866779

Why does he allow the devil to exist?

If evil comes from the devil, then allowing the devil to exist indirectly allows evil to exist.

>>10866751
Schopes
God is willing to prevent evil, but not "willing".
Annihilate the Will.

>>10866842
The devil only tempts men with evil. Offers really bad suggestions. He is only indirectly evil.

Only men are evil and God allows them to exist because he loves them anyways.

>>10866751
God has a sense of humor

there refuted

>>10866916

Loves them so much he lets them be tortured in unimaginable ways for eternity. Talk about love.

>>10866791
>viruses are evil
>viral genetic code in our DNA means viruses lost
>viruses don’t exist anymore
>this is all proof that evil is weak
>or that it exists
>read Jacob
oy vey
>>10866916
so someone who tempts you to do something suicidal isn’t culpable? then why do we prosecute those people? why is someone selling you drugs that you OD on bad but the Devil isn’t evil for temptation?
>>10866934
that would make God an evil mad deity

>>10866955
>that would make God an evil mad deity
Exactly.

>>10866969
then why would you worship him
if he’s crazy and evil (untrustworthy)?

>>10866969

Then you're not refuting the riddle, you're agreeing with it.

>>10866751
Yeah, all the church fathers and Catholic wankers going on and on about free will and the Fall and whatnot.

Try using google and search on something like epicurus god evil, before spamming the board?

>>10866945
No that torture thing/ eternal hellfire isn't even in Bible. That's heresy brought from bad translations and interpretations.

Your soul just gets permanently destroyed instead, like an atheist might imagine will happen anyways.

People have self agency and free will. If they don't have an afterlife with God, it's their own decisions. Satan doesn't force anyone to do anything and neither does God. You don't have free will if you have no competing options to choose from, so God let's Satan provide those options.

The karamazov brothers and descent into hell by Williams

>>10866791
You are a fucking retard. God created everything. God created evil. So it's in God's plan. Hence God is evil. Because, being all powerful, God could have made a plan without evil or suffering, had God not wanted to be evil.

You know all of this is shit mindgames anyway, right?

>>10866990
>Your soul just gets permanently destroyed instead

Isn't that even worse than eternal torture from the point of view of a believer?

>>10866779
>>10866821
>>10866791
Fuck off with this heresy. Evil exists because the potential for evil a necessary corollary to free will. God created the potential for evil, because the overcoming of evil is more meaningful and rewarding than an Elysian paradise. Additionally, evil is a sort of Illusion. This life is temporary. Any pain we suffer is nothing in comparison to God and his love. Because God is love, because God is being, it is necessarily painful to be separate from God. Hell is eternal separation from God. Evil is simply those actions we take that separate us from God, and the consequences of those actions. Presence contains within itself absence, and although absence is nothing, it can still be perceived and felt. Epicuras is straight up fedora level angsty.

>>10867002
God is all good, hence everything he does and creates results in the greatest possible good ultimately. Creating a world with no evil would have been less good than creating a world with Satan and man causing evil. Hence he went with the latter option. Everything God does is for the highest possible good, no alternative that you can think of is better. Remember that the true moral conception of good is different than your own pathetic utilitarian concept where good equates to pleasure.

>>10867011
Arguable. Another interpretation is being removed from God alone is eternal torment.

Also ultimately, Satan, all the rebel angels, the entire universe and everyone not already with God will be permanently destroyed, so the torment wouldn't be eternal no matter how you interpret it. You'd just be stuck chilling with Satan and the other rebel angels until you were annihilated anyways. It's right there in the Bible.

>>10866916
A horrible misinterpretation. >>10866955
is right. Understand the concept of scandal. Those who tempt others are twice culpable, for they must stand for their own actions, and the evil they brought upon others. The other person is guilty only for what they have done. It is worse to tempt, always. And this is why the devil is considered the most evil, for he is the source of all temptation. He is culpable for all sin. The truly evil wish to bring the evil out of others, so they may judge others in their failure. What they fail to see is that in so doing, they only condemn themselves further as the worst of all, for the evil was done in their name.

>>10867031
You wanting it to be logically consistent doesn't make it so. Like you wanting to believe in an ultimate good does not make it even plausibly exist.

The purpose of philosophy isn't to give you a pillow to smother your intellect in.

>>10867002
If God did not allow for evil, then there would be no choice to love him. But the act of loving God is made more profound given that we have the choice not to love him. The full presence of a thing can only be considered against it's absence. The infinite glory of God can only be truly contemplated against his impossible absence. For as much as it pains him to see us suffer, God would not deny us the ability to choose, for it is by choosing God that we can truly receive his grace.

>>10867023
>The potential for evil is a necessary corollary of free will
Stopped reading there

>>10867057
I wasn’t aware we were having an argument about the existence of the all good, all powerful God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We can have that argument if you like, but this is really a thread about the so-called “problem of evil” (a false problem invented by atheists and other pedants).

>>10866955
>viruses are evil
>>viral genetic code in our DNA means viruses lost
It means they converted and their evil ways of leechery were off. Now they work for us, as us. Imagine a virus that won... Would it survive forever, or would it devour all life? The problem is, of course, the fact that a virus is entirely one-sided being. Entirely selfish. Imagine converting something like that!
>viruses don’t exist anymore
Relatively new viruses and things like HI-Virus; which exists to punish sodomites. The evil of nature works on a larger timescale than we can imagine. The evil of actions remains, and is punished by nature if not by man. Though the timescale is longer, of course.

>>10867023
I did not move past that. I referenced Jacob so that nobody would miss the importance of human action, and the nature of evil changing from merely natural.

>>10867079
We weren't, I was saying the other poster was full of shit.

>>10867070
So this is the free will defence of suffering. If any of this garbage was real outside, God would have created suffering, simply to feed God's own ego, because without the choice and the suffering, loving God would have been less fulfilling to God.

Hence God is neither perfect or good.

>>10866751
>human logic and morals apply to divine beings

shit son you are ego trippin

>>10866916
>The devil only tempts men with evil. Offers really bad suggestions. He is only indirectly evil.
>
> Only men are evil and God allows them to exist because he loves them anyways.
Except God created knowingly both men and the devil as they are and would be. Reason+1 Religion -∞

>>10867128
the love god thing doesn’t work unless human virtues, morals and behaviors can be connected with god. Loving god makes no fucking sense at all, unless you don’t mean loving, or you’re willing to admit we have analogs of divine feeling and thought which christians are scared of because of the moral and metaphysical implications. Either way christfags end up looking retarded

>>10867057
Your logic is flawed. If God created everything, what could possibly be considered evil? That it causes harm? What is harm? God cannot be harmed, and if we truly have life after death, then how can we be harmed? If we have life after death, then even death itself cannot be considered evil, for it is merely a benign changing of states. If God is truly the creator of all things, then for something to truly be evil, to have in its essence an evil nature, then it must be against God. Knowing this, it must therefore be an act of grace and mercy that allows evil to exist, for why should God allow anything against himself? God, as the creator of all things, of course cannot be harmed, so as much as something may be against him, it cannot do him harm. Evil must then be allowed to exist for our sake. The presence of evil then must have an overall purpose of Good, while still remaining evil. This demonstrates the problem of evil is not solved by changing our concept of God, but rather changing our perspective on life. We too commonly call things evil which we feel are harmful to us, or which cause us pain, or kill us. But to believe is God is to believe that these experiences are so fleeting as to be meaningless. When we examine these experiences we come to see that our suffering is illusory: we suffer because we are afraid. We do not trust God, and so believe more firmly in the ephemeral than the eternal. As it turns out, our suffering does not truly come from the hot stove, but rather from our spiting of God. The pain of a stove is instructive. It tells us that if we do the same thing again, we will put ourselves in danger. The pain, though uncomfortable is useful. The real suffering comes from criticizing God for making it so. But God is the creator of all things. And when we follow the advice we learn from our bodies, we find great satisfaction. So what kind of arrogance must it be to say that the world would be better if it were not thus? How do we know? Have we lived with God and seen the fullness of life? Have we truly seen the alternative and what the ramifications of these changes would be? Evil exists because we choose it, because we place ourselves on God's throne and judge the world according to false standards. God allows us to do this because he is merciful. He allows this so that we may experience the glory of his creation in all its fullness. God is the creator of all things. By necessity, God is good. Reasoning shows that this must be the case. If you do not use reason to change your position, to change your perspective, then you are not using reason.

>>10867137
The devil also fell.

>>10867083
>what if God sent people to defeat evil.
>Imagine if evil is a catalyst for God's divine plan
You've moved well beyond. God did not create evil. God allowed us to do evil. The distinction is monumental. Evil is not some benign test. God is not a tempter. This suggests that our existence is simply an amusement to God, a mere game for him to play. It is not so.

>>10867174
>tl;dr

Stop wasting my time and look up the problem of evil.

If if if, if I gave a fuck I probably would read your thrash post all the way through.

>>10867168
you could make a case for a loving god if you take a father child relationship as an analogy. the child might want to drink soda and eat candy all day but the parent won't allow it for his own good, yet perceived by the kid as evil

it still means that human morality doesn't apply to God or gods but still

>>10867196

The problem of evil is not existence, but one of nonexistence. Like shining a flashlight in the dark. God created the world, for certain, and is omnipotent, but there is a reason for everything. In this case, Satan is perceived to be the leader of evil and corruption because of benevolence and crafty cunning of our lord.

When you start bringing the question of evil into the domain, Satan is necessary because it is from him that all meddling of this Earthly world originates that is intended to increase sin.

Therefore, evil exists regardless of what Good remains of the constructed.

God watches the fall of man and intervenes wherever possible.

And that's where we are. To see how far God lets evil destroy society, just look at the example of the antediluvian societies which became corrupted, or the city of Lot where almost everyone was corrupted. Sorry bud, you can't just use high school debate team logic to fathom God's existence, we would much rather you study examples and scripture throughout time.

>>10867211
>God created the world, for certain

Yeah, in your head. Which is what I was saying.

>>10867123
You are inserting your own animosity and arrogance into God's will. God is all good and all knowing. This also means that God is aware of his fullness. He cannot be made lesser or greater by the opinion of any other. A being like this cannot be selfish, for it lacks nothing. There is no craving for it to fill, for it is already infinitely full. God is goodness itself. Therefore, for anyone to have goodness, in any real sense, it must come from God. For someone to receive it from God, they must first know God. If God is Goodness, then of course he would want others to know and have Goodness. Therefore he would want people to know and have him. This could not be for his sake, for he is complete. It must therefore be for their sake that they would know him. Additionally, he would want those others to know him to the greatest extent possible. If we had not choice in the matter, we could know and love God and be fulfilled by him. But we would not be aware of this love. When we are given the choice to love him, we are given the opportunity to see him in a greater light. This is undeniably a good, and the grandness of this good so far outweighs the corollary evil that the evil is brought to nothing. I don't think you understand the scale of God.

>>10867231
I am not.

All of the garbage you are spewing comes from assuming that any such God exists. Which you basically pull out of your ass.

You can make up anything. I talk to drunks all the time, I generally try not to waste time on humoring them.

>>10867231
I really like Hermeticism, and the way Hermes talks about God, the All, in the Corpus Hermeticum doesn’t bother me. The way you people talk about God, with the threatening words, merciful appeals to him, pleading, makes me viscerally repulsed by your faith. Why is that? I like the way Hindus and Greco-Egyptians talk about Monotheistic deities, but christ fags make me want to vomit blood when they talk. Its peculiar

>>10867221
No, according to Genesis, or Aristotle.

>>10867241
Now here is where your lies are most apparent. Here we are constructing arguments, and you would rather dredge up some infographic from /r/atheism or some URL from a hasty butthurt search on Google. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you allied yourself with the forces of darkness, because here you are corrupting the youth by making them think a sardonic, plain-faced denial of faith is a quirky new way to seem intelligent.

To honestly sit here and say that the Universe is governed by certain laws NECESSITATES no God, is against all physicists. Certainly Stephen Hawking never said this. Nor did Neil Degrasse Tyson. No physicist will ever tell you that God is not real.

Likewise, some philosophers will tell you that observance of these rules actually IS evidence of God. When it comes down to a simple matter of perspective, you start to see how foolish Atheists are. (cf. Book III of Rousseau's Emile; Ch. 2 of Pareto's Manual of Political Economy)

>>10866977
>then why would you worship him
>implying I do

>>10867241
Very little, if anything can be reasoned from existence. Axioms must be granted. A position must be chosen. While I am certainly reasoning outward from an axiomatic set of assumptions, we can see what truths must be necessary if we grant those initial claims. From this, we can test our theories. We can see that when people live by one set of beliefs, we get one result, and when we live from another, a different result. The various secular ethicists can come up with as many systems as they wish, but there remains the question of mechanisms. How do you get people to not only believe that something is right, but act as though it is right. Certainly if an ideology has a strong correlation with what we can measure as good, then there must be at least some truth to it. If we consider the world that would exist if everyone followed an ideology, we can get a better sense of how good or right it is. What's fortunate is that I haven't pulled any of this out of my ass. It all comes from centuries of debate, and is deeply rooted in our culture. You are just unhappy because you don't want to be responsible for your choices.

>>10867250
It repulses you, because you don't want to take responsibility. You prefer a reality where you can live in a cave, and think to yourself and be saved. You find it more comfortable to think your actions are overwhelmed by greater forces than to think your choices are why you exist.

>>10867315
>we can see what truths must be necessary if we grant those initial claims.

Except we can't. All of what you are saying is shit that makes no sense to anyone who isn't actively trying to make up a reason for their pet imaginary supersaiyajin.

>>10867241
Ah, so again you’ve been beaten on the “(non)problem of evil” and are resorting to doubting the existence of the Creator. An absurd position, but you probably know that.

>>10867300
>blablabla the post

Come on...

>>10867360
There is no "doubt" you assmongrel. There are no non-problems, there is no evil, and there is no creator. Grow up.

>>10866751
God is the potential for all things, the eternal Source. This universe is one of the infinite universes, so "evil" is bound to exist. Do we bother worrying about how evil the world is for other organisms?

How can people think that a natural world will always be expected to have happiness, and no sadness? Knowing opposites always increases your understanding of the world. Opposites strengthen each other. They make the world more beautiful as a whole.

Imagine literature and poetry in a "perfect" world with no evil, anger, hatred, sadness, death, etc. Every work would be the same, monotonous paradise crap. This is a universe that a child wants but doesn't foresee the consequences. Atheists are such brainlets

>>10867195
>You've moved well beyond. God did not create evil
I did not say He did. Jacob and Job tackle on this subject very well.
>Jacob's brothers sell him to slavery
Is this made by God or not? No, but it serves a purpose as a catalyst for history.

>>10867329
>your choices
Hermeticism permits free will
>in a cave
the idea is that most people will take many lifetimes to be ready for Mind-Living Mind interactions and if you aren’t ready you’ll be preyed on by demons
>Saved
you don’t need to be saved there is no original sin, Man is leaving his home in matter for the celestial heights through time and theurgy.
>take resonsibility
if you don’t live a truthful, upright, godly existence the Great Demon will punish you in the interim between incarnations and eventually eat your Soul.

The idea is that one must dedicate their entire life to union with Godhead, Gnosis, Truth and knowledge. Nothing else is more important as you are literally a divine spark raising itself into the heights of being through wise dealings with becomings.

There is no savior, you have to save yourself through endless spiritual labors and faith in the All and the Mind of the All which you share a piece of and are cultivating. The metaphysics of the cosmogony of the Hermeticists provides logical motive for all the behavior of Hermeticists. The Bible is pure moralizing, and has no consideration for the World or for Truth or Spiritual activity. A man with faith who accepts christ at the time of judgement is enough. In hermetic belief he would be unworthy, and would have to continue his rounds or be consumed by the matter-demon.

>>10867389
>a natural world
Is not created. That would be a constructed world. And if the constructor was not evil, there would be no suffering.

>>10867221
>Yeah, in your head.
My head only exists in my mind, though.

>>10867383
Correct, there is no doubt that God exists. Knowledge of him is written on the very heart of all mankind. Even the smallest child knows Him.

>>10867300
>>10867374
The duality of Man

>>10867403
Fuck off.

>>10867399
>And if the constructor was not evil, there would be no suffering.
Have you ever suffered for something good? Say, you go through a long journey for rest. The rest is enhanced by the struggle.

>>10867389
but heaven is described exactly how you described the “impoverished” literature and art in the last paragraph. all christians are obsessed with heaven which is pure static being and nothing else. there is no becoming

>>10867399
If it's possible, it will be created. Spirit understand itself better when it's NATURE is unfolded. Read Hegel, pseud

>>10867359
Get your head out of your ass. First, we can easily grant that there is a Being beyond all other beings. There must be a being that precedes creation, from which all subsequent being flows. By necessity, this being must be the cause of itself. As the first being, and as the cause of itself, all other beings must necessarily be of a lesser nature. If all things come from this original being, then all things are defined in the most essential way in relationship to this being. This means that any concept of goodness must necessarily describe a relationship with the original, all-powerful being. This only scratches the surface, but if we grant such a simple metaphysical truth, there are many other truths which must also be granted in order for the first to hold. For example, if anything came into existence not by the first being, then that being cannot be the first being. This is straightforward. I'm sorry you can't handle basic ontology.

>>10867411
>heaven which is pure static being and nothing else
False. We are given new bodies, 'fit for kings'.

>>10867411
If heaven exists, it is temporary. I'm not Christian, btw.

>>10867411
Oh, and there is singing. Both metaphorically and truly. What's a divine song like! Not only do I get to hear it, I get to sing it!
What is impoverished are these soulless arguments online. If I looked at atheists the same way they view God, I would find no evidence for their minds, for my laboratory equipment finds none!

>>10867416
>First, we can easily grant that there is a Being beyond all other beings.
We can not. There. End of argument.

>>10867412
>If it's possible, it will be created.
That follows from nothing.

>>10867410
Exercise is not suffering.

Come on you fucking morons.

>>10867394
You are being myopic. Events are not so proscribed. You are removing the agency from man. You say it serves a purpose for history, but this is backwards. What comes after by necessity must relate to what came before. Had the events gone a different way, history would have been different, but equally meaningful. Jacob was not granted a place in history by God's grace, Jacob made history by seeking God's grace. The history is not the important part. It is only of secondary importance. The critical moment is the moment of choice, which you are diminishing with your fatalism.

>>10867433
>Exercise is not suffering.
Go to the army and suffer a march. That's not evil, by the way.

>>10867440
>That's not evil, by the way.

Exactly. And you have never suffered if you think that is suffering.

>>10867434
>Events are not so proscribed. You are removing the agency from man.
I'm not! I'm removing the agency from evil. It's never its own master, despite its claim to be, and the inherent desire. I may remove monopoly of evil from man. However; man remains the only conscious observer of good and evil we know of.

>>10867398
Read Augustine. He has a more concise and considered rebuttal to your gnosticism. But your language gives you away:
>you don't need to be saved
This suggests that the world is fine as it is. This means change is unnecessary. This means choice is meaningless. You say free will is still permitted, but you have stripped life of any meaning, rendering choice non-existence. A choice between two equal things is no choice at all. To decry matter at evil is to deny both the divinity and goodness of God, which unravels your entire belief system.

>>10867444
>Exactly. And you have never suffered if you think that is suffering.
There are varying levels of suffering, my lad. I know suffering plenty. Have you starved? I have; I was bullied in school (by atheists) to the point of avoiding all humans.

I don't see why a god has to be omnipotent, even if you give it a capital "G". Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? Omnipotence, like omniscience, just results in retarded paradoxes. What's wrong with a god being finitely powerful?

>>10867452
>>you don't need to be saved
>This suggests that the world is fine as it is. This means change is unnecessary. This means choice is meaningless. You say free will is still permitted, but you have stripped life of any meaning, rendering choice non-existence. A choice between two equal things is no choice at all. To decry matter at evil is to deny both the divinity and goodness of God, which unravels your entire belief system.
Exactly. It is very important to note that we Christians are meant to emulate (or ape, if you will) the savior. Not only for ourselves, but for others.

>>10867433
We're not the center of the universe. Why should good exist? So we can be happy all day? What's the point in that?

>>10867433
>No argument.
>end of argument.
The first cause argument is very well known, and some would even say outdated. Instead of saying I'm speaking nonsense, maybe you should investigate some of the common rebuttal's and see how it goes. As it stands, you're a petulant hypocrite.

>>10867465
>We're not the center of the universe.
We are, in many ways. Yet there are many centers. We are not the sole centers of the Universe.

"The Universe" as perceived is a flawed image, and always will be.

>>10867473
Hmm, maybe I should have said that individual human desires shouldn't control the universe. After all, I desire that evil and suffering exist, while the atheists would rather there be no evil. Who can claim to be right in this case, if there are benefits in both cases?

>>10867461
>Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?
Which is exactly the question, in Stephen Hawking's position, that is absolutely parallel to determining God's existence from the material observations of the world.

You just cannot do it. It's impossible to perceive. This post reeks of unintelligence, especially that last thing you asked at the end there YEUGCH

>>10867461
>I don't see why a god has to be omnipotent, even if you give it a capital "G". Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? Omnipotence, like omniscience, just results in retarded paradoxes.
Within the genus of being, there are limits. God is not bound by these. These paradoxes only exist with these axioms. God can cheat, you know. In addition to this, omnipotence is never classified as something that can do paradoxes, but as something that can do all things. Paradoxes wouldn't be things, would they?

>>10867464
In fact, it is only in doing it for the betterment of others that it is in fact beneficial to ourselves. It is in some ways an inverse to post-modern relativism. Everything remains relative, but centered on the other, instead of the self.

>>10867455
Poor little you. It is not suffering you cunt, stop crying.

>>10867465
>We're not the center of the universe.
And yet you think your made up garbage makes the world go round.

>>10867470
>The first cause argument is very well known
And it is trash. You can make up any shit at all. That does not make me have to take you seriously or humor your mental deficiency.

>>10867482
We have reached an agreement here.
>Who can claim to be right in this case, if there are benefits in both cases?
This is why we need God. I would pronounce need.

>>10867483
>>10867485
So you're saying the concept of "god" makes no sense and it's pointless discussing it. I'd prefer to say "god" means "really fucking powerful", and then you can actually talk about it. This is the standard concept of god for most of humanity's existence.

>>10867488
>Poor little you. It is not suffering you cunt, stop crying.
Perhaps I should see your head and cut it to pieces, would I find a mind? If I looked upon it with a magnifying glass, where would I find the mind? Your mind is not real.

>>10867488
>And yet you think your made up garbage makes the world go round
Well, I don't think it's impossible for a world to exist without evil, but I would definitely prefer this world, instead. My view of God is different from yours, because you seem to think that God should give us unlimited happiness all the time, while my mission is to understand God. How can you understand God if you only know one spectrum of emotions? Shouldn't you know that all things are possible, and we are within one world of possibilities?

>>10867497
>So you're saying the concept of "god" makes no sense and it's pointless discussing it
It's pointless only with certain people. These people would be those who inherently lack the definition within themselves; autists. It has been proven time and time again that there is a link between these, and I find it natural.
A blindness to higher states of being and large scale change is autism.

>>10867461
No, it doesn't result in retarded paradoxes. That you ask a meaningless question says nothing about the qualities of God. What your question reveals is not some flaw in the concept of God, but a flaw in your semiotics. The problems is not really whether or not God could lift it, but whether such a thing would still be a rock. In fact, what could such an object be? Especially considering that weight itself is an illusory characteristic that we only see from our limited perspective. The question you're trying to ask is this--If God is infinitely powerful, can he make a thing that is beyond his power? While it's still a ludicrous question, now it becomes clearer. If God created something that is beyond his power, that would inherently make it within his power. The question is invalid.

>>10867503
>Perhaps I should see your head and cut it to pieces
Bla bla bla. If you ever read anything about the martyrs or any actual history, you would know your petty middle class babby hardships have nothing to do with suffering. JFC.

>>10867509
I just don't assume things I would like to be real are real. I haven't since I was 6.

>>10867512
All arguments involving omnipotence are like the "proof" that 1 = 2, where you sneakily divide by zero.

>>10867522
>Bla bla bla. If you ever read anything about the martyrs or any actual history, you would know your petty middle class babby hardships have nothing to do with suffering. JFC.
No, my suffering is quite literally described as a punishment from God.

>>10867530
Fuck off you selfcentered twat.

>>10867525
>1 = 2, where you sneakily divide by zero.
I find it ironic that Einstein did this when he attempted to run away from inherent randomness and a clear beginning for the Universe.

Omnipotence is an interesting phenomenon, and its relation with fatalism and determinism should be explored. However, these babby tier arguments online do in fact follow Einstein's methods. Sneaky.

>>10867488
>the first cause argument is trash
If it's so trash, why don't you actually counter it, instead of making invalid claims. Any ontological debate grants at least one participant the ability to put forward an argument on preliminary and conditional grounds, the conditions being that the following arguments will support it. Your refusal to acknowledge the argument by saying "you can't just make shit up" is literally meaningless. If you're not going to take it seriously, I can only wonder why you remain in this thread. You're essentially walking into a room where people are having a civil debate, and turning over the tables, because you think they're using the wrong kind of carpet. I've used no jargon, and I've presented my argument in a valid, if casual, form. You're a fedora.

>>10867514
thank you for ending this meme. We're dealing with weak minds ITT

>>10867532
>Fuck off
Nah.
>you selfcentered twat.
Wait, I can't be punished by God, even though word for word something from the Bible is happening to me? Oh wow.

>>10867417
yes pure static being, not even thinking anymore christfag
>>10867427
yes which is temporary and impoverished of opposites or becoming
>>10867422
no by definition of the christian metaphysical tradition it is eternal, i don’t care what you are you fucking retard
>>10867452
>read Augustine
why not give me your understanding of the view he took? i don’t have time to read Augustine
>this suggests that the world is fine
The world is fine but its also too dense for the spirit and the spirit has to gradually move itself upwards through many incarnations of a soul
>gnosticism
its not gnosticism at all you dumb fucking christfaggot, its Egyptian esotericism from the late New Kingdom and early Antiquity, it was conceived anywhere from the 7th-3rd centuries BCE and has parallels in Demotic scrolls of Thoth giving instruction to his disciples from the 7th-9th century BCE, its the teachings of the Egyptian hierophants given to the Greeks who were seen as legitimate successors to them culturally. The church viciously repressed it then and later in the Renaissance
>this means choice is meaningless
no because morality isn’t the basis for all things happening you wicked emotionally manipulative sociopath. the world is good, but organisms suffer the more they involve themselves with matter, man is great because he has a soul and is able to strive upwards, his duty is cultivate the spiritual ecology of all life and to ascend progressively to demi-god status until he becomes literally a divine being unto himself and can look the All in the face unashamed as an equal
>you have stripped free will of any meaning
no because you will get worse incarnations each time you fall into matter and evil behavior, the more you let lower instincts command you, the more you will resemble a dumb animal. Hermeticists see most people as dumb barely sapient animals who are basically cannibalistic and insane. Eventually your soul disintegrates and is swallowed by matter and you become just another element of creation instead of an agent of Mind.
>a choice between two equal choices
that’s your idiot interpretation christnigger
>to decry matter as evil
ITS NOT EVIL IT IS THE SUBSTANCE USED TO MAKE CREATION AND IS NOT WORTHY FOR THE DIVINE MIND AND MUST BE ENLIVENED WITH THE SPIRIT UNTIL ALL BECOMES PURE MIND AND THOUGHT YOU FUCKING FAGGOT
>it denies the goodness of God
no God is good because God is the One, and God creates all life and death. Only the all-knowing and all pervading can be good, evil is divisive and adhesive, it holds light within it and devours it, matter is a resistor in the circuit of becoming and people must use it as a gate to pass into higher states, its a conditioning device, those who are not ready will fall into it. Evil is less pronounced in this system as a lack of knowledge is considered evil, it strongly parallels Socrates’ view of nature and metaphysics to the point where on wonders if he didn’t go to Egypt.

>>10867525
Can you really be so dense? Omnipotence places a greater burden on the theist. It isn't chosen to make things easier, but because it is necessary. It is the granting of omnipotence that even brings rise to the problem of evil. That's literally how this thread started. So you want to say that if God is not omnipotent, he is not God, while also saying that an omnipotent God is an underhanded cheat of an argument? That is cognitive dissonance par excellence.

>>10867558
>yes pure static being, not even thinking anymore christfag
>yes which is temporary and impoverished of opposites or becoming
Not at all. It is a new world, a new creation. We partake in God, who is life. God is not static. Heaven is not static. Creation is not static (in fact, it's still going on).

Your gnostic limits are nothing to me.

>>10867558
>Heaven must be eternal because the Bible says so, even though I don't believe in the Bible. Any other argument is too much for my atheist brain to handle
It's amazing how many atheists are just like this

>>10867578
It's a symptom of autism. You see the same methodology everywhere these days.
>/pol/ judges entire nations based on averages, never questioning if the average is at all fit to represent the whole
The inability to understand premises is a symptom of autism.

>all this rambling and barely anyone actually attempting to answer OP's question
Protip: he's not asking for our opinions.
>>10866751
Yes, the problem of evil has historically bothered a lot of monotheists and especially Christians. Answers to the problem of evil are called "theodicies" (singular theodicy) and there have been plenty of them. Among some of the individuals who have answered this are Augustine, who argued that evil doesn't actually exist as a thing and is simply the absence of good, and Leibniz, who argued that the existence of evil produces the best possible world for human flourishing. But there are way more approaches than just those.

>>10867576
you’re a psychotic person talking like a cartoon character, this is what your faith has brought you to:

by definition heaven is unchanging spirit and not the dynamic becoming of matter and energy. your own fucking theologists say this over and over. you find union with god and have to ADORINGLY praise him without failure for all eternity. You sit in heaven after being a good boi forever and suck his balls like the faggot that you are. Its a slave existence of unchanging bliss. Much less noble than even the nibanna of the buddhists
>>10867578
the only thing that makes sense is if Heaven is eternal. there is no other explanation for where God would be or what happens at the end of the world. Wherever you go when you die is it, there is no annihilation so there can’t be an after heaven and there also can’t be another existence because you’re deathless

>>10867600
>you’re a psychotic person talking like a cartoon character,
I'm not psychotic. I've been tested by science. I'm a heavily depressed individual without access to good emotions. such as love. Now you can go read from Paul what that amounts to.
>this is what your faith has brought you to:
>by definition heaven is unchanging spirit
Then why are we given new bodies?

>>10867600
>ADORINGLY praise him without failure for all eternity.
Heaven is considered a marriage. What kind of marriage should end? What kind of marriage is static?

>>10867600
At first, there was the Source (God).
Then there was creation.
If All is returned to the Source, what makes you think this will remain unchanged? Why didn't the Source remain pure forever, with no creation? If God is eternal, then this creation sequence is a blip in time, and leaves us wondering why it exists when it exists, and why it exists at all. God is a great circle, running from beginning to end forever.

>>10867617
because the physical form is a form of becoming, its has functions and failures. a spiritual light body is pure being, it is unchanging spirit. you literally become a monad, a mirror for god’s beauty in heaven forever. you are not given organs and there is no ecology or neccesity otherwise god’s kingdom would be another place of labors, tears and trials but its not. its a place of eternal bliss and rest, love and happiness. that’s a horrible fate to anyone who isn’t so world-weary and weak willed they’ve decided to make a magic externalized giga ego to replace their nonexistent sense of self
>im not psychotic
>i am depressed
almost the same thing

>>10867558
It is Gnosticism. Also Manichaeism. It has been known by many names, always with a different flavor based on the man who makes it popular. Now you call it hermeticism, because it makes you feel like it is some hidden truth that has been ignored by the shortsightedness of material man. But always it takes the same form: There is a divine, spiritual godhead who is all loving, and then an evil, corrupting demiurge. They are fighting for supremacy. Material existence is both test, and battleground. We can only live with the godhead when we have given up the flesh. It's childish and inherently broken, as I already pointed out to you. The existence of a demiurge means that Godhead is not divine, is not omnipotent. You must stop looking for the substance of the divine. God need not dwell in time nor space as we do here on Earth. He is beyond such qualities.

>>10867644
>a spiritual light body is pure being,
Our spirit is separate. Our new bodies are not our spirit; our spirit is cleansed. Our bodies rot and we are created new ones; just as a new Genesis will occur (though not the same).

Heaven is a party, a celebration. Static? It's not like your parties.

>>10867591
I've not seen that view of autism before. Could you describe it more?

>>10866751
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

>>10867644
>almost the same thing
No. Psychotic people see and hear things that aren't true, and react to them in an extreme manner. They can be quite frightening. If you take psychedelics and have a "bad trip", that can result in a psychotic state. Depression is very different.

God is just Will. It's not a rational being, creator of existence, but the intrinsic essence of every thing that constitutes our world as representation, all that can't be explained or reach with our reason and instincts. God is the platonic world of ideas, he's the essence.
The only value of abrahamic religions are their poetry.

>>10866751
>is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent
arguments that rely on undemonstrated presuppositions like evil has no value aren't arguments worth refuting

>>10867655
You know that state that children have, when they take their favorites and compare them? Autists are stuck on that level, but without the inherent goodness of childhood, such as the transcendent knowledge.

>>10867659
This is a good defense for the Biblical God but
this>>10867671
is the truth, and effectively ends the thread

>>10867679
I'm still not sure what you mean. When you say they take their favorites and compare them, how does this differ from two restaurant critics debating who makes the best risotto? Or two tennis players debating which company makes a better racket?

>>10867671
>a reductionist religion
ishygddt

>>10867696
How can the belief that God is the ultimate will behind every representation we touch with our instincts or reason reductionist? Everything in this world, including our consciousness is just a shade of God.

>>10867693
>When you say they take their favorites and compare them, how does this differ from two restaurant critics debating who makes the best risotto?
The restaurant critics have something else in their lives; transcending the mere favorite. Unlike those fighting the "console wars", collecting the Sonic toys, preaching atheism or larping their favorite religion.

>>10867701
>X is just Y
This is the principle flaw of reductionism. The ship of Theseus.

>>10867709
I'd love to hear your non-reductionist explanation for existence

>>10867703
In addition to this, the critics can understand, and often even utilize vivid imagery and allegories. The autist is incapable of understanding any allegories, figures of speech, traditions, poetry.

>>10867723
All that can be said and done, and far more. Transcendent is the cheat word we use to describe these things, symbolism is our new language.

>>10867737
>an incoherent religion
ishygddt

See how easy that is?

>>10867709
I'm literally defining God as the holistic essence of existence.
That's literally the antithesis of reductionism.

>>10867748
>See how easy that is?
It's not incoherent. Speech is not the sole coherence in the world.

Explain this image to me in words, without any loss of knowledge.

>>10867754
I just wanna hear why you think
>>10867671
is wrong, without using labels as argument

>>10867767
>I just wanna hear why you think
You can't. I can't explain the color blue to a blind person.

>>10866751

God allowed free will as the one exception to his omnipotence because he deemed it a greater good for the people in his universe. A consequence of free will is evil and suffering and injustice. God has deemed that a reasonable price to pay for the greater good of free will; that is, that most people CHOOSE to do good make free will a better ultimate good.

>>10866751
>whence cometh evil?
>what did evil come from
>implying that evil is something currently present that comes from something
>implying evil has being
Evil has the ontological status of a big fat 0. So that's one criticism.

Besides, presuming the existence of evil requires moral objectivity. The omnipotent being defines what morality is. Thus any action of his is, by definition, good. He could only be considered "not in line with my own interests" in which case get over yourself

>>10866751
>Implying one can understand the totality of God's goodness

>>10867809

>dude when you experience pure evil it's just god loving you lmao you just don't understand

>>10867802
If God is not in line with my own interests, why worship him?

>>10867812
Have you experienced pure evil?

ITT:
>u just don't get it
>u cannot know nuffin
>let me redifine evil
>muh free bill

>>10867812
I've never seen any pure evil.

>>10867824
Reducing things to a greentext format that aligns with your narrative might be fun, but you will never approach truth.

>>10867824
>redifine evil
What's the definition, by the way?

>>10866751
The solution is looking at evil like atheist looks at God. Pretend that it doesn't exist.

>>10867818
>>10867827

Me? No, I'm a well off neet. A guy in town came back to find his wife and (infant) daughter raped and murdered tho.

>>10867843
Did the rapist choose to do so, or not?

>>10867023
Good summa-ry!

>>10867849

Who gives a shit? The guy was devastated and ate a bullet. Guess he's in hell now for that and you agree with it.

>>10867023
>Epicurus is a fedora
>because he wrote things that wen't against my meme religion
>despite the fact he wrote them before my meme religion existed
Christians are so incredibly annoying.

>>10867864
>Who gives a shit?
You ought to? Was the event evil or not? "I don't like it" doesn't make it evil. I'm quite certain the rapist liked it.
If the rapist didn't choose a thing, why do you tell of this? Did you choose to say it or not?
>The guy was devastated and ate a bullet.
I see.
>Guess he's in hell now for that and you agree with it.
How is your belief on {my supposed beliefs} relevant in this?

>>10867814
Reason cannot prove that God loves you. If you accept the definition of God argued in this thread, all you really know is that God created you and that he has the capacity to destroy you. If you value your own life, you can worship him out of thanks for giving it to you or out of fear of him taking it away. If you don't value your own life, then you don't have any reason to worship him.

>>10867876

Are you going to try and argue that raping and murdering of two people an infant included is not pure evil? Good on you, but I won't bother responding anymore.

>>10866751
I think the problem is the assumption that if God is all good and all powerful there should be no evil. If that were the case human beings wouldn't have free will (since they'd have no choice but to do good) and therefore goodness itself would cancel itself out. Since if everything is good then nothing is.

>>10867864
>The guy was devastated and ate a bullet
The guy experiences the mercy of God and was allowed to live another day but chose to end it; betraying God's forgiveness. Losing faith when faced with tragedy is the ultimate cowardice.

>>10866751
Advaita Vedanta. India had tons like him too. God isn't malevolent/good because humanity isn't.

>>10867600
Your interpretation of Heaven is not based on actually Christian theology. Christians believe that Heaven is a waiting room for the End Times, when Christ will descend to Earth, bodily resurrect all of the dead (including those in Heaven) and summon everyone who has existed throughout all of time to the Last Judgment. The wicked are then cast into the fire and the justified experience the New Heaven and New Earth for eternity with God. I recommend you inform yourself before embarrassing yourself.

>>10867896
>Are you going to try and argue that raping and murdering of two people an infant included is not pure evil?
What is evil? Did the rapist not feel good? Did the rapist not fulfill his strong will? Or was it merely event patterns among others?
Or was there a choice, a deliberate bringing about of suffering for the wrong reasons? Wrong reasons on what grounds?

Or perhaps yet, this is merely a behavior that is unsuitable for society or the larger population, so they have mechanisms to remove this thing.

Where is evil? Where is good? You tell me, and I'll solve the problem of evil to you.

>>10867918
Don't be too harsh on dead people.

>>10866791
>>10866821
>>10866866
>>10866916
>>10866934
>>10867002
>>10867023
>>10867031
>>10867052
>>10867083
>>10867128
>>10867195
>>10867231
>>10867329
>>10867389
>>10867403
>>10867412
>>10867416
>>10867427
>>10867452
>>10867465

BTFO by Epicurus. CBA to read the rest.

>>10868058
I hate people who waste their life by ending it. All cowards too weak to appreciate the miracle of life and spirit. If only I could bear the life that others waste, I would happily oblige.

>>10868123
>evil beings should persist in the world because muh miracle of life

>>10868278
>>evil beings
I don't know where you pulled this from. I didn't mention it and the person I replied to was talking about a guy who an hero'd.

>>10866751
god only cares about atoms colliding and stuff, human morality is meaningless to him

>>10867869
>oh yeah, well can your God do this?
>proceeds to fuck an armchair
>heh, I thought so
Throwing up your hands and ignoring all rebuttal is the essential characteristic of a fedora, no matter when they lived

>>10867647
its not Gnosticism, there is no evil demiurge. The divine mind is looked at as the One and only begotten. Matter is not explicitly evil, even in some Gnostic sects its not thought of as evil. Reality is not a test, its an ascent and a Great Work. The Freemasons derived their teleology from reading Hermeticism and Alchemy.
>we can only live with the godhead when we’ve given up the flesh
first, the christians necessarily believed matter will be left behind in heaven, heavenly bodies are not made of flesh and bones. Second, matter is properly cultivated and reformed by the spirit, takes on purer types as one ascends, finally becoming superfluous. This can only be attained by abstaining from lower behaviors that race back downwards in the evolutionary chain of becoming, such as lasciviousness, envy, ignorance, avarice and rage.
>its childish and inherently broken
no, its sensible. Matter serves a purpose for the soul’s development. The All isn’t a psychopathic semitic demon, who demands constant whimpering and pleading to be contacted. Divine sight has to be cultivated and a constant turning inwards towards mind so that the Divine Mind can be resonated with is necessary.
>the existence of the demiurge means that God is not divine
The All requires a vehicle for becoming, Mind is this vehicle, its no different than the stolen Logos of the Platonists that the christfaggots added to their theology as Yeshua. Divine Mind is not evil, its the great passage to spirit and catalyst for evolution upwards in the chain of becomings. There is nothing evil about Nature, the Cosmic Man (the Adam Kadmon or Oversoul), Mankind or the Divine Mind. There is no ultimate evil, the Great Demon is in existence to take people from life for the next cycle and to facilitate people’s descent or ascent through being. The Demiurge of the Gnostics is a different thing entirely based on Sophia’s aborted child and overwhelming desire for Cosmic light.
>you must stop looking for the substance of the divine
Mind is not a substance
>God doesn’t dwell anywhere
the God of the christians isn’t even the Absolute I would never throw away my humanity submitting to some Jewish-Greek Pagan european-Phoenician demon thing.
>he is beyond such qualities
high off of the faith, gigantic pseud posturing about books he hasn’t read
>>10867654
nothing has been said. heaven is static in the sense that there is no more becoming. Its just God, being and spirit perfected, adulation or union, it needn’t matter for the purposes of soteriology and cosmology. There is an end to time and history in Christianity. Without evil or becoming nothing can happen.

Christian sophistry looks like Neo-Nazi sophistry which is interesting. The same incoherence, inability to reason with good faith.
>>10867670
underage b& or low iq
>>10867671
Will and the One are not the same thing, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer reject Idealism

>>10867814
How do you know that you are in line with your best interests? What is your end game? How do you know that's the best possible outcome?

>>10866821
>replying to yourself

>>10867709
1. You act as though a reductive argument is inherently flawed. It is not.
2. That's not what Theseus' Ship is. A dilemma is not an argument.

>>10867023
>corollary

nice attempt at looking smart.

>>10868516
>no demiurge
>the great demon
Mysticism is non-rational. Trying to fully rationalize mystic intuition is a futile effort. The tower of Babel cannot stand.

>>10868095
No u

>>10867031
>playing with brain legos

>>10868561
Define good objectively. Pro tip: you can't.

>>10867211
>just look at the example of the antediluvian societies

How would anyone do that? Even if they existed and they don't, Christian apologists seem to believe they will never be uncovered. All the Bible says about them is they are wicked. Its really rather much a bore.

>>10867241
Christians demonstrate time and time again an absence of any theory of mind,

>>10868580
No, we're not doing that. I'm just saying, nothing you said is philosophically rigorous or relevant. Its a bunch of assumptions that might only work to convince someone who is already a Christian.

>>10868543
> or not."


It really means a proposition necessarily resulting from a previous demonstration, distinct from the conclusion of that, but yet to which that is applicable, and no intermediate step requisite.
>A natural consequence or result
>A gift, gratuity; money paid for a garland
fingerguns.tif

>>10868513
Epicurus wasn't a fedora because he wasn't an atheist, to begin with.
He agreed that Gods existed, he just defended that they didn't care about human beings, so to achieve happiness you should just ignore them, hence why the term "Epicurean God" exists.

>>10867748
>abstract and incoherent are the same thing

I don't think I have enough of these to cover the whole thread

>>10868596
That's where you're wrong bucko. I'm not the guy you were replying to, and as much as his argument didn't take a rigorous form, it's a satisfactory summarization of valid arguments. Also, the thread was begun by an Epicuras quote--resolving the issue of evil given an omnipotent and benevolent God is the issue. If you cannot grant, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent god is benevolent, then your argument is circular. In a slightly clearer form:

It is claimed a creatir God is all powerful and all good. If god is the creator of all things, and is all powerful, and all good, then goodness can only be defined in relationship to God. Therefore, what we percieve as evil either cannot be evil, or is allowed to exist for our greater benefit.

This does not prove God, which is not the intent. The intent is simply to resolve the idea of evil, given the acceptence of an all powerful, all good creator god. If you want to be convinced that such a god and such a universe does exist, you can perform a simple experiment. Simply try living as though this is true, and viewing your problems as though this is true. If the world looks clearer and your life gets better, then you will have weak support for the existence of God. But again, whether God exists is not the central argument, but rather does this argument deny the existence of such a God, which it clearly does not.

>>10868599
Because that has any effective difference. Will you actually try and say that the Epicurean view of uncaring Gods is not equivelant to the atheist view that tge universe is determined by uncaring forces?

>>10867754
Death is stasis

>>10868657
The atheist view is that there are no deities, as in, rational beings with divine status.
Epicurus didn't share that view, hence he's not an atheist, hence why your retarded fedora meme is even more retarded than normal.

>>10867918
This is actually true.

God is unbelievably kind to those who turn to him. And you can even experience real change in your life from it, as well. It's very interesting.

But technically, he can be, and has been, brutal as all hell. He's not evil, just very severe when he needs to be. Truly he is the greatest judge (cf. The Holy Bible, The Koran)

>>10868671
>getting this worked up about semantic equivalents
What separates the physical forces from a deity, in their effects? Both concepts describe a force beyond complete human understanding that shapes existence. If these forces are indifferent to human existence, then to what extent can it matter what they think, or even if they think? As regards morality, ethics, and all human behavior, the Epicuriean view of the gods has the same result as the atheist view of physics. More importantly to this discussion, though, the nature of a Fedora is not in their position, but in their attitude and behavior. There are plenty of non-fedora atheists. Additionally, whether Epicuras could be called a Fedora is still beside the point of whether or not posting this quote of Epicuras, or defending it, as a weak argument against God in any kind of earnestness is Fedora, which it most certainly is.

>>10868642
I would merely contend that an Abrahamic conception of God doesn't meet that platonic ideal. A personal being that recognizes things that happen as being somehow odious and which punishes it cannot be the ultimate divine principle.

It was never, ever, ever, ever valid. You only think it is valid because you are an uneducated moralizing dumbass who thinks an infinite being must fit your moral constructs. You basically want God to be your suburban nextdoor dad neighbor, you bourgeois pseudo-socialist adolescent cunt.

>>10867869
Go are teenage alt-right atheist retards who need to go the fuck back to plebbit

>>10868714
Platonism is garbage you fucking pagan fuckwad

>>10868714
It reinforces the Abrahamic God, rather. The Pythagorean 'monad' summarized what the God COULD be, the Abrahamic religions refined that understanding.

Religion is a science.

>>10868587
There is no mind. Why would we at all associate with garbage ideology?

>>10866826
this is a good answer

Also I would say Consolation of Philosophy, which is basically just rehashed platonism, but the last part is focused on this I think

>>10868714
You need to get rid of your consequential sense of God's punishment. His law is not like our law, which rests over a population as a pattern to be followed. Rather, as is additionally necessary, God's law is like a law of nature, or rather, the laws of nature are a subset of God's law, which underpins reality itself. To disobey God is not the same as disobey a parent. Disobeying God is a metaphysical act, meaning that you are not punished because he doesn't like what you did, but rather suffering is an intrinsic property of the consequences of your actions. When you fall, you feel pain. When you touch a stove, it burns. When you lie, you become less able to see and feel good. The revelation of the law is not a pronouncement, as some kind of legislation, of what is now licit or illicit, but rather the granting of awareness of which things are good and which things are bad (i.e. which things will result in overall satisfaction and joy, versus those things which will lead us to pain and torment). God cares little for your standards. From whence do they come?

God isn't real lol

>>10868749
The Commandments are just a revealing of the state of nature, as God created it for instance?

To be sure, to SOME degree, for the interpretation of these laws and the commanding and distributing of them, a fair amount of comprehension of the CULTURE of the time would have to be necessary (which we are to suppose God in his all-knowing wisdom could easily do). In other words, love permeates the laws we see that are created, because God is merciful and lenient.

>>10868713
They're not semantic equivalents because Epicurus philosophy isn't equivalent to atheism no matter how hard you try to fit your meme.
Atheism is fundamentally materialism and denies the existence of God out of blatant empiricism. Epicurus doesn't deny the existence of God and his philosophy is still idealist (he also considers science a waste of time), he simply says that in the pursuit of happiness, man shouldn't bother with God because it's clear that God isn't involved in every single person life on an individual level, OP's quote isn't meant to deny the existence of God, it's meant to show why you shouldn't focus your life in the veneration of God or in ascetic, religious ideals.
Atheism and Epicureanism are not equivalents in any way, shape or form.

>>10868764
You are shifting the goalposts. I did not say the totality of epicureanism is equivalent to empirical atheism. Rather, I said that the Epicurean view of the gods is effectively indistinguishable from the material atheist view of primal forces. Effectively, as in "in their effects". That Epicuras values pleasure most of all while atheists value utility most of all is irrelevant to whether their position leaves them with effectively the same view of the cosmos.

>>10868760
>says that after he sees what is happening today

>>10868800
What is happening today? I know what didn't happen on September 23rd of last year.

>>10868763
No. God is not lenient, he is righteous. Mercy is forgiveness, not leniency. Furthermore, there is no interpretation of law, only understanding. It is not there to be wielded, but to be followed. Doubtless, most people in trying to understand the law engage in interpretation, but there remains a correct reading.

I am hesitant to agree with you in any of your points, however, because I get the sense you are trying to weasel in more of your Gnostic heresy, and find ways whereby Christianity can be syncretized with other faiths.

The law is not created, because God is the law. The law is.

>>10868798
>Effectively, as in "in their effects"
So even though they're two points of view that belong to two systems of thought that have nothing to do with each other means they have exactly the same effects, good to know.
The only effect they have in common is that they don't support worshipping God, but the cause, reasoning and purpose are radically different from one another.
But I guess that's all that matters to you, everything that's not being a fundamentalist means you're a fedora cuck.

>>10868822
>the bible tells people not to take something literally
>people take it literally
>when it doesn't come true, it's used as evidence against God
c'mon, you're better than this.

>>10868831
? What, do you not believe in the Abrahamic god or something?

You can easily reconcile Platonic morals/systems with the Abrahamic god.

>>10868841
Evidently you aren't however. Are you saying a retard being president portends the end of the world? Actually are you saying the end of the world necessitates God? I don't know how to tell you this but nobody thinks the world is going to exist forever, least of all materialists.

>>10868838
They're not so radically different as you suppose, is the point. The difference between science and magic is vocabulary. Epicurus says the gods are clearly uncaring, so don't bother with them, live for pleasure. The materialists say God is clearly uninvolved so don't worry about it, live for utility. But what is utility? It can only be measured by material contentment, by dopaminergic reactions in the brain, or in simpler terms--pleasure. The causes they have for not believing in god are the same--where are his effects? The reasoning is the same--we cannot see him and he does not touch us. The purpose are the same--live for your own meaning, as measured only by what you can touch, taste, see, hear, feel. But I guess you're forgetting that Epicurus lies at the foundation of Western empiricism.

>>10868847
You think you're clever? It is not Christ that is reconcilable to Plato, it is Plato that can be reconciled, in part only, to Christ.

For another, it is disingenuous to call the Christian God the Abrahamic God. Even the remaining Abrahamic religions have a different conception, and the ancient Abrahamic pantheons would hardly be recognizable today. You cannot hold all traditions. While all humans have reason, and thereby MAY have come to SOME truths, it is illogical to suppose that all people can lay claim to Truth, and more illogical to assume that your interpretation of dead faiths is anything more than your own confirmation bias.

>>10868853
I'm a different guy. I'm not saying this is the end times. I'm simply saying that someone clearly misinterpreting the bible is not evidence against the bible, and you should know better than that.

>>10868874
>The materialists say God is clearly uninvolved so don't worry about it, live for utility.
That's not what materialism is, or what "materialists" (as if it was a monolithic school of thought) say.
And atheists don't deny the existence of God to seek pleasure, not to mention that your definition of pleasure has nothing to do with the Epicurean conception.
> But I guess you're forgetting that Epicurus lies at the foundation of Western empiricism.
For something that has nothing to do with his religious points of views. He's an important figure in science because he's a precursor to the scientific method.

>>10868911
>I'm a different guy

>>10868920
He's a precursor to the scientific method because he taught people to believe only what they could see, touch, feel, hear, etc. In other words, he was a proto-empiricist. A materialist is anyone who believes existence can be reduced to matter, and that all other phenomena are a consequence of the interaction of matter that do not have any being on their own. In other words, one who believes everything can be reduced to what can be touched. Furthermore, Epicurus did not advocate for hedonism. He simply defined what is good as what is pleasurable, and what is bad as what is suffering. His aim was to end suffering, not maximize pleasure.

Go listen to Sam Harris for a few hours. Hopefully it won't take you that long to realize they're the same. And that is what I mean by their effects. The resulting ideas of how to live your life are practically indistinguishable. As in, if you followed one, you would almost certainly make the same choices as if you had followed the other.

>>10867070
>If god did not allow for evil, then there would be no choice to love him
Why not create a world where there is still a choice without evil? He can make the world literally any way he wants and allows mass atrocities? Most retarded excuse i've heard, god if real cannot be good by human standards of good if he is omnipotent.
>The full presence of a thing can only be considered against his absense
Once again, this is only the case because by your own definition of god he allowed it to be that way.
>God would not deny us the ability to choose
The world itself denies choice from large numbers of people, babies dying before they can comprehend their surroundings don't get to make a lot of choices, this is once again preventable by god if he so "chooses."

Face it, if god exists he is either not good by our common definition of good, or he is not omnipotent.

>>10866751
Malevolence need not be the reason a god would not prevent evil, if he were to prevent it in its whole that would simply remove will from man

>>10869061
>by our common definition of good
That is not, and has never been, the argument. You have chosen a poor hill to die on. What is the common definition of good. If it is so common, then how does evil exist? Certainly if were all in agreement about what was good, no one would have any reason to do evil. There wouldn't even be a consideration of evil. There wouldn't even be a conception evil, because we would all be of one mind when it came to the matter of goodness. If someone does evil then how is it measured? We may say he does evil, but does he say he does evil? If he doesn't think he is doing evil, then how can we say he is doing evil? How do we say our common conception, from which only he is excluded, is actually right, while his conception is wrong? In fact, for any concept of goodness to exist, it must be given a source outside any conception of it. Therefore what is good, if it exists, cannot rely on man's conception of it. Your objection is meaningless.

>>10869099
Certainly not the entirety of the will of man though, because man can have will without evil.

The point is, that God allows Satan and other fallen angels who pervert people to exist. This is proof of God's lenience.

>>10869122
is this Christian specific?
I'm not well versed on this but it seems to me that man's nature compels him to conflict and to commit deeds both good and evil. Would you consider Homeric Zeus malevolent in causing strife in the world of men, when he is acting in accordance to the obligations of his honour?

>>10869143
No, I'm a Muslim. It is said Muslims do not believe in fallen angels, then so be it.

Whether Satan be a Djinn or a fallen angel, he affects everyone on Earth, including you.

>>10868531
Reductionism is just less than reductionism, and that is exactly what the ship of Theseus is.
>the ship is just wood and nails

>>10866779
Then whence cometh the devil?

>The devil always was.

Like God, because they are two sides of the same coin.

>>10869151
The thing is, though, that it's not just shaytaan that causes us to fall from what is good. Our very animal selves, our nafs, leads us to fail if we let it.


The muslim attitude to evil is not simply one of "the devil did it", it's much broader than that.

>>10869209
Thesues' ship is a thought experiment. It has no single solution. Saying the ship is just wood and nails could be part of an answer, but alone is not a sufficient response. If it is just wood and nails, which ship is Theseus', the one with the same wood and nails in the same position, or the one which was continuously a complete set of wood and nails in the same position? Does replacing one nail or piece of wood cause the ship to lose the property of being Theseus'? If not one nail or piece of wood, how many? If the second ship gains the property of being Theseus', when and how does it gain that property? Is simply the metaphysical superposition of a future ship where they will build the new ship sufficient? If so, when does this ship begin, at its conception, or across all time? Is the ship the wood and nails themselves, or is it the recognition of their relationship? If x and y have the same properties, they are equivalent. It could be valid to reduce the Theseus' Shipness to just the wood and the nails as they were before any were removed. You are conflating things that are wholly unrelated.

>>10867178
He did as he was made to do.

>>10866751
there's no need to refute the quote, since it's a strawman to begin with