/lit/ - Literature

There are many answers to this.
One possible answer is that evil was created so humans could overcome it.
Read the "City of God".

damn dude, you solved it
we can all go home now and we should totally disregard the whole corpus of writings spanning from the deepest recesses of India to the sandy shores of Egypt and the frigid glaziers of Norway that have been dealing with this issue since the inception of human civilization

Boehme says the Fall was necessary for God to evolve to a more perfect form.

>>11806133
What do you mean? I'm clearly posing a question for discussion. If you have an opinion provide an argument instead of this waste of space post.

>>11806131
Why do we need to overcome it?

>>11806135
Interesting af. Could you expand on this?

Would you rather have stayed forever with your parents, coddled and taken care of, never facing any responsibilities and never growing up?

If you'd answer yes... well, that was the Garden of Eden. We fucked it up. So now we have the free will to do whatever we like, and have to accept the responsibility for our actions too. God isn't coddling us anymore.

>>11806150
>We fucked it up.
Which only could have happened if God intended it to in the first place.
>So now we have the free will to do whatever we like, and have to accept the responsibility for our actions too.
Free will seems highly unlikely to actually exist to me but whether it does or does not isn't the point of this really. Responsibility is a pretty weird concept to nail down in a cosmic sense.

>>11806145
>Interesting af. Could you expand on this?

Paradise was unreflective, he needs pain to become a conscious of himself, God doesn't just create the creature but becomes it

make like marquis de sade, go crazy, fuck and murder everyone

Nope. He might merely *permit* evil to occur in order to achieve some overriding good.

>>11806160
>Responsibility is a pretty weird concept to nail down in a cosmic sense.
It's just a family unit in a greater scope of things. God is the Father (and mother), and we are all His children.

Would you upset your mother by being evil? If you sinned, she would be sad for you but can't do anything about it since you're an adult and must make your own decisions in life. You won't have her hovering over your shoulder and spanking you for every bad choice or crime or naughtiness - and you won't have God do it either.

>>11806173
It still happens according to His will which solidifies intention. If God wanted things another way, they would be that way. They are this way because this is the way He wanted it. He is all powerful and doesn't require evil in order to achieve good.

>>11806167
This jives with some other stuff I've been reading lately. But, why is it that pain and happiness don't seem to be equally balanced? Humans have a much greater capacity for negative emotion than positive emotion.

>>11806125
Evil is the privation of good. It doesn't exist in the positive sense in which God willed it.

With that, evil exists somewhat like a cavity exists in a tooth.

God didn't intend for evil to occur, but He can clearly bring ot a greater good by allowing that evil to occur (where evil is a result of sin).

Somit seems you've conflated "intent" with "allowance."

>>11806125
Evil is a social construct that humans created when we deceloped consciousness. Nature/reality is indifferent. Sorry you have a pleb brain.

>>11806167
>mutable God
Grotesque.

>>11806205
>God is the Father (and mother), and we are all His children.
Are you a Christian? Scripture denies that all human beings are God's children. Only those who accept Christ are God's children according to Paul.

>Would you upset your mother by being evil? If you sinned, she would be sad for you but can't do anything about it since you're an adult and must make your own decisions in life. You won't have her hovering over your shoulder and spanking you for every bad choice or crime or naughtiness - and you won't have God do it either.
This whole analogy makes no sense. God is not some mortal mother - He is the all powerful definer of all things, both reality and unreality. He could do something about it, if He chose. He can do whatever He wants. Things are this way because this is the way God desired them to be.

>>11806227
Whether or not it is positive is inconsequential.

>Somit seems you've conflated "intent" with "allowance."

When you are all powerful intent and allowance are the same thing.

>>11806266
>God is not some mortal mother - He is the all powerful definer of all things, both reality and unreality. He could do something about it, if He chose. He can do whatever He wants. Things are this way because this is the way God desired them to be.
But then we would be zombies with no free will. We need to have the choice to pick ourselves, or else we'd be no better than animals. God CAN do it, sure, but the bad consequences would far outweigh the good.

God creates Man in His own image. God makes decisions, but since He is perfect, he only makes the right ones. Man has free will and the capacity to make decisions like God. But since the Fall, Man is a sinner. Unlike God, Man is not perfect, and so he chooses evil sometimes.

Further discussion questions:
> [1]. Why didn't God create Man completely in His image, i.e. why isn't Man perfect like Him?
> [2]. How do you explain evil that is not the work of Man of Nature? (Sick babies that die).

My tentative answer to [1] is that, logically, God could not create Man thus. There could be only one perfection (the Creator). See Anselm.

[2] is much harder to answer, I believe. God created the Universe with certain Laws. Usually, He leaves His creation alone, and lets it the Universe unfold according to these Laws and according to Man's Will. He can intervene at anytime--he can cause miracles. Yet, miracles are infrequent. Why they are infrequent, I don't really know. Perhaps, as some above have suggested, it is for Man to strive towards his perfection (in the sciences and applied sciences). Perhaps, God refrains from intervention out of respect for His established Laws.

[2] certainly requires more thought.

>>11806214

>It still happens according to His will, which solidifies intention
I disagree. They are not coextensive, viz. you can have one without the other.

So for example, I permit a dentist to cause me some pain because it'll ultimately result in my having healthier teeth, but I never intended that I'd suffer that pain. It's just necessary to achieve the ultimate good of healthier teeth - I cannot have healthier teeth without the pain. Now of course that leads to your next objection - why would God need to permit bad things to achieve ultimate good?

>If God wanted things another way, they would be that way. They are this way because this is the way He wanted it. He is all powerful and doesn't require evil in order to achieve good.

This is where a free will defense is typically made. It's briefly as follows: God wants us to come to him *freely*. By definition, He can't force us to do something freely; that notion is a contradiction. So, it's possible that he permits evil such that some come to Him that wouldn't do so otherwise. Seems perfectly possible to me, after all, it's often when people are suffering that they cry out for God, rather than when all is rosy.

Now I'm not saying that the above is the truth, just that it's possible. As long as it's at least possible, there's no hope to rule out God's existence merely by pointing to evil. You'd need to *show* (yes, you, since it's you making the argument and therefore taking on a burden of proof) that the God couldn't have morally sufficient reasons to permit some evil.

>>11806125
The secret at the heart of the world is that evil/negativity is there to be converted precisely to positivity. The alchemical process of changing lead to gold can be compared to this. It’s not just an allegory for the transmutation from the unenlightened to the enlightened/saved man — it’s also a cosmological allegory. The whole world is God’s alchemical laboratory in which he’s raising up conscious souls like him from the void. This is out of love for His creation and desire for others to partake in His beauty. The transmuted negativity is itself a higher form of goodness than that compared to unreflective and unchallenged goodness.

>>11806125
I see no issue. Evil never occurs.

>>11806214
>If God wanted things another way, they would be that way
God cannot do what is logically impossible (He cannot makes squares that are also circles). I tried to suggest here>>11806283
how evil is a logical necessity (in the actions of Men). What do you think?

>>11806297
>What the fuck did you say, you pathetic cockroach! Why don't you just spare us your fucking thoughts and kill yourself already, dumb faggot!

>>11806266
>When you are all powerful intent and allowance are the same thing.

So you're saying the will of God, who is goodness itself, desires evil?

>your mind on nominalism

>>11806125
The good that we will have at the completion of time is much greater than the good we would have if there was never any evil.

>>11806309
Maybe. But on the whole, existence of evil certainly weighs down the total amount of virtue in the world.

>>11806281
I used to hold to the free will argument too, but it's a bad one for several reasons.
1. If God is all powerful He could give us free will without having to allow the existence of evil. To say otherwise is to imply that there is some logic above God that He has to pay service to. In reality of course, God is above all logic, and in fact logic emanated from Him and is below Him. He is not constrained or limited by anything, including reason.

2. We probably don't have free will anyway.

>>11806283
Again, this actually attempts to make logic "God", instead of saying that God is God. If there is something above God that He must pay service to, that thing is then God. This is not the case. God is all powerful and supersedes logic itself. Indeed, logic is His creation.

>>11806285
>So for example, I permit a dentist to cause me some pain because it'll ultimately result in my having healthier teeth, but I never intended that I'd suffer that pain. It's just necessary to achieve the ultimate good of healthier teeth - I cannot have healthier teeth without the pain.
This example only works because you are not all powerful in this situation. If you are all powerful it immediately fails.

I've made posts against free will above so please refer to those. However, I do need to point out two things:
> it's often when people are suffering that they cry out for God, rather than when all is rosy.
Plenty of people cry out to God when things are "rosy" because they remain unsatisfied. Read Ecclesiastes, the Hindus, the Buddhists.

> just that it's possible.

It is not. See above.

>yes, you, since it's you making the argument and therefore taking on a burden of proof

Burden of proof is on anyone making any sort of claim whatsoever. It doesn't fall on the person who decides to "move first", it falls on everyone indiscriminately.

>>11806331
> God is all powerful and supersedes logic itself. Indeed, logic is His creation.
No, I disagree. Any being at all must adhere to logic. For example
> God is Himself
> God is either perfect or imperfect.
These are necessarily true, whether the Universe exists or not. It's not right to think of God as being subjected to something. That there is an actual "thing" above Him. I am not suggesting that. What I am saying is that there are rules (very general and innocent ones) governing existence. If God is the Creator of anything at all, then either He creates X or doesn't, for example.

>>11806286
Pretty beautiful but you're basically accepting what I said, which is that God desires evil to exist.

>>11806297
Very interesting. Continue.

>>11806300
Again, this is false because it subtly makes logic into God and relegates God to a servant role.

>>11806308
Never heard of nominalism.

>>11806309
Sure, but that has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

>>11806328
>If God is all powerful He could give us free will without having to allow the existence of evil
How can something be given that contradicts itself? How can you offer someone the ability to be wet without offering them water?
>We probably don't have free will anyway.
OK, then that response was determined before you wrote it. Since that logic is based off a faulty system, I can imply it's reasoning is also faulty.

>>11806352
>What I am saying is that there are rules (very general and innocent ones) governing existence

That's not all you're suggesting. You're suggesting that God is bound by these rules. You're wrong, He is not. He is the one who made the rules and indeed, we will never fully understand Him not just because we lack the required depths of faculty, but because He surpasses understanding itself.

>>11806366
>How can something be given that contradicts itself? How can you offer someone the ability to be wet without offering them water?

The very notion of a "contradiction" is defined by God in the first place. Read the other posts.
>OK, then that response was determined before you wrote it. Since that logic is based off a faulty system, I can imply it's reasoning is also faulty.
What do you mean?

>>11806362
God is a Being. He is the ultimate being. Logic governs the rules of being.

If you truly do not agree, then explain how God could do something logically impossible. I mean, for example, how could God create X and at the same time not create X.

God's power is still logically possible power. It's coherent.

Just so you know, my position is the standard and accepted one. I'm no heretic.

>>11806373
see >>11806384
God is above understanding. That doesn't mean He is logically incoherent. All that means is that we are finite.

>>11806362

So you're saying the will of God, who is goodness itself, desires evil?

Are you saying that God desires evil? See how this is utterly inconsistent?

>>11806379
>What do you mean?
A determinist argument that states everything that happens within the human mind is simply the result of chemicals interacting defeats itself. If you are willing to admit that your brain lacks any agency outside of physical circumstances, then you're admitting that argument itself comes from a faulty system. In other words, deterministic arguments live in a self-defeating loop.

>>11806384
>God is a Being. He is the ultimate being. Logic governs the rules of being.

Wrong. You're attempting to place limitations on God. No limitations exist.

>If you truly do not agree, then explain how God could do something logically impossible. I mean, for example, how could God create X and at the same time not create X.

You're thinking about this in correctly - the premise you're giving me assumes that God is within logic's frame. That's not the case - rather, it is logic that is in God's frame. God can do something logically impossible because it is from Him that such things as "logic" and "possibility" arise in the first place.

>Just so you know, my position is the standard and accepted one. I'm no heretic.

Relax, there are no stakes here.

>>11806391
>God is above understanding. That doesn't mean He is logically incoherent.
Yes it does.
>All that means is that we are finite.
Not necessarily, no.

>>11806348
Think of it this way: why do so many anons focus on Job: because
A) the Abrahamic god is ‘the one’ of Proclus, or Aristotle’s Monad: the primary mover
B) it addresses the problem of evil

The issue to explain it was with Leviathan and Behemoth

Leviathan was described as something unassailable, impenetrable, and Behemoth was described as someone who is simply given everything he wants.

Very important you pay attention to this argument because it describes a concept integral into this universe:

God would let Satan control the world just to prove a point: that no good would come of it, in the end, those two monsters are really examples of one paradigm trying to choose a prophet but failing: because in the end, Leviathan is indestructible. This is the moral of Job

Evil exists to show where NOT to be. And in future paradigms, perhaps it won’t exist so much as it does now. Take note that very soon all wars will be fought on the basis of Good and Evil, and that reality is a continual progress towards perfection. Humanity was in the dark when God First came to the Israelites, but soon enough they will see: it was never Gods intention to segregate based on race of religion: this is what it says in the Quran.

this thread is abysmal and just screams prot—subsequently nominalist—understanding of God

>>11806396
That makes no sense. What makes the system "faulty"? What does that mean?
>If you are willing to admit that your brain lacks any agency outside of physical circumstances, then you're admitting that argument itself comes from a faulty system.
This statement is a non-sequitur.

>>11806395
God is beyond good and evil.

>>11806413
explain further. I don't consider myself a nominalist to any degree.

>>11806409
Alright, suppose there were no limitations on God. Then necessarily there would be such limitations! Don't you see? When we say that
> concerning God, everything goes
then we can start saying the exact opposite
> God is finite
> God is imperfect
> God is X
Either God is these things or He isn't

>>11806412
You never actually answered the question. It's actually built in to your premises that this is what God desires.

>>11806413
Care to explain?

>>11806425
You're not getting it. You're still trying to act as though God is bound by logic and that you can use logic to "pin" His nature down. You're wrong, and you never will. God is not an object that can be "understood". He surpasses all understanding.

>When we say that
> concerning God, everything goes
>then we can start saying the exact opposite

Here you said something profoundly wise without intending to.

>>11806416
> God is beyond good and evil
No, Freddy, He isn't. God is perfect; God is good.

>>11806416

>>11806281
We ARE animals

>>11806431
>this is what God desires
Yeah okay. I mean, people have died fighting for their belief. God desires a greater plan to be shown through their lives and deaths.

God killed a portion of the Israelites for simply doubting him, while he was with him. Just shows you how severe your doubt can be, nothing new in this case with yours. :/

>>11806444
You're placing limits on God. Also, this concept is much, much older than Nietzsche.

>>11806456
Glad we agree.

>>11806442
> He surpasses all understanding.
There is where we disagree. I think we'll both agree that God surpasses complete understanding. But God sent His Son in order for His Will to be revealed. God certainly expects that we try to understand something of Him.

I still maintain that God is "subjected to" logic. I don't think you should read anything into that. It simply means God has some properties and not others.

>>11806416
>God is beyond good and evil.
That's where you're wrong.

God is goodness itself. Specifically, He is pure act, the subsistent act of being itself. God being goodness itself, love itself, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. are all finite reflections of God's essence which is existence, or should I say pure act.

God isn't so powerful that he can create a square circle, because He would be making nothing, or even something that is illogical (remember that Christ is the Divine Logos, the order of the universe).

There's a reason why classical theists (and particularly Catholics) say that being is synonymous with goodness. God is "to be" itself and that is synonymous with goodness. Evil is the privation of good, and it not a positive type of existence, but rather like a hole or cavity that is ontologically dependent upon a positive existence, or goodness. If God is pure goodness, it's not a stretch to say that His will cannot in anyway shape or for desire that which is evil or nonexistent (like a hole in the ground). His will cannot intend for evil. But God can allow for it and by His omnipotence, He can foster a greater good.

>>11806448
Why waste the time?

>>11806125
Morality is not an illusion if you are a human being with at least SOME empathy. If you have some empathy, then morality exists.

Also there is no God, but whatevs.

>>11806472
>Also there is no God
Glad you got it all figured out.

>>11806125

>>11806487
Not everything, by all means.

But i'm fairly certain about that one specific claim.

>>11806467
Hey! someone in the thread agrees with me!

> GENESIS 1 : 1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

So God has "limitations", namely, "God refused to make heaven and earth" is false.

>>11806466
>There is where we disagree. I think we'll both agree that God surpasses complete understanding. But God sent His Son in order for His Will to be revealed. God certainly expects that we try to understand something of Him.
Saying that God surpasses understanding does not mean that nothing will ever be understood of Him, it means that nothing that is understood of Him is understood fully and that He will never be fully grasped. All we understand of God, insofar as understanding can be described, is that which He has chosen to manifest within that frame of understanding.

>I still maintain that God is "subjected to" logic. I don't think you should read anything into that. It simply means God has some properties and not others.

You have removed from God His all-powerful nature and therefore we no longer agree on the premises. At this point we can't continue until this is resolved.

>>11806467
>God is goodness itself. Specifically, He is pure act, the subsistent act of being itself. God being goodness itself, love itself, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. are all finite reflections of God's essence which is existence, or should I say pure act.
God is all these things, but He is also beyond all these things. He is beyond existence itself.

>God isn't so powerful that he can create a square circle

Yes He is. God is all-powerful. Whenever you start to wonder something, and it starts with "Is God really so powerful that..." the answers is yes.

>(remember that Christ is the Divine Logos, the order of the universe).
Think about what you just said here.

> If God is pure goodness, it's not a stretch to say that His will cannot in anyway shape or for desire that which is evil or nonexistent (like a hole in the ground). His will cannot intend for evil. But God can allow for it and by His omnipotence, He can foster a greater good.

All these points have been addressed in previous posts. Notably:

>But God can allow for it and by His omnipotence, He can foster a greater good.
He also could have not done it that way if He chose.

>>11806145
u know god fearing is a thing right u edgelord

>>11806494
> But i'm fairly certain about that one specific claim.
It is not logical to doubt the existence of a perfect being. See Anselm

>>11806472
This is literally a non-point. Why try and make some claim about God's non-existence in what is obviously a theological discussion?

>>11806491
I'm a theist bro. Clearly you've made some false assumptions about me.

>>11806502
I've been scared of my Father since the day I met Him.

>>11806472
Oh no it’s one of the ‘I can create muh own meaning and morality’ ledditors

>>11806425
>explain further. I don't consider myself a nominalist to any degree.

I think it's OP, who is spewing a mega nominalistic view on God's will. It delves in more so to Divine Command Theory.

The Euthyphro Dilemma:
>something is good because God wills it.
or
>God wills something because it is good.

It's either anything willed by God is good, including rape, murder, etc. (what we would call evil) or goodness is above God.

It's retarded...

>>11806501
>You have removed from God His all-powerful nature and therefore we no longer agree on the premises. At this point we can't continue until this is resolved.
I haven't "removed" anything from God. Being all-powerful does not mean you can do everything under the sun. It means you can do everything that is logically coherent.

Suppose God could remove his own power. Then He would no longer always be all-powerful, contradicting his eternal quality.

>>11806512
The claim is making a false assumption about God existing in order for the main point of morality's existence. The two are mutually exclusive. I commented on the main point, but rejected the premise.

>>11806522
never said that

>>11806532

Being all-powerful does not mean you can do everything under the sun. It means you can do everything that is logically coherent.

Yep. Anyone that does not recognise this is not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

>>11806532
>Being all-powerful does not mean you can do everything under the sun.
Yes it does. You implying that this isn't the case is absolutely nonsensical. You are asserting the term and then denying the definition immediately after.

>Suppose God could remove his own power.
He can.

>Then He would no longer always be all-powerful
If He was unable to do that, then He wouldn't be all-powerful in the first place.
>contradicting his eternal quality.
My point exactly.

One other comment.

> I am who am

God is clearly "limiting" Himself here. Namely He is not saying

> I am who am not

>>11806551
You might want to look up the word omnipotent.

>>11806552
see >>11806558

OP, your statements have some problems. You first claim that the only reason evil could possibly occur is if God intended for it to occur. Prove that. I would argue that God is powerful enough to allow things other than Himself to exist, e.g. all of creation.
You also go from an unqualified assertion about the reason evil exists to an equally unqualified and disconnected conclusion that morality is an illusion. How does that follow from the previous claim? Even if it were the case that the only way evil could exist is if God intended it, that wouldn't justify your conclusion that morality is therefore an illusion.

>>11806558
Jesus is also God choosing to limit Himself. This doesn't remove His omnipotence, rather it is a demonstration of it, for He is the only being with the luxury of choosing His own limits. Rest assured that God remains above not only His self-inflicted limits, but above limits in general, not just as a set but as an entire concept.

>>11806496
This is literally a non-sequitur.

>>11806570
>Prove that.
I did. It follows from omnipotence.

> would argue that God is powerful enough to allow things other than Himself to exist, e.g. all of creation.
Good so far.

>You also go from an unqualified assertion about the reason evil exists to an equally unqualified and disconnected conclusion that morality is an illusion. How does that follow from the previous claim?
It doesn't follow, I was just stoking the fire for discussion.

>Even if it were the case that the only way evil could exist is if God intended it, that wouldn't justify your conclusion that morality is therefore an illusion.
Correct.

>>11806552
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP025.html#FPQ25OUTP1

Read through this; God cannot contradict Himself.

>>11806507
that's literally retarded thinking. Perfect beings do not exist, but I can't doubt their existence? The fact is that there is no proof for a god or afterlife, and it is not logical to believe in those without proper scientific evidence.

>>11806581
I'm glad we're on the same page for most of it. However, I do think that you're still ignoring the simple difference between allowing and intending.

>>11806572
God is beyond all physical limits. He is not beyond logic itself.

Even when you say, God is omnipotent. You are placing a limit on what He is. Namely that He is, rather than that He is not.

When you say God is all-powerful, you are saying He is not weak.

When you say God is perfect, you are saying that He is not imperfect.

When you say God is, you are saying that God does not not-exist.

I don't know why you interpret the word "limit" the way you do.

>>11806589
Have you ever read Anselm's proof? What part of it do you disagree with?

>>11806589
Aquinas first way, please stop

>>11806597
I'm not a fan of Anselm's ontological argument; it seems to contrast God and man by merely degree, rather than kind.

>>11806597
I have not read Anselm's proof. Looked at it on wikipedia and literally started laughing, but it's wikipedia so maybe it's not accurate.

>>11806561
You might want to avoid sourcing theological definitions from a big-standard dictionary

>>11806589
>>11806597
I'll just assume that you haven't read it, nor will you ever. So I'll take the liberty of repeating here.

> 1. God is good and perfect
> 2. For a good thing, existence is a perfection
> 3. If I believe God does not exist, then I can think of something more perfect than Him
> 4. Namely, I can think of a God that does exist
> 5. But this contradicts God's perfection

Please state which step you disagree with. For those familiar with it, you'll notice I have taken a certain liberty to modify it, while keeping the general gist of it.

>>11806584
Correct, but you're missing the point. Not contradicting Himself is a limit that He Himself has chosen to abide by.

>>11806591
The difference ceases to exist when you reach a certain point of agency. I am also glad that we're mostly on the same as well though, thank you for the good discussion.

>>11806594
>God is beyond all physical limits. He is not beyond logic itself
You're wrong. God is indeed beyond logic itself.

>Even when you say, God is omnipotent. You are placing a limit on what He is. Namely that He is, rather than that He is not.
Wrong. "Being" is not a limit. And if God desired, He could just as easily not be. God is above the categories of existence themselves.

>When you say God is all-powerful, you are saying He is not weak.

These two statements are not equivalent, so no, that is false.

>When you say God is perfect, you are saying that He is not imperfect.

These two statements are equivalent, yes I agree.

>When you say God is, you are saying that God does not not-exist.

Yes.

>I don't know why you interpret the word "limit" the way you do.

Go on.

>>11806594
He is not beyond logic because He is logic. John 1:1.

>>11806628
You might want to avoid reusing your opponent's quips.

>>11806640
He is and is also beyond. God is Love, and the Law, and Good, and Truth, and the Way, and Life, and He is also beyond all categories of thought. He is beyond thought itself.

>>11806616
I understand that sentiment. But I do think it maintains a difference in kind. God is "off the spectrum of perfection". If you think of perfection as being assigned a number, then God is beyond any number, he is completely perfect, and therefore infinitely perfect. So I think it does maintain a difference of kind (finite vs infinite).

>>11806644
You might want to avoid changing the subject when your point’s been refuted

>>11806637
So the limit is higher than God, for it dictates Him, regardless id He chose to abide by it.

Your conception of omnipotence is weak.
See
>>11806525
Specifically the Euthyphro Dilemma.
With your concept of God's will and power, yoy run into this lose lose situation; it's simply untenable

>>11806636
Literally every one of those statements is false. That doesn't prove anything, it's just building a pyramid of false claims on a foundation of shit.

The foundation of proving God's existence cannot be "God is good and perfect" because we are not assuming God exists. That's totally backwards logic and laughable.

>>11806671
See:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2b7ekInWOMw

God is pure act. It's unavoidable

>>11806653
I wouldn't say beyond because there's no way for us to prove that. I would say that He is the highest, fullest possible example of love, law, good, truth, etc.

>>11806589
You can't say there's no proof for a god or afterlife. Strictly speaking you cannot know that kind of thing.

>>11806525
Missed this earlier. I think that Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma, because I deny the categorization. It already assumes that God and good are separate entities. That being said:

>something is good because God wills it
Is not logically inconsistent, although it might be uncomfortable for us. While:

Wait, you didn't even correctly present Euthyphro's Dilemma. This isn't the Dilemma. The dilemma is: "Is that which is loved by the gods loved by the gods because it is god-loved, or is it god-loved because it is loved by the gods?"

>It's either anything willed by God is good, including rape, murder, etc. (what we would call evil) or goodness is above God.

This isn't what the Dilemma implies at all kek. It's hilarious that you managed to misconstrue it to such a severe degree

>>11806589
Also your reliance on scientific evidence is a major weakness. Prove that logic and mathematics exist using science. If you can't you need to either rethink your position or cease using logic and mathematics.

>>11806681
>I wouldn't say beyond because there's no way for us to prove that.

It follows from omnipotence. You could figure it out just by thinking about the universe for a while though.

>>11806664
Post you're quoting that attempts to reference the Dilemma is ridiculous

>>11806636
Fellow theist here. This is terrible argumentation. Please don't use it. You're not helping.

>>11806637
> Go on.
When you see a word like "limit" you need to still interpret it. In this case, I interpret it to mean bound physically. You additionally say that it means bound logically, and hence to be limitless to be not bound by logic.

I'm not sure if I'm eroding any of your ideas, so I'll leave it with this.

God is grace and truth (John 1). There are rules about truth. Namely that truth is not false. Also, the law of noncontradiction, syllogisms, and the like. Necessarily, logic governs what is as well, since what is, cannot be false. God exists. He is a being, the ultimate being, but a being nonetheless. That means there are certain limitations (logical ones) to God. For example, either God will do X or not do X; whether God is Y or not Y. These are logical limitations, but not physical ones. Anyways, thanks for discussing--this is certainly one of the more interesting discussions I've had recently.

>>11806704
Instead of chiding him you should explain why its wrong.

>>11806700
No, it does not follow from omnipotence. If it did, you would be allowing for the possibility that God could, in some instance, actually be evil.

>>11806671
Oh my goodness, your reasoning is poor. The first proposition is the definition of God. It cannot be "false". We don't know that God exists yet, it is true; that is the whole point of the prove.

If you think the other steps are false, explain why

>>11806704
> States his point of view without supporting it.

What step do you disagree with?

>>11806689
Yes, yes I can know that kind of thing. The same way I can know there is no boogyman in my closet, or that dragons don't exist.

>>11806637
Can you elaborate on what you mean by saying that the difference ceases to exist at a certain point?

>>11806693
I deny the dilemma too. But the dude I was replying to is a Divine Command Theorist, cuz he's saying shit like "God can will evil, but it's not really evil then" or He's somehow comfortable with gid willing evil.

And there's different forms of the dilemma you tard; whoda thunk it?

And It does imply that...


Again, I don't buy into the dilemma, cuz I don't believe in divine command theory. I am posing it, because the dude I'm replying to seems to be; thus I am showing him why it's problematic.

>>11806732
You would have to have complete knowledge of everything in order to know that there is NO proof of god or afterlife. In fact you'd have to be God to know that kind of thing.

>>11806696
>reliance on evidence is a major weakness

Science and mathematics only work as evidence because they coincide with logic and truth. Give your head a shake.

>>11806732
I get the gist you try to be "scientific" without much understanding of what science is. Science is probabilistic knowledge. It is always revisable. You don't "know" that dragons do not exist.

>>11806712
>When you see a word like "limit" you need to still interpret it. In this case, I interpret it to mean bound physically. You additionally say that it means bound logically, and hence to be limitless to be not bound by logic.

You're half-right. The problem is not that you're interpreting limit differently, it's that you are deliberately choosing to only partially interpret. You give a specific case of a limit: the physical case. I am giving the general case of limit, which includes the physical, metaphysical, etc. specific cases.

>God is grace and truth (John 1). There are rules about truth. Namely that truth is not false. Also, the law of noncontradiction, syllogisms, and the like.

Yes, you're describing logic. All you need to point out is the Law of Nontradiction and the Law of Causality. All logic follows. Regardless, who do you think made this system? It was God. He could have made it another way, if He chose.

>That means there are certain limitations (logical ones) to God.

Incorrect. You are removing God's omnipotence, and I'll say the same thing I did earlier to another anon - at this point we can't progress further because we have different premises.

>For example, either God will do X or not do X; whether God is Y or not Y. These are logical limitations,

You really need to consider what a limit is and how it relates to God. Read this post:
>>11806572
Who made limits? Where did limits come from? Where did logic come from? Everything has the same Daddy at the end of the day, corporeal or not, abstract or not.

>Anyways, thanks for discussing--this is certainly one of the more interesting discussions I've had recently.
Thanks to you as well.

>>11806721
> If it did, you would be allowing for the possibility that God could, in some instance, actually be evil.

Not necessarily, no. Ability does not immediately translate to possibility - actually this is one of the conditions of omnipotence being fulfilled. God is not a dice roll.

>>11806741
I don't know all things, true. But I cannot be called upon to prove a negative (i.e. Prove that God DOESNT exist) because that argument a pit of nonsense where anything I conjure up in my mind is true because it can't be unproven. Proving negatives is not logical. If you make a claim that something exists, you have make evidence for it, not turn the burden onto the skeptics.

why would existence follow from perfection

how does something existing or not bump it up a notch on the "good" scale

>>11806774
I take it that it is obvious. I mean, would you rather have an imaginary gf or a real one? Which one is better? Do you see?

>>11806733
Sure. What I mean is that the distinction between intention and allowance only exists so long as you have limited agency. For example, maybe I don't like my daughter having candy past 9 PM and if's not my intention for her to have it. That being said, some nights I might cave and allow it. Why? Because I get something else in return - she's more compliant, goes to bed better, etc. The important thing here is my relative lack of agency. If I had full, 100% control of all things, my intention and allowance would cease to be distinct, because I'm only "allowing" what I intended in the first place.

Another example is if I draw a perfect square on a chalkboard. Did I intend for it to have four equal angles, or did I allow it to? The right answer to the question is that the question is a false duality. There is no distinction. I could say "Let x be", a statement of permissiveness, or I could say "X is equal to", a declarative, and it doesn't matter because they mean the same thing, because I am "all-powerful" with respect to these abstract forms, my own creations in a relative sense.

Now, what did God say back in Genesis 1?

>>11806774
Although I see your point. I don't think you can find justification for it. You either agree or don't.

Can you think of a case where it would be obviously wrong?

>>11806739
>And there's different forms of the dilemma you tard; whoda thunk it?

What you described isn't Euthyphro's Dilemma, its an entirely different construction.

>>11806763
>But I cannot be called upon to prove a negative
>Proving negatives is not logical
Prove that it is not true that married bachelors exist lmao

>>11806799
Sorry for not being pedantic enough champ;

still what i posed and what the picture poses is an issue

>>11806743
Please don't misquote me.

Science presupposes logic and mathematics. My point is that not everything can be proved to exist using science.

>>11806801
that's silly and you know it.

>>11806757
You're using logic to argue something that, according to you, exists outside of or beyond logic. You don't see a problem with that?

>>11806362
>Very interesting. Continue.
It's rather those who believe that evil occurs, who have to prove that it actually does. I don't see evil occurring. I see books I read, I see my girlfriend meowing and my cat sukcing my dikc, I see my coworkers every day. Wtf is that "evil" you're all talking about ?

>>11806804
>Sorry for not being pedantic enough
It's not about being rigorous or not rigorous, you're just straight up wrong. Also you misunderstood me completely if you thought that's what I was suggesting. Thanks for bumping at least, I guess.

>>11806763
We bear the burden of proof for the claim that God exists. If you claim that God does not exist, you bear the burden of proof for that statement. I didn't make up the rules.

>>11806818
Damn, that was an absolute waste of my time.

>>11806807
Depends on what degree of science, I guess, but I'll grant you that science isn't necessary to prove EVERYTHING.

Like I can look at my keyboard and tell that it's real. A peer can look at my keyboard and confirm it is, in fact, real. No science needed - just eyes and hands.

The point is, if I see a leprechaun on my keyboard, I cant just say it exists and expect my peer to accept my delusion. I sure as hell can't say "Prove that the leprechaun DOESN'T exist!" as a valid argument for my delusions.

>>11806821
I did not make the claim god doesn't exist, the claim was made by OP that god does exist in the first post. Nice try turning the tables but that was pretty weak.

>>11806811
Trivial yes, silly no.

Clearly you've never done proves in math, either. There are many times where you would prove a negation.

>>11806815
No, actually my entire point is that I see a problem with that. Outside of being cheeky though, I'm glad that logic is built in with the functionality to recognize its own limitations. It's a nice feature. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the God of all things.

>>11806838
married people and bachelors both exist. They are simply classifications of people, not something exclusive from a human being.

I don't think you understand what I mean by proving a negative. First the claim has to made that something exists, but instead of proving it, you ask skeptics to prove the negative of it. That is illogical and nonsense.

>>11806833
This is the only time I'll step into this argument:
> the claim was made by OP that god does exist in the first post.
I put forward no such claim.

>>11806844
No, he's right. Any claim whatsoever has to be proved regardless of how you arbitrarily choose to categorize the claim. The fact that you don't understand this intuitively and immediately means that you're a brainlet.

>>11806788
>would you rather have an imaginary gf or a real one?
>>11806796
>Can you think of a case where it would be obviously wrong?

On the good side I see where someone would be like "oh if you're hungry would you rather have a real sandwich or a fake one" But then could you not just go ahead and say "Would you rather have an imaginary perfect demon or a real one to maul your face?"

My problem is that why am I now suddenly adding/subtracting to this supposedly perfect entity's "perfectness" by my subjective experience of it? Why would its function or effect on me change its own enclosed perfectness? Is a perfect gf perfect because I need a gf right now? If I didn't need a gf would this perfect gf cease to be perfect even if she was real? And if I don't need a gf why would it matter whether this hypothetical perfect gf was real or not?

I just have difficulty wrapping my head around why existence/non-existence changes the status of a "perfect" thing if it was in a vacuum with no observer to deem it "good" for them or not.

>>11806858
>any claim whatsoever has to be proved
>can't prove existence of God claim in first post

please, tell me more. Take your time.

>>11806877
>Take your time.
Think I'll take you up on that offer.

>>11806880
see you never, dumbass

>>11806877
God's existence is proven by Aquinas's first way.

>>11806863
>
My problem is that why am I now suddenly adding/subtracting to this supposedly perfect entity's "perfectness" by my subjective experience of it? Why would its function or effect on me change its own enclosed perfectness? Is a perfect gf perfect because I need a gf right now? If I didn't need a gf would this perfect gf cease to be perfect even if she was real? And if I don't need a gf why would it matter whether this hypothetical perfect gf was real or not?

I just have difficulty wrapping my head around why existence/non-existence changes the status of a "perfect" thing if it was in a vacuum with no observer to deem it "good" for them or not.

This is actually an ncredible point. Good fucking work.

>>11806886
>>11806863
>My problem is that why am I now suddenly adding/subtracting to this supposedly perfect entity's "perfectness" by my subjective experience of it? Why would its function or effect on me change its own enclosed perfectness? Is a perfect gf perfect because I need a gf right now? If I didn't need a gf would this perfect gf cease to be perfect even if she was real? And if I don't need a gf why would it matter whether this hypothetical perfect gf was real or not?

>I just have difficulty wrapping my head around why existence/non-existence changes the status of a "perfect" thing if it was in a vacuum with no observer to deem it "good" for them or not.

This is actually an ncredible point. Good fucking work.

>>11806145
>>11806125

What doesn't make sense is that, why would God punish us in times less or from a historical perspective not as "bad" as say current times in terms of deaths, evil in the world? Why does it center around the arab lands and Mediterranean without showing a full scope outside of this?

How is it that God can send messages back then, but not now when religion itself is stagnating? Better yet how can he sit idle when his very own representatives are committing some of the worse atrocities against innocence?

If you say the work of the devil? Why does he allow the devil to exist? And why is the Devils influence greater then, and how is it that God chooses not to change such influence?

If you can honestly answer me this, I will believe in a CHRISTIAN God, but until then I think we can very much have a God and its very plausible as it is inbuilt in us to succumb to a hierarchical or patriarchal figure, but I believe its origin is similar to a grand designer whom to see and test functions which it can't arbitrarily understand creates us to test upon in the image off? Much like a programmer, programming a character to life.

hence limitations until updates are injected and why a vision can be obscure and manipulated. My only proof.

>>11806789
I apologize for the late reply but I'm wrestling with Anselm's argument. It's so wacky.

Anyway, in the example of the daughter having candy, I thin the why element is irrelevant. I would say that God has the potential and ability to have 100% control of all things, but that He consciously chooses to limit that control and to allow things outside of Himself a degree of agency. The way I see it this is a necessary consequence of creation. In order for us to have agency, God's agency has to be retracted to a certain degree. Of course, at any point He could exert that full control. If you have a daughter, you are necessarily allowing for the possibility that this daughter will disobey you.

In the example of the square, I would say that you are neither allowing or intending the square to have for equal angles. Having four equal angles is a definitive characteristic of squares. In creating a square, you are necessarily creating four equal angles. In creating man with a mind, emotions, and a will, God necessarily created the possibility that man would choose other than God's intention. I recognize that this could very easily lead to the incorrect conclusion that God created evil, but I don't think you'd fall into that kind of thing.

I would love to continue this but I legitimately have a prayer meeting to get to.

>>11806906
>What doesn't make sense is that, why would God punish us in times less or from a historical perspective not as "bad" as say current times in terms of deaths, evil in the world? Why does it center around the arab lands and Mediterranean without showing a full scope outside of this?

I have a couple theories on this. To get one thing out of the way, I don't think that God was only "operating" (if you could say that) in the classical landscape and I don't think divine truth is limited to the modern day Bible. As a musing, God not showing up and blasting us with some hellfire is almost a horrible punishment in itself at this point. Some days I unironically wish He would just roll in and start doling out the judgments. Better than us just rotting away. I guess I feel ignored on behalf of humanity.

>How is it that God can send messages back then, but not now when religion itself is stagnating? Better yet how can he sit idle when his very own representatives are committing some of the worse atrocities against innocence?

All these are relatively boring earth-concerned questions. You have concern for the things of man, not for the things of God, what was Jesus's rebuke to Peter again?

>If you say the work of the devil? Why does he allow the devil to exist? And why is the Devils influence greater then, and how is it that God chooses not to change such influence?

I think it's all part of the Plan, no matter how you cut it up.

>If you can honestly answer me this, I will believe in a CHRISTIAN God, but until then I think we can very much have a God and its very plausible as it is inbuilt in us to succumb to a hierarchical or patriarchal figure, but I believe its origin is similar to a grand designer whom to see and test functions which it can't arbitrarily understand creates us to test upon in the image off? Much like a programmer, programming a character to life.

Your problem is that you have the angsty modern man's idea of God - someone who could swoop in and solve all the problems but chooses not to and that makes you upset in some deep, existential way. You gotta let that go. It's clear we weren't living in that kind of universe the very moment the first thing went wrong. So probably immediately, in other words.

I honestly think that the whole "we're an experiment" thing is really boring but you did paint a creative image of it, I like the coding analogy.

>>11806827
>Like I can look at my keyboard and tell that it's real. A peer can look at my keyboard and confirm it is, in fact, real. No science needed - just eyes and hands.

>>11806912
I would dare say there is no limitation to God as a representation instilled in us and based of our knowledge of the bible? So why would God actively choose his own limitation, we know 'he' can design us, can create evil, can create good as he as so done, create free will and also take it away as revelations reveals.

The argument that God allows evil for greater good however is debunked by the fact of the history and scriptures within the bible of Gods interference in lesser times, all you have to do is look at all the evil within his claimed "own" institution to realize he has allowed far greater atrocities to occur for some 'Greater Good' to me that is by far evil as many peoples lives have had to end or come to some conclusion for some greater good to potential occur...

I think if there is measure to be created God must create a full spectrum, it goes without doubt in saying that God had to create evil to create good, which sets back the argument of adam and eve.

>>11806912
>but that He consciously chooses to limit that control and to allow things outside of Himself a degree of agency

While that's possible, I'm not convinced that we have any agency at all. It's much more likely that we have no agency.
>The way I see it this is a necessary consequence of creation. In order for us to have agency, God's agency has to be retracted to a certain degree.

I see what you're trying to say, but there is no such thing as a necessary consequence if you are omnipotent. Paradoxical as it seems, because we live in this universe under this set of rules and we ourselves are defined by them, if God wanted to He could have made a universe in which simultaneously His creatures had agency and He did as well with no retraction. For our particular case, I think He chose to make creatures that like to persuade themselves that they have agency when they don't. All in good fun to the Big Guy, I'm sure.


>If you have a daughter, you are necessarily allowing for the possibility that this daughter will disobey you.

Only because I have to "have a daughter" the old-fashioned way.

>In the example of the square, I would say that you are neither allowing or intending the square to have for equal angles. Having four equal angles is a definitive characteristic of squares.

Not necessarily. But you're missing the point. I am the one who created the square, with its properties. If I wanted to, I could have said "fuck it, let's make the angle values unequal" indeed such mathematical systems exist, but that's beside the point. I in a sense chose to play by geometric rules when I created the abstract figure that I did. I chose the context, and then made it. Obviously its not the best example because I didn't create logic, which is where I get all of it in the first place, but then there is no perfect example to describe God other than God Himself.

I think the rest of what you said needs more expansion, so I'll leave it alone.

>I would love to continue this but I legitimately have a prayer meeting to get to.
Thanks for joining in, God bless.

>>11806921
>All these are relatively boring earth-concerned questions. You have concern for the things of man, not for the things of God, what was Jesus's rebuke to Peter again?

So you're saying God has no concern with what happens by Men on earth, therefore we are free to sin as please as long as we feel guilty for it later and repent? Seeing as we are already born of sin and God does not care or as "loving" as he is about his own creations because it concerns earth and not himself?

>I think it's all part of the Plan, no matter how you cut it up.

What plan, he already knows what going to happen regardless, for he is all knowing. What does a result matter to him?

>Your problem is that you have the angsty modern man's idea of God...

It's not angsty but I'd say more plausible, I think we where inherently never created to fathom a concept or inner thinking of grand designer because it is outsides the designers scope as they are achieving understanding equally of how they work or what works beyond themselves in a fractal-like essence.

One thing if we break us down to a quantum, the very first form of bacteria or whatever you want to call it, was given a primitive function eat, move. eat and basic logic, if smaller consume, else be consumed. Then we took that and created other methods and functions and it grew and was implemented on many things, and some of these functions had to remain as they become the super class, so we contain the functions of those bacteria and therefore they need to exist in order for us to have those functions.

>>11806125
Morality doesn't apply to God...

>>11806921
Reading over this and realizing how catty I sounded, I wanted to say that the underlying point of all my cheeky comments was simply that trying to justify God is a pointless endeavor. It has no relation to His existence and whether or not we agree that He's morally justified in our eyes just doesn't matter in the slightest. In my opinion it isn't worth wondering about or discussing. If God is real, then it is what it is. If He isn't, that also is what it is. Nowhere in the equation does He need to care about what I think about Him morally. I think the entire conversation is false off the start as well, because it pictures God as a discrete entity separate from Creation but still hanging around somewhere. It's a false picture.

>>11806953
>So you're saying God has no concern with what happens by Men on earth

No, I'm saying we have no concern for what happens in Heaven and are entirely occupied with the earth.
>we are free to sin as please
Obviously.
>as long as we feel guilty for it later and repent?
Never said this.
>
What plan, he already knows what going to happen regardless, for he is all knowing. What does a result matter to him?
>What does a result matter to him?
This is actually a very intriguing question.

What's interesting is that your conception of existence, life, and God, is completely materialistic.

>>11806956
You're right.

At this point I think the dust has pretty much settled. Probably the most successful thread I've made. Thanks to everyone who joined there are some real gems in here IMO. Plus some good bant. Closing comment:


>>11806953
>What does a result matter to him?

You are really on to something with this and I am going to put aside quite a bit of time to think about it. Thank you.

>>11806970
lets hope you mean materialism in the sense I'm taking it and not to be confused with the idea that its based off money.

Materialistic in the sense that its based of things we can only see and not outside this scope is then equal to your own scope, for I can imagine God in any sense but its still defined by some materialism in the case, as all things are within God's image as everything around us including in thought.

I think its a sore mistake to think of your view more outside my own scope without any basis. If I'm wrong the explain why, you have failed to do so and rather just been ambiguous with giving actual supporting answers to the original questions.

We both know you don't have them. Monism, Dualism I get it.

>>11806989
You're right, I've done a shitty job engaging with your points. At this point I'm going to retire honestly, I'm pretty tuckered out.

>>11806125
Read "the fall of the devil"

>>11806906

>but not now when religion itself is stagnating?

Where did you get that from? All studies show that religions are constantly on the rise, specially nowadays. Just because it is diminishing on the "first world" it doesn't mean it is stagnating. Just look at Europe and see what good it did to them.
Also, the Catholic church at least has a tradition of miracles and marian apparitions, which are exhaustively estudied before being officially added to the church. Look it up.

>Better yet how can he sit idle when his very own representatives are committing some of the worse atrocities against innocence?

Of what atrocities you speak of? I figure you are not talking only about christianity, right? I can't really speak for other religions.

> Why does he allow the devil to exist? And why is the Devils influence greater then, and how is it that God chooses not to change such influence?

I'd be inclined to say that He does not allow it. We do. One of the bases of Christianity is that people should choose God out of sheer will. If evil does not exist, such freedom falters. That's just the short answer, anyway. Might not be the best nor what you would like to hear, but.