/lit/ - Literature

>>13014808
if there is an omnipotent god then you can't truly know what evil is if your definition differs from the gods definition, don't be fucking stupid, anon
suffering is sometimes necessary, when you stop being a man child you understand

Epicurus was not some world´s first atheist. He was polytheist and believed in Gods

>The gods are immortal and blessed and men who ascribe any additional qualities that are alien to immortality and blessedness are impious.

>It is not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, who is impious, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them.
-Epicurus

Why never quote these remarks by him?

>>13014819
>sometimes necessary
yeah babies born with brain cancer are sometimes necessary brah, just be a man!

>>13014808
There are many reasons why suffering exists. I don’t feel like typing a lot, so I’ll just list basic reasons.

1) Some forms of good are not possible without suffering (sacrifice, courage)
2) Good and evil are defined by the opposite. What is good, without knowing what evil is?
3) Why should God be wholly concerned with preventing human suffering? Is this one of His necessary qualities? No, God is a Creator, omnipotent and omniscient, who is concerned with the actualization, or glorification, of Himself. God would not benefit by never allowing suffering (how could he?)
4) Which child is happier: the one who never wants or knows of suffering (the rich kid), or the one who knows about suffering and good (poor kid). But most importantly, which kid appreciates the love of his parents more?
5) Do you complain when authors create stories with suffering?
6) The universe has created suffering through rational laws, supposing God does not exist. Therefore, atheists shouldn’t think that this universe, being created by God, is any less rational than a godless universe.

>>13014808
God created us not out of selfless love but out of the desire to exalt himself. He took on human flesh and suffered for us so that we may praise him for his magnanimity, and created hell to showcase his power. It is possible that infinite such creations exist, all designed for the purpose of exalting him.
t. calvinist

>>13014841
>”b-but muh omnibenevolence. That word’s in the Bible, right?”

The struggle against existing order and overthrowing the old reign of Gods is a common theme since the Greek mythology and cosmogony. The Titans were replaced by the Olympians. Uranus was castrated by Cronus.

Since God, or the biblical, monotheistic God to be precise, created Man in his own image: he also sowed the first seeds of his Ruin.

>Ashes! Ashes!... We all fall down! In ruins lies the Jehovah's Crown!

What is this tribal deity in face of modernity? He is senile, impotent old man, rendered useless, like a rusty sword (or a club) brought into a fight against firearms.

On this very existence (as an offended and vengeful tribal deity) the whole theory of Atonement depends. Why accept Christ as his Son, but not destroy his whole offspring and legacy?

Men of Earth! Seek out the heirs of the builders of the Great Tower of Babel that is Science; let them order you into a phalanx, let them build you into a pyramid or a tower; that may pierce that appointed Time which awaits you, to establish a new dynasty of new Olympians to be the mainstay and mainspring of the Earth, the pioneers of their own path to heaven and to overthrow the Abrahamic tribal menace.

>>13014820
Epicurus was essentially being satirical when he said that

>>13014819
This isn’t about what “god(s)” want at all!
We know what we want to call evil. Is OUR word. Your Strango god is listed as Malevolent. Now go away

>>13014825
>>13014846
>god doesn't exist because he doesn't spoil me like my daddy.

>>13014819
suffering would be completely unnecessary if god was omnipotent and wanted it to be so.

>>13014820
It is largely irrelevant. Which of the Greek gods do you sacrifice to?

>>13014869
no, an omnipotent and moral god does not exist. perhaps a malevolent god does.

>>13014808
they never had a chance

>>13014859
This makes no sense since gods were never said to be these during his time. Chaos is the ultimate Greek God and the Fates who control destiny are amoral.

>>13014869
Neither of those posts advocate God’s non-existence
>>13014874
>implying the lack of suffering is better for God

>>13014879
>IF GOD DOESNT DO EVERYTHING I WANT THEN HE IS EVIL

>>13014879
define "moral" to me anon ?

>>13014875
Read: >>13014854

>>13014879
Omnipotent just refers to power of creation, not the ability to form 3-sided squares, or contradict His own nature. God is perfectly moral because all his actions perfectly benefit Him (morality is derived from self-benefit)

>>13014887
>no idiot god just wants you to suffer because he prefers it that way
if that’s the route you’re willing to take them sure

>>13014825
>>13014866
>>13014874
>god doesn't exist because he doesn't align with my retarded demands
>i wanted an iphone x not this shitty android i hate you dad

>>13014902
Why would God prefer a world without suffering? See>>13014840

>>13014808
Epicurus never said this. Christian philosophers misattributed this to him since Greek concepts of god are very alien to Abrahamic theism. There is nothing more cringeworthy than atheists WEWUZZING as ancient philosophers.

>>13014907
>Why would God prefer a world without suffering?
I mean he’d have to be benevolent but like you said maybe he just isn’t

>>13014825
Why do you think that a god has to be good? What a silly idea!

Allah created evil. But how does that make Him malevolent?

>>13014913
He creates a world without suffering after he's tested you and assured that you can obey him
>HAHA BUT HE TESTS US WITH HARDSHIP AND THAT MEANS HE DOESNT LOVE US UP TILL INFINITY
Of course he doesn't. No religion except maybe Christianity says this. And even Christianity places special conditions by which he will love you.

>>13014808
If the existence of evil means God is evil, does the existence of good mean God is good? But aren’t these forms of good or evil just human perspectives? When disease kills, is it not good for the bacteria, and evil to humans? Is God not able to produce good for ALL things, and evil as well? Wouldn’t God be diminished if were not able to do so? Without evil, the world would be much simpler and more boring. There’s no reason why God would desire such a world. God has allowed us to find comfort in Him in this life, and be one with Him forever in the next life, so let’s appreciate everything, good and evil, and be thankful to God

>>13014905
Read the OP pic please. Your god is malevolent. End of story. Go away.

>>13014854
>>13014893
You said nothing.

>>13014929
You have already given the answer.
Turn away now

>>13014936
It’s as if atheists believe infinite love is never allowing you to suffer at all. As in
>>13014840 , love is not known unless you know suffering. Who would actually love God if they didn’t know of suffering? And God’s wholly concerned with being loved, glorified, actualized, perceived, for the Truth that He is.

>>13014808
Many ways to solve the problem of theodicy, e.g. Spinoza's theology. The one who destroyed all logical, apodeictic foundations for God was Kant.

>>13014936
>He creates a world without suffering after he's tested you and assured that you can obey him
but the godfags in this thread just finished telling me that suffering is ackshyually based and that a world without suffering is like totes lame. now it actually is ideal but we just have to prove (to the guy who can see the future and thus knows the outcome in advance) that we’re worth it? make up your minds.

>>13014949
you are a spoiled manchild nigga, crying your eyes out because daddy god didn't give you anything you want when you wanted it, a 200 pounds 7 year old throwing a fit because dad doesn't want to buy you another happy meal

People don't realize or fail to realize that you can create nothing of value if you have or do anything you want. People wouldn't be able to live together if they did or have anything they wanted, so you need to be neglected of their impulses and desires for the ultimate good. If everyone won the lottery it wouldn't be a blessing. A good father punishes you and deny you things because you don't know what's best for you.

>>13014956
A world without suffering means nothing if you haven’t experienced suffering to begin with. It’s a simple concept

>>13014956
>perceiving God in infinite time
>God can't use his omnipotence to override his omniscience
>"SUFFERING IS BASED"
Yes for a time to test you after which your reward is clearing the test. Suffering is the journey and bliss is the destination.

>>13014949
>You said nothing.

Are you stupid? Am I arguing here with intellectually retarded people who cannot comprehend what they read?

There is no God but Man. The Jealous Demiurgical God of Old Testament fell before Netwon and Einstein, as the sanguine and sacrificial Christ was emasculated by Charles Darwin and perhaps Richard Dawkins.

Are you perhaps American?

>>13014947
>If the existence of evil means God is evil, does the existence of good mean God is good?
No. If you are good and powerful you stop evil. It's that simple.
>When disease kills, is it not good for the bacteria, and evil to humans
LMAO just don't create disease then.
>Is God not able to produce good for ALL things, and evil as well? Wouldn’t God be diminished if were not able to do so?
He is able but if he does so he is evil
>Without evil, the world would be much simpler and more boring... be thankful to God
Thank you Jesus that my son was born with brain cancer and thank you for your famines and natural disasters which have rendered us homeless and starving. Thank you Jesus Christ for this pain in my stomach, an indicator of hunger and impending death. Thank you Lord for your allowing those evil people in my neighbourhood free will, who in turn use it to rob me of my free will by imprisoning me, stealing from me, and torturing me. Thank you!

>>13014966
>God can't use his omnipotence to override his omniscience
Is this some sort of reference to free will? Stop using this argument, because it doesn’t convince non-Christians, and it doesn’t have Biblical support.

>>13014949
That doesn't answer it because Allah also created good

>>13014970
>don't create disease then
Why are you more important then bacteria?
>thank you for For blah blah blah bad things and death
You are perceiving this in a reality where there Is no afterlife. All this suffering will be compensated to you in this afterlife. So yes thank God for it.

>>13014970
>if you are good and powerful then you stop evil
But if evil didn’t exist, then how would we know God is good? Define good and evil, in an objective sense

ITT:
niggaz anthropomorphizing God.

>>13014969
>god is the dead because i ,the limited mortal being, want him to be!
>perhaps Richard Dawkins
kek

>god is evil because he doesn't have my same view of good and evil

>>13014972
>it doesn't convince non Christians
Why? Also do you have proof for that.
>isn't supported by the Bible
It is because he said you may choose whether you sin or not therefore you must have free will. Also you assume all theists are Christian.

>>13014982
Even though it may sound muh memetic cliché, the religion and religious longing can be replaced by Euphoria.

>>13014957
You are either LARPing a belief in this ancient contradictory creature or are terribly feeble minded. In either instance, you cannot understand my perspective till you learn to hunk on your own

>>13014980
It doesn't have to be in an objective sense. One can merely adopt the Christian framework of good and evil and argue from that. There is scarcely a Christian who would deny that God allows evil.

>>13014989
>you just can't understand me bro

>>13014987
If I had free will, I wouldn’t sin, procrastinate, etc. Read Romans 9, Proverbs 16, and Ephesians 1. Then find me verses that are as explicit in defending free will.

>>13014808
it's the second.
so epicurus has better watch his mouth

>>13014988
>euphoria
Holy shit you can't be serious. What about a meaningless universe where you have no will and everything is guided by natural forces is euphoric to you?

>>13014988
point given, should we abandon a ultimate idea of Transcendence because shitty humans are shitty ? chaos rises from nihilism too you know.

>>13014965
It’s also a wrong concept

>>13014989
>it's not a phase dad this is who I am
nigga you 12, I don't care about your retarded set of ideas

>>13015006
nice argument. Design a better world if God is so incompetent in your eyes

>>13014969
Ah. A bit opaque in its flowers. Pardon.

>>13014995
Apparently not. Sorry. I try to explain, but people are too thick headed around here

The free will 'solution' to the problem of evil is laughable. So God grants some backwards warlord free will (after all we wouldnt wanna be robots!), but this same warlord then robs me of my and many other people's free will. He starves me, tortures me, enslaves me, cuts off my fingers; where is my freedom in this? Where is my free will?

>>13014989
>hunk
THINK

Fucking thing can’t see wha I’m typing

How do you even begin to rationalize comparing subjective morality to an objective, omnipotent morality?

Just read the bible, Job and Jesus cover this

>>13015017
>wha
And why does it leave shit like that and “bu” and “th” as if they were words?

>>13014998
>if I had free will I wouldn't sin procrastinate etc
You can't prove that now can you.
>explicitly
It is implicitly implied throughout the text down to its very essence. Not to mention you can prove it in cases where God explicitly denies certain people like the Pharoah free will which is presented as a separate action from what the norm is.

>>13015012
>o-oh y-yeah? L-let’s see you do b-better!
concession accepted.

>>13015021
We don't care about god's morality. We are not satisfied to worship a being who won't even communicate in a way that is understandable to us, won't even allow us to understand why we suffer. We care only about this 'subjective' morality because that is the only morality we know.

>>13015016
Your free will is to stand against him and fight him though it may lead to your death. Free will doesn't not imply omnipotence. You may will what you wish but it will not necessarily come to fruition.

>>13015013
>if don't agree with this it's because you're stupid! mneeeh
dude...

>>13014969
Cringe

>>13015023
>You can't prove that now can you.
If I had free will, I would freely will myself to do whatever it is that I desire most. Since Heaven is objectively the most important thing to me, I should be able to freely will myself to be righteous. People think that sin is explained by free will, but this superficial thinking. Doesn’t it make more sense that sin is explained by the lack of free will? Who would do that which harms him if he has free will?

>>13015030
>You may will what you wish but it will not necessarily come to fruition.
Then it is possible to create a society where you have free will while simultaneously are unable to act upon that will. Thus the 'free will argument' falls apart.

>>13015022
it’s god punishing you for insolence

Suffering isn't necessarily 'evil', it can purify, strengthen, etc. (As shown throughout the Bible and Christian tradition, e.g martyrs and saints.) And what of it anyhow, if you have a immortal soul your body, its delights as well as it torments are ultimately fleeting. Otherwise, original sin accounts for the rest. Does this convince athiests? No because they operate under an entirely different paradigm which discounts notion of soul and sin. Its an mpossible exchange, pace /lit/ whipping boy of late, Baudrillard

>>13015033
Rebutt anytime

>>13015031
>won't even allow us to understand why we suffer
This isn't literally the origin story of humanity. Adam and Eve eat the fruit therefore the human race must prove they can refrain from sin to enter heaven. You being obtuse is not God being unable to show it.

>>13015039
No it doesnt you idiot lmao how were you confident to post that

>>13015025
Why can’t you design a better world? Is it because you know that it will also be judged by humans? Are you starting to realize that no matter what world we’re living in, it can be criticized by someone’s unique perspective?

>>13015043
Lmao I had no part in what adam and eve did. besides the bible says a man shall not suffer for his father's sins

>>13015045
If free will does not imply power to act upon the will then it is possible to create a society wherein people are able to will whatever they like (namely evil) however they don't have the wherewithal to carry it out. Thus God could have created an evil-free society which has free will.

>>13015002
>>13015004
Am I arguing here with trolls, Americans or intellectual dwarves?

The waiters of the best restaurants mock the whole world because they estimate every client at his proper value: because they serve, and because they can have no personal interest in the affairs of those whom they serve (except perhaps in America where element of Tip is present and excepted)

So you think likewise an absolute monarch, in terms of Godhood would be absolutely wise and good?

Do you know what is a Despot?

Because the Universe does not deal with Absolutes: therefore the best king would be Pure Chance.

And because it is Pure Chance that rules the Universe; therefore, and only therefore, life is good.

It was the asteroids or meteors which brough microbiological life on earth: the whole creation of Universe could be likened to a man forcefully raping the arshole of his lover and few drops of semen would drip to the Vagina so as to create life in some drunken act of lust and degeneracy.

Every drop of semen which is shed is a world of its own. The technical term for this semen is Kratos as the Greek used to call it (Americans do not know this because they are ignorant of all history and etymology)

People upon these created worlds or planets are like maggots upon an apple – all forms of life bred by the worlds are in the nature of parasites.

We should not Blame God but the damned whore of Maya or Illusion who seduced the Phallus away from the holy Lotus or Vagina; hence from which the physical Universe proceeds. Essentially all worlds are excreta; they represent wasted semen and this is why Man made God in his own image.

>>13015031
>we dont care
Apparently you do or else why arent you off masturbating?
>wont communicate
What is the Bible? The thousands of years of study? The Church and all its functions? If there was no communication, there wouldnt even BE a set of ideas to even discuss, and again, this is covered in the bible
>we care only about (ourselves)
Knock off this audience appeal with the "we" and your knowledge, and mine, are limited, so we cant hinge all of our trust in it

>>13014840
Why haven’t any of the intellectual giants, aka atheists, responded to this?

>>13015039
No it doesn't. Free will is not defined a single being able to do whatever you want. That's omnipotence. It means you can choose to decide how you act within your reality.
>>13015038
You can't prove that either. The role of Satan is to delude man into believing there isn't greater importance in the world.
>>13015047
This is a rule for man. The same way the rule for men is to not kill but this is not a limitation for God. And Adam and Eve aren't justified some randoms. They have the essence of humanity and their test was failed thus they were thrown to Earth. Your test is on Earth and this test will get you into heaven.

>>13015062
>What is the Bible? The thousands of years of study? The Church and all its functions?
Apparently nothing to that anon, who asserted that it is impossible to compare 'subjective morality' derived from the Bible to god's morality. If god won't even tell us his morality why should we give a fuck about him?

>>13015060
>haha Brainlets
>makes several paragraphs of unfounded claims
Yikes. Also no I am not American. In fact I hate Americans.

>>13015055
>Then it is possible
In your fantasies maybe

We had to create that for ourselves, hence free will, forcing a handicapped existence does nothing for our soul, we would simply be cattle

>>13015079
He does you absolute retard. What do you think the story of Creation is?

To the people in this thread. I have college work and I will not be able to responded further. I reccomend the other anon take over for me.

>>13015047
Hence Jesus atoning for original sin, delivering you into an untouched pure Eden, the kingdom of heaven within, and you get as many tries as you like to dwell in the placehouse of God absolved from sin over and over again if you can't manage human decency, like a salvatory videogame. Then your soul lives forever. But you got a sore throat so God's evil... Lmao.

>>13015068
>They have the essence of humanity and their test was failed thus they were thrown to Earth.
What is the essence of humanity apart from some specific biological properties which make up the taxonomic category 'human'? I am a human, yes, but this category does not exhaust me. I am an individual and my history only goes back sofar as my conception. I refuse to share guilt with some long-gone ancestor of mine(who, by the way, was lied to by God who said that the tree would kill him in a number of days. And who's only crime was curiosity).

>>13015079
Nowhere in my post did I say derive, derivative, nor any other form of the word. Nowhere was I even suggesting that, and I even say to read the Bible

The OP and the postera here are comparing THEIR limited, subjective morality, which is hardly derived from the Bible

And the Bible does

Wow you people just dont or cant read

>>13015109
>was lied to by God who said that the tree would kill him in a number of days
Blatant lie

Bless the Christians for settong the record straight

We'll save this hellhole from its pits of despair

>>13015114
You can even adopt Christian morality and the argument would still hold.

Allah is the Almighty, Everlasting Cause of all things. Bugman slave morality problem

>>13015134
What is “bugman”?

if you apply aristotelian logic to god, he doesn't make sense. it's always been based on intuitive thought.

>>13015117
>but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” genesis 2:17
Before you scream it's symbolic language: language is a function we use to get a message across, there are appropriate places for using symbolic language, a crucial warning is not one of them. You don't see 'Do not touch these wires or you will die on the day you touch them' attached to a box holding electric wires if all they mean is 'you will die spiritually' or 'you will die later in life'.

>>13015147
>don’t interpret Biblical verses in spiritual context! Everything is material!

>>13015147
>>13015154
It’s both spiritual and physical

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/genesis-2-17-you-shall-surely-die

christians are disgusting people. they scoff others for being egoistical for doubting god's word and so on. the reality is that the christians are the ones who are enslaved by a myth of a god. the god is something is so great that nobody could possibly understand it. yes, that includes you egomaniacal christcucks.

>>13015141
Why do you need to use a tripcode? I recommend you to check out reddit lol haha there you can be upboat'd and have a laugh with your frendolis lol haha

>>13014808
What's wrong with being evil?

>>13015181
Answer the question or go back to your home board. And stop advertising it

>>13015175
>enslaved by a myth of a god
This type of language might have an effect if this “slavery” were a bad thing. Christians are demonstrably happier and have an objective meaning in life. There are humble atheists, and there are good Christians (those who are closer to perfection than others, according to the Bible). But it’s almost always the atheist’s attitude and pride that begins a heated discussion

>>13015190
The new Christian campaign slogan. The one to replace the trilby tippers campaign

>>13015154
Man I literally put in a preemptive rebuttal to what you just said in my post. Did you even read it all?
>Everything is material!
Lying is defined as misleading somebody. Do you think Adam was thinking in spiritual and metaphorical terms when god said that to him, or was he convinced that he would die if he ate it? I don't know, if somebody told me not to eat something lest I die the same day, I would take it literally. God, being an all-knowing being, should have been cognisant of Adam's limitations and been more clear in his speech IF his intention wasn't to deceive him. Which it clearly was.

See, this is the consequence of trying to look at the Bible as if it were a monolithic whole with a consistent and cogent underlying narrative, instead of treating the books individually. Many gods in the past were deceivers and people had no problem with gods deceiving people. It's not surprising, then, that we have a deceiver-god in the first book of the Bible. It is only later in Christian and Jewish tradition that it was decided god can not lie, that is why you are left with these inconsistencies.

>>13014819
>>13014840
suffering cannot be necessary or outweighed by any good because, if God is omnibenevolent, a world in which only he exists is maximally good sans creation. so all suffering is gratuitous.

>>13015191
Tremendous. HE. HUMILIATED. ME. Sorry for attempting to do so. You can never win against the butterfly :3
You won: bug is an insect and man is a human with a XY chromosome. That means a male insect, a bug with a peepee :3

>>13015201
Read >>13015171

You don’t have to respond. I know it’s difficult to admits fault when you resort to calling God a liar. Atheists generally won’t admit their mistakes, but change the topic. It’s ok, we are all flawed humans

>>13015196
>be a good goy! shut up and follow the bible's word!
nah lol. btw, not an atheist.

>>13015208
>if God is omnibenevolent, a world in which only he exists is maximally good sans creation
First, define omnibenevolent. Second, what is God without creation? I argue that God is not God at all, unless there is creation. How else could He see His own glory? What is there to relate to? How would He see His one omnipotence? Or become omniscient? What do you think God is? What do you think God’s motives are?

The butterfly is reading me :3
I get so nervous I can't type properly, my fingers are covered with sweat. :333 that's how I image her when she's in bed touching at night thinking of me :3
With her little feet struggling against the covers and her melodious moan filling the corners of her room :3
>>13015191

>>13015223
>First, define omnibenevolent.
I'm just using it in the sense that it is used in classical theology: maximally good. which would imply that, given a set of choices, an omnibenevolent being would choose the one that maximizes goodness.
>Second, what is God without creation? I argue that God is not God at all, unless there is creation.
you don't think God existed before creation? that's the mainstream view in Christianity.

>>13014840
Christians claim God is OMNIBENEVOLENT. Do you know what that word means? We perceive a world of immense suffering around ourselves, not the "to mature as a person you must endure trials of the soul" kind, but the kind where diseases are inescapable and growing in number each year, and afflict not merely the evil but even the most innocent, like infants. Parents torn apart from newborns who didn't make it past a few months of alive. Christians claim everything is part of God's Will, that humans are a part of his Divine Plan. It's your task to now articulate this will in relation to the observed facts of our reality, like this one.

Then again, no two Christians I speak to have the same doctrine in their heads - every single Christian has made their own conception of God after reading their scriptures, and then argues in favor of that one. Your comments regarding "why should God be wholly concerned with preventing human suffering", directly contradict what Christians claim of him as being "personal" and "omnibenevolent", and these being "necessary qualities of him". If you would say that "God is not omnibenevolent, but only partially-benevolent", you're basically violating what all Christianity claims of its God. Do I complain when authors create stories with suffering? If I knew the characters I wrote were sentient, and putting them through excruciating pain actually hurt them, then yes I would definitely not be doing that, and would attempt to prevent all human authors from writing suffering into their stories, and labelling anyone who does so a psychopath (which God must clearly be).

And if suffering is no big deal, who cares about Christ's own suffering on the cross? Why does it matter? Suffering is natural, and normal. It doesn't become special and venerable when "God" does it to himself. Jesus enduring whatever pain he did, which Christians have been sobbing over for 2000+ years now, is no hardship at all. Christ and his followers need to accept that suffering is simply natural, and stop acting like such a commendable deed was done by him. Many others have died far worse deaths than Christ could have ever hoped for, he should be thankful his father only let him experience a sliver of true pain, and only for a day too. Others have endured far worse, for much longer. Suck it up buttercup: many others have died by crucifixion, and we aren't here two millenia later praising them for such an ordeal, and neither should we for Christ.

Also, if you're going to pull the "God's benevolence" is not "our benevolence" then let's stop speaking about him entirely, I'll simply claim the same of every word you claim of God: his "Omniscience" is not our omniscience, his being a Creator is not our sense of the word "creator", his being "Intelligent" isn't our sense of that word, etc we can therefore just stop speaking about God at all, since every concept of ours is different from the correspondent one for him.

>>13015198
well epicurus lived & died before christianity

>>13015244
But what do you mean by good, or goodness? What does it mean for God to be good? I want to know exactly what you mean here.
>you don't think God existed before creation? that's the mainstream view in Christianity.
I don’t think it is. The Bible never alludes to God’s sole existence. It’s not as if God could do anything without creation of some sort. He created time, so He could not pass time without creation. Otherwise, you’re left with a conundrum: what was God doing before creation, and for how long? It makes more sense that there has always been creation

>>13015273
>But what do you mean by good, or goodness? What does it mean for God to be good? I want to know exactly what you mean here.
we can just use whatever definition you have of goodness.
>I don’t think it is. The Bible never alludes to God’s sole existence. It’s not as if God could do anything without creation of some sort. He created time, so He could not pass time without creation. Otherwise, you’re left with a conundrum: what was God doing before creation, and for how long? It makes more sense that there has always been creation
so what did God create and not create? you mean there was always a universe before God, but God created things like the earth, people, etc.? do you think that god was omnibenvolent before these creations?

>>13015258
>Christians claim God is OMNIBENEVOLENT.
Does the Bible claim that? I don’t care what Christians think.
>do you know what that word means?
It doesn’t appear in the Bible, so please define it for me
>Your comments regarding "why should God be wholly concerned with preventing human suffering", directly contradict what Christians claim of him as being "personal" and "omnibenevolent", and these being "necessary qualities of him".
Again, I’m not concerned with what Christians think, but what the Bible says
>If I knew the characters I wrote were sentient, and putting them through excruciating pain actually hurt them, then yes I would definitely not be doing that, and would attempt to prevent all human authors from writing suffering into their stories, and labelling anyone who does so a psychopath (which God must clearly be
But what if that good could not be produced without evil? Aren’t sad stories still valuable and good? Even if characters suffer, does this not display the truths and beauties of existence? Can you fault God for doing the same with His creation? If good comes out of it, then why should he prevent it, because some humans suffer?
>And if suffering is no big deal, who cares about Christ's own suffering on the cross?
It is a “big deal.” It is through suffering that we know what good is.

>>13015258
I'm on your side but you're not making it easy for yourself. Why are you attacking Christian beliefs and trying to pin them down to a specific view of god? All you have to do is defend the view that their god is either a) not omniscient or b) malevolent. They will then have to come up with explanations themselves.

>>13015258
I'm on your side but why are you attacking Christian beliefs and trying to pin them down to a specific view of god? All you have to do is defend the view that their god is either a) not omnipotent or b) malevolent. They will have to come up with explanations themselves. Otherwise you'll have pseuds like >>13015307
asking you to provide a biblical quote for everything you say.

>>13015304
>we can just use whatever definition you have of goodness.
There are two ways of looking at it. Objectively, the good is that which tends to existence. Since God gives existence to all things, whether they be subjectively good or evil to parts of creation, God is maximally good. But in terms of God’s love for humans, I’m not sure the Bible ever uses any language that would derive the word “omnibenevolent” as if God has infinite love for us. I’m not even sure what infinite love, or being infinitely good to us, would mean. Heaven exists, but we can debate over whether or not Heaven is better without knowing what suffering is. I think it’s better to know what suffering is, so that Heaven seems like a gift from God, an eternal bliss compared to life on Earth. If God seeks glory, then shouldn’t He want His love to be known this way? So it might be possible that God is omnibenevolent, but ONLY IF suffering exists.
>so what did God create and not create? you mean there was always a universe before God, but God created things like the earth, people, etc.? do you think that god was omnibenvolent before these creations?
I think God has always existed, as well as the creation He created. I believe God is complete, but we are riding the “illusion” of time, which God created.

>>13014888
So why exactly does God give infants cancer and all other kinds of horrible, incurable conditions? I've never heard Christians respond to this one, instead they just leave horrible strawmens like the one you left just now. Especially rude, considering the sensitive nature of the topic here.

Am I selfish for desiring that such sinless beings not receive such a horrible affliction, or that their parents not suffer by seeing their child go through that and possibly die from it, or am I wrong for seeing it as a bad thing in the first place, or am I wrong to believe that God gave it to them? Either way, something's out of place here. If desiring incurable diseases not afflict infants is a "selfish want", then I wholly acknowledge myself as a selfish individual, and take that charge onto myself - and these parents should stop their selfish whining about it too. If it's not "actually bad", then I guess doctors shouldn't be dedicating their lives to curing them, since their not dedicating themselves to any "good" or "benevolent" cause, and I again charge myself with improper thinking which violates God's objective, correct perspective on it. And if God had no hand in giving it them, he's clearly not very invested in his creations, and therefore loses the status of "personal" that all Christians proudly tout their deity as being. And Christ, of course, is an abject liar for ever suggesting there to be a Heavenly Father who is personally involved with his creations and responds to their prayers, and so on.

>>13014892
Depends, are you asking for the Bible's standards? Genociding entire peoples, infanticiding their little babies, slavery, exercising mind-control on subjects against their will and changing their course of action by that manner (the ancient equivalent of MKUltra, really), stoning homosexuals and those who cheat on their partner, and much more, in that case. By modern, 21st century standards? Something quite different, though I'm sure you want to revert to the earlier version.

>>13015365
I’ve asked this question many times and never receive any good responses: Can you design a better world? If you are God, then what world do you create? Why? How does that world benefit you?

Think carefully, because I will attack your world just as you attack this one.

>>13015307
Well, Christ claims the Father to be "Perfect", so you'd have to acknowledge that either the state of reality we see around ourselves is a reflection of God's perfection, or that God somehow failed to reproduce perfection in his creation - and a "failure" on God's part prevents him from the title of "Perfect", which by nature cannot make mistakes. So which is it - is reality perfect according to God's standard, or did God fail to impart his perfection onto the reality he made?

>What if that good could not be produced without evil?
You're appealing the nature of reality that you've seen, but this observation is retroactive. God could have made reality differently, such that suffering were not needed to produce Good. God is either limited by laws beyond his ability to alter, and therefore not omnipotent and therefore not God - or God has chosen reality to be made as it has, in which case such questions of "what if" are contradictory, because they imply that God could not have done differently, which then removes his status as an agent of infinite volition. And for the final part, I'm asking why it's a big deal that Jesus died on the cross, and suffered before so - why? Suffering is a good thing, or leads to good things, so why should I feel sorry for Christ, or find it an important act at all? If suffering is part of natural law, by God's will, then no instance of it should be exempt from such a status, and be perceived as something special and noteworthy and horrific and saddening. The crucifixion is therefore not a noteworthy event, which anyone should have any care for.

If you are able to prevent evil but unwilling, then you are are malevolent? Then I guess everything is evil. I could scour the streets and try to prevent crimes, but I'm unwilling to do that. I guess I'm evil, because there's like a million things I could do to prevent evil. What's evil anyway? Is it obeying the secular law? Is nature evil for killing babies with cancer?

>>13014808
Willing and Able, but requires permission.

>>13015452
>is reality perfect according to God's standard, or did God fail to impart his perfection onto the reality he made?
Individuals are not perfect, but the world is perfect, or God wouldn’t have created it. But we can’t just call something perfect without knowing the purpose of a thing. What is the purpose of the world? To glorify God. Without imperfections, how do we know that God, in comparison, is perfect? Without suffering, how do we know that God grants us release from suffering, not only in this life, but especially in Heaven?
God is perfect in that He perfectly glorifies Himself. For a human to be perfect, you would likewise have to do the same, and be fully righteous, always thanking God, thinking of God, etc...We day this in Jesus, but no one else.
>God could have made reality differently, such that suffering were not needed to produce Good
How do you know this? Doesn’t experience show that a lack of suffering only limits the good? Why would God pull a bunch of tricks just to prevent people like you from complaining because suffering exists? Is it not possible for people to complain because of the lack of suffering? If I were to say that THIS world doesn’t contain enough suffering, how would you respond? Then we would both be making equally subjective claims.
>so why should I feel sorry for Christ
Because he came from heaven to Earth, which is like coming from Earth to Hell.
Imagine going to Hell and suffering to save the people in Hell who accepted your suffering. That’s basically was Jesus did. God is just, but also merciful, so He sent Jesus as a sacrifice, but only to those who accept the sacrifice, which requires realizing you have sinned, and asking for forgiveness. Jesus was the perfecf, innocent sacrifice that saved everyone who believes.

>>13015385
Can I design a better world? Not a literal one, no, since I don't have such powers. To the extent I could make a virtual one, in something like the Sims, then here's the basics of what my world would entail:

1. No suffering, of the physical variety. No diseases, the faulty bodily machinery, no aging, no pain, no death. Emotional suffering exists only of the kind wherein a person may grow by it, but nothing related to the above.

2. No predators, and no prey. All creatures eat something which is made to be eaten, and exists for no other purpose except that: like apples, for example. No lifeforms must die for others to survive.

3. No possibility for overpopulation, given the above facts. Reality somehow has an inbuilt algorithm that ensures that despite there being no death, there can neither be overpopulation. Say, the landmass is infinite, or at least grows proportionally to the population, such that it can never become overcrowded.

4. No religious scriptures, God/I communicates directly to everyone through either a cosmic loudspeaker or an internal earpiece they directly hear his commandments through. No possibility for confusion as to my will, my nature, my presence, and anything else about myself - everyone is crystal clear on what I expect from them, and whenever they are unsure, they can ask me directly and receive an instant answer.

This is just a start, but we could proceed from here and cover much else.

It's also quite inconsiderate of you to be the one who holds the belief in God, and when given a detailed post critically dissecting the nature of your belief, you simply turn around and ask the inquirer questions of your own without providing a single response to what the person you spoke to had asked of you. As a believer, your duty is to defend your beliefs. Why should I respond to your queries, if you cannot do so mine? I have given you one now regardless, will you go back and answer my own?

>>13015554
You forgot to explain how such a world would benefit you, God.

God did create a perfect world without suffering or diseases. But he also gave men free will. More than just choosing between good choices, men could choose the wrong choice. That's freedom. Though man did choose the wrong choice, and now we face our consequences. Evil is the choice we made, not God.

>>13014808
What is the source of this? Actually I think it's complete bullshit. He wouldn't talk about a god in the singular. The Greeks didn't even think their gods were omnipotent like we do.

>>13015534
The world is perfect, is it? So you concede that infants receiving a horrific condition that they later die from and scar their parents minds forever from is a "perfect act", right? To change it would be to imply that it was not perfect, which implies that God's world was not perfect, and by extension that God was not. Do you acknowledge that these diseases therefore glorify God, a perfect display of his perfect majesty?

>Without imperfections, how do we know that God in comparison is perfect?
"Imperfection" is merely the relative absence of perfection, like cold is the relative absence of heat. Without cold, would you still know if something is hot? Yes, because that's the only substance there is. And you concede there's a perfect Heaven which God inhabits, and you hopefully will yourself after this life - is this Heaven perfect? How will you know? By your reasoning, perfection can only be recognized by imperfection, ergo either Heaven must have imperfections for you to recognize it as such, or God could have made Earth perfect too and people would still recognize it to be perfection as well. How do you even know God is perfect then, if he doesn't have imperfections in his nature? you have no way to recognize the perfect aspects of it.

>How do you know this?
It's basic reasoning? You saying "experience shows that a lack of suffering..." is simply speaking of the reality you've seen, and is meaningless if God could have written a different one. So what is it - can God not have written a different reality, and is therefore limited, not omnipotent, and not God - or do you concede that the laws found here, where apparently according to you a babies death from cancer leads to "good" in some way, are perfect and need no alteration? Am I "complaining" here when I mention this example with infants? Would you tell a parent of these babies, crying and cursing over their hardship, that they are "complaining" and that their infant's suffering showcases God's glory? Would you change their situation if you had the power to, and if so, would you add to their suffering or attempt to lessen it?

Let's boil this down to one question: when a painter produces a work of art, does there need to be flaws in the artwork in order for the virtues to be recognized, or could the entire canvas be a sublime, flawless, perfect masterpiece, and it still be clearly acknowledged as such?

Jesus came from Hell to Earth? Who cares? Hell is not so bad, as you concede that suffering is necessary for there to be good. Without Hell, there could be no Heaven, according to you. So Jesus deserves no sympathy at all, unless suffering is somehow bad and something which Jesus should not have had to endure, in which case no human should have either (God does not receive a concession to his own laws). Innocent? I think a baby is far more innocent than any adult man could be, Jesus or otherwise, and if babies must suffer, there's not a single problem with Jesus needing to as well.

>>13015573
Because I'm a PERSONAL deity, who creates not merely for myself but for my creations, just like Jesus implied of God. I want them to be as fulfilled as they can be. If God is not personal, and doesn't care for his creations, then Christ is a liar, Christianity is a false religion, and we shouldn't speak a single word about it, like we are here.

>>13015682
>Do you acknowledge that these diseases therefore glorify God, a perfect display of his perfect majesty?
Yes. God would not be glorified as much in a world without suffering. Some people see suffering and turn to God in comfort, while others see suffering and hate God. In a world without suffering, everyone is already comfortable, and has no reason to thank God or give glory to Him.
>is this Heaven perfect? How will you know? By your reasoning, perfection can only be recognized by imperfection, ergo either Heaven must have imperfections for you to recognize it as such, or God could have made Earth perfect too and people would still recognize it to be perfection as well.
We recognize that Heaven is perfect and amazing because of this world. It’s not as if we forget that we lived on Earth once we go to Heaven.
>Hell is not so bad, as you concede that suffering is necessary for there to be good.
At this point, it just seems like you’re not understanding or desperately trying to poke holes. Obviously, if you spend an eternity away from God, full of suffering, without any good, then no, Hell is not good. I never claimed that suffering is good in itself, but that it makes the good what it is, more appreciated. There is no good in Hell, though. The fact that you completely misinterpret this position destroys your credibility in your arguments.
>when a painter produces a work of art, does there need to be flaws in the artwork in order for the virtues to be recognized, or could the entire canvas be a sublime, flawless, perfect masterpiece, and it still be clearly acknowledged as such?
You’re asking for the whole world to be perfect in every part, but that suppresses the truth. It limits our appreciation of the good. It’s boring and monotonous, and does not glorify God. You think God’s not omnipotent for creating that world, but if you were in that world, could you not think that God is not omnipotent because He did not create this world? Only in this world is that world even imaginable, whereas in the other world, people do not know what suffering is, so they have nothing to compare their world to. God is the source of all existence, of all truths, so why would he suppress all of that just to satisfy YOUR ideas of what constitutes a perfect world? Why do you assume that God made a mistake, rather than considering the possibility that you’re wrong? God made the world for Himself, so where is His mistake? When people worship and love Him, is He not glorified? When people hate Him, or suffer without Him, revealing what the effects are when one is away from God, is He not glorified just the same? If there were no suffering, HOW would that benefit God?

>>13015697
>Because I'm a PERSONAL deity, who creates not merely for myself but for my creations
Why? Why create for them? Do you simply create so that they benefit, and not yourself? Honestly imagine yourself being the creator of such a world. Would you really enjoy it? Would you be complete? Would it be interesting, or boring?

This entire thread has gone on and no one has addressed OP’s pic lmao

>>13016096
They have BTFO forever.
What exactly do you addresses?

>>13016104
They have BTFO forever.
What exactly do you need addresses?

>>13014808
>there were brainlets around in Ancient Greece too
Noted.

>>13014808
The Avengers use time travel to gather back the stones and undust everyone. Iron Man and Black Widow die.

>>13016096
They have been BTFO forever.
What exactly do you need addresses?

>>13016116
>addressed
>addressed
> falls over dead
Fuck this thing

>>13014808
Man is the cause of evil, not God.
Evil is where God is not.

>>13014979
The Christian God literally says humans are created in his image and are the rulers of Earth...

>>13014808
Epicurean evil is something that goes against >muh pleasure.
Christian evil is doing what goes against the Will of God.
For Christians suffering isn't evil. Evil is a thing the same way empty is a thing.

>>13016096
>>13014840

>>13016113
You’re doing gods work

>>13015175
>let me prove others are disgusting by acting disgusting
Lmao imagine living this life

Where were "you" while in a state of dreamless sleep last night? Same place you're going when you die. BOOM, theists btfo again

>>13014808
If God made the earth perfect then it would just be a second heaven. If it were a second heaven you would call it a redundancy and thereby an indication of God's imperfection.

According to your definition of benevolence, God would have to not create humanity in order to be benevolent towards it.

>>13015365
Actually the Bible would have us believe that things such as cancer are the result of mankind becoming increasingly more sinful. It is said that the wage of sin is death. Adam and Eve both lived for more than 900 years, and their children had similar lifespans. Then the average life expectancy gradually decreased over time. Presumably, they were able to live for so long because they had less of a wage of sin to pay for.

Aside from that, you're still wrong. You're ignoring that God saves the good and grants them eternal paradise, and that there would be no point to creating earth and humanity if we were just meant to live in perfect harmony (since Heaven is already such a place).

>>13014840

Truly awful reasons. You make /r/atheism sound good.

>>13015763

Your awful arguments are made that much worse by asking these shit-eating questions.

We really need a secular inquistion against this scourge.

>>13015365
>OK then answer me this, what's 2 + 2
>and no, don't say 4. Give me a proper answer

>>13014808
>Just as a reminder, Theist children have been BTFO for forever
>>God should stop me from committing evil because that will make me less like a child to be handheld through every moral decision and incapable of getting things wrong because my mommy, er, God will stop me from handing in bad results!
>>God should make me comfy all the time and make everyone else comfy all the time because if I have the chance to show compassion in the face of suffering then I won't be a growed up since having responsibility in a crisis is for babbies
the utter state of your olgiopsykos.

>>13015763
>creates sentient life,in perfect world
>get bored
>makes their lives imperfect and filled with suffering because LOL
>Im good tho

>>13016935
>children should be tortured to death so that people are good
>can't make people good because Isn't all-powerful
Bugmantier thinking

heh, pain is the only thing that makes the world real

this is why dreams only feel real when they're nightmares, but it's even more fundamental than that; pain is what gives rise to creation
from evolution to human progress, the whole world climbs not because of what's on top, but because what can't keep up gets swallowed up

this is self evident to anyone exposed to the ultimate suffering, the insight that pain is the only thing that's not illusory

>>13016959
People who think the Epicurus argument is good always unintentionally turn into the biggest crybabies. You act as though life is literally nothing but suffering, with nothing good existing at all. It's stupid. Living carries the POTENTIAL of suffering, but no guarantee that the suffering will outweigh the benefits. And then God gives you eternal paradise after the fact and condemns all the evil people to hell. You act as though you're in hell to begin with.

>>13016988
>And then God gives you eternal paradise after the fact and condemns all the evil people to hell
Damn, with the attitude like that you will not reach heaven. "Evil" people get to suffer for all eternity, and of course you firmly stand on the side of "good"?

And then this eternal paradise idea: why would the afterlife differ so much from where you are currently? Do you really think that suffering will somehow end, that it's just this short 100 years and then you get to chill and do nothing for all eternity? If you truly love God, if you understand what love is at all, you should be prepared to suffer, not run away from it, dreaming of an escape, an eternal rest. How could you be so naive?

>>13015258
>>13015365

Regarding omnibenevolence, bodies:

The good of true freedom, not as contractual formality but to be your own rational actor not only after having been "created" but as you're being "created" and most of all IN being "created", is greater than the good of Ontogenic busybodying. Since the body itself fundamentally and wholly is a somatization of your very Self, it is just as vulnerable to error. To let everything be in and of its own, not as a curiosity in an otherwise tyrannical world, but to truly let it be a Monad like THE Monad, this is Omnibenevolence.

>>13016972
>People must be good, therefore it's god's fault when people choose to torture children to death
I think not. Blaming your imaginary friend for human action is very childish
>>can't make people good because Isn't all-powerful
>>>Why didn't mommy do my homework for me she must be dumb!
Wrong again, champ. Try not being a shitheel

>>13017038
You just don't understand what hell is. Hell is a state in which you pay for your every imperfection with blood. This is what normally happens to people who die. God intervenes in this and grants you mercy. He's simply preventing you from having to pay what you owe, in the event that it's the right thing to do.

>Why would the afterlife differ from where you are currently?
Because the afterlife is not the same thing as life. What a stupid question. As though God in his omnipotence couldn't cure autism.

>>13014840
>>13016843
>4) Which child is happier: the one who never wants or knows of suffering (the rich kid), or the one who knows about suffering and good (poor kid). But most importantly, which kid appreciates the love of his parents more?

This is the dumbest one by far, a troglodyte hitting stones together. Which is better? Me not running you over, or me running you over? Would you appreciate my love more if I ran you over?

>>13016767
Yeah well, I'm not so sure that Genesis is seen as a literal historical event anymore by Christians, so unless you can provide me a timeline to integrate alongside the naturalistic one in the sciences, it's a moot point. The fossil record indicates that death and disease have existed for a very, very, very long time.

>God saves the good
God saves the people who sell their soul to Jesus, regardless of what actions they committed. You could be a thief your whole life, and so long as you flatter Jesus's ego, he'll give you a straight ticket to paradise with him. I'm not sure this is "good", but Christians, who only see the world in terms of their personal gain, do consider it such.

Again, why do babies die of diseases? Are they personally sinful? Are they going to Heaven right after, forever (like Christians claim)? What was the point of them being born at all then, and giving their parents so much grief to live with after?

Yeah, well, I think the Earth can persist on its own, without such concepts as a Heaven where an anthropomorphic Personality resides and lets people enter once they've read a book he wrote and joined a cult he started a few millenia ago.

>>13014808
reminder that pseuds have been btfo by the problem of evil since Epicurus' day.

https://youtu.be/KuwNhed4ObU?t=42

>>13014808
>what is free will

>>13014957
>chooses to ignore infant brain cancer example because he cannot rationalize a good reason for it to exist

>>13017086
>Hell is a state in which you pay for your every imperfection with blood.
This state is called life. You are currently in it.

>Because the afterlife is not the same thing as life.
Pretend for one second that you are actually capable of thought, not just parroting what information you've been fed. Draw conclusions of what the afterlife is like from what you can see with your own eyes, as if you are theorizing for the first time in human history. Why would you think it's an eternal stagnant spiritual pain-free paradise? Somebody else created the afterlife, or something? Somebody with radically different ideas and values? Strange.

Now actually read the Bible. I understand people holding thins notion of Heaven in BC, but in 2019 AD? C'mon, Jesus Christ rose both spirit and body. What is a body but atoms and particles, contained within a 4 dimensional space-time? Where does your body end, where does it begin, when the quantum waveform is spread to all eternity? There are hair and nails, those aren't even alive, there are individual cells, organs, muscles, the brain... but how can it sustain itself without food, sleep, exercise, air, stimuli, heat?
Resurrection means spirit and the material, the world.

>>13017053
>when you know,control and created everything but aren't responsible for any of it
>when you could preform a good action effortlessly but you won't because that would cause people to not suffer,which would mean they wouldn't grow except you make people suffer and then kill them and you could also make them grow with 0 effort and 0 suffering.

Whoa... so this is the power of "adult" thinking
Please grow up, a responsible adult wouldn't be a shitflinging sadist like god is
God either
A)wants you to suffer,like an abusive parent who beats you to "toughen you up" and build "character" but leaves you a whimpering child who pretends at maturity and confidence (like him)
B)Can't prevent suffering and lies about it like a BITCH,A MASSIVE QUIVERING BITCH

Please try to be a mature and responsible adult

>>13014808
1. Epicurus believed in Gods
2. Just because something bad happens doesn't mean that God isn't real or isn't willing to stop it. God turns things that are bad into good things. Jesus dying on the cross was bad. God turned it into something good.

>>13014808
Epocureans are such fucking faggots holy shit. I don't believe in a conscious omnipotent God either, but that's a really dumb argument. First of all there's no such thing as good or evil.

>>13016112
cringe

>>13016854
>>13016959
Not going to answer the question? It’s very simple. As the creator of the whole universe, why go through such trouble to prevent human suffering? How exactly does it benefit you? I’m simply asking you to explain all of your thought process, just as you would likely ask God why He does what He does.

>>13016767
> Presumably, they were able to live for so long because they had less of a wage of sin to pay for.

Cute. Do you know why we don't live forever, why we eventually expire from a natural death? The reason is accidental death, from an evolutionary standpoint it just wouldn't arise in that situation. This is your sin, your entropy, and why it is the cause of death.

>>13017139
> timeline to integrate alongside the naturalistic one in the sciences, it's a moot point. The fossil record indicates that death and disease have existed for a very, very, very long time.

Absolute brainlet. Genesis is not a historical account, but it does contain truths about human existence your small brain can't even comprehend.

>>13017195
If you can save someone with zero effort and choose not to,you are evil,if you can't then that different.Ergo in a world with suffering,god is either not real,not good or not all powerful

>>13017183
Irrelevant. Poor excuse for a rebuttal
How many times you people going to hide behind this “ya can’t know nothin ‘bout muh god”?

>>13017152
Can you define evil?

>>13014808

God can only do good, and creating creatures with intelligence and free will that can choose to do evil, is good

>>13017216
Still haven’t answered the question. Why create a world without suffering? How does that benefit the creator?

>>13017202
>Actually the Bible would have us believe that things such as cancer are the result of mankind becoming increasingly more sinful. It is said that the wage of sin is death. Adam and Eve both lived for more than 900 years, and their children had similar lifespans. Then the average life expectancy gradually decreased over time. Presumably, they were able to live for so long because they had less of a wage of sin to pay for.
So if none of this is literally historically true, why would you even bring it up to me as if it were a literal explanation of our world?

>>13017223
You still haven't stated the problem of evil existing. Heck, you're a tripfag - that's evil. I could filter you - I have the power. But I won't. I want to, but I won't.
Goddamnit, Epicuros BTFO!

>>13017178
Why does a bad thing even need to happen at all?
>let me cause travesties so the world will fix the problems I created
Why not simply stop the bad behaviors directly? It's like
>disease exists
>let thousands die so humanity cures it
Why even have the disease

>>13017202
>Absolute brainlet. Genesis is not a historical account, but it does contain truths about human existence your small brain can't even comprehend.

>"You need a high IQ to understand rick and mor- genesis it might be to high brow for you"

Get real genesis is an allegory for leaving a primitivist lifestyle and becoming aware of moral obligation and death. its a human envy of animals story

>>13017255
>>13014840

>>13017231
Yahweh's handling of the Canaanites would be a pretty good example of it, in my opinion.

>>13017264
If the Canaanites were anything like modern jews, I understand 100%.

>>13017195
>>13017243
>How exactly does it benefit you?

What an absolutely juvenile individual. I know it's hard to think when you're 20, but conduct a thought experiment where you somehow get laid and have children. There are truths more profound than egoism and self-expression.

As to theorizing what God might or might not do, I'd say who the fuck are you? Stick to something easier, read some books.

>>13017269
>deflecting this hard
>still can’t answer the question
>criticizes God’s world but can’t even explain why he would create an alternative world
>resorts to insulting as if that will do any good

>>13017243
Why create a world with suffering? And creating people for your own benefit without regard for their suffering is mega evil
Why are theist such Immoral monsters? would any theist be good if sin wasn't a threat? seriously why

>>13017287
>Why create a world with suffering?
Do you not deserve it?

>>13017231
Yes. The absence of good.

tldr Evil is man's failure to realize the good. Think of an athlete in the long jump. It is literally falling short, by a lack of effort or training. OP's mistake is assigning that failure, allowing evil, to God. We are not him. We are the ones who sin, not God.

>>13014840
>>13017263
Alright then
1. The items mentioned are not necessary unless suffering exists. To cause suffering so courage is possible is pointless, courage isn't needed if suffering is absent.
2. Who is good in this situation? Are humans good for countering a malevolent god? Is god good for countering malevolent humans? Both parties fail to achieve these outcomes.
3. Is just admitting he is malevolent. So this is a master and slave relationship, not a loving creator.
4. Obviously the one who never knows suffering. Empirically, even.
5. No because stories are inconsequential.
6. Based on a false pretense that god exists

>Sin is to 'miss the mark'
>Contemporary man, even in this thread, intentionally misunderstands things
Sasuga.

>>13017287
>Why create a world with suffering?
God is wholly concerned with truth and the glorification of Himself. This world actualizes truth by displaying all forms of good and evil. Heaven and Hell are the extremes, with Earth composed of both good and evil in various degrees. This is all done so that good can be fully known, so that God’s gift can be appreciated and so that He can be loved. No one would worship God if they did not know of suffering. If the world were perfect, why would we worship God? Why would we glorify Him, allowing Him to perceive Himself as He actually is? Your thinking is too human-centered. God had absolutely no obligations to prevent suffering when He created the universe. He is God and does whatever He likes. Though humans suffer, God still allows us to find comfort in Him and go to Heaven. This Heaven is much sweeter knowing what suffering is.

How could it have all been any other way? Do you find truth or beauty in a static world? Where’s the complexity? Where’s the conflict? Where’s the meaning? Do you not think there’s value in literature containing suffering? Is there no truth in it?

>>13017327
>God is wholly concerned with truth and the glorification of Himself.
>it's ok if we get ass cancer and die as long as we think positive thoughts on God :)

>>13017253
This value of “evil” is ours, not the god that is, for so reason, unable to fathom it. It is ours to judge him/they/it by. You say he is beyond it, you have chosen malevolent. End of story. We’re done here. The Hebrews chose his too.

Along comes Jesus and we have a god who is either not all powerful or schizophrenic. But it all doesn’t matter because there are no gods on any plain of existence. Greater minds than ours came to this conclusion over a hundred years ago. Get over it

>>13017296
why would I deserve to suffer before I was born?
Why would a good and all powerful god predestine me to suffer? Why predestine the unborn and pure to suffer. What could be more evil then to create a sinner who would suffer eternally

>>13017302
The reason those that do not experience suffering are "bad" is because it leaves them unable to resolve and deal with suffering and often creates suffering for others, that's why people who never suffer is wrong, suffering will still exist even if they don't get it,god can stop suffering but doesn't and is therefore evil

>>13017339
>It is ours to judge him/they/it by.
no
>You say he is beyond it, you have chosen malevolent.
wrong
>Jesus and we have a god who is either not all powerful or schizophrenic
bad

You do not know the mind of God and are not qualified to pass judgment. How does a mortal like yourself ascribe human traits and failings to the Creator? Knowledge does not work like that.

A world with good and evil is more rational and consistent than one without evil. Imagine a book with no conflict. You’d think the author is an idiot

>>13017339
>This value of “evil” is ours, not the god that is, for so reason, unable to fathom it.
citation needed. You suppose God cannot fathom because... why? Because otherwise God would not make you (or anyone) unhappy? That is a child's idea of justice.

>>13017327
>make humans suffer so they love me
>not evil
choose one

also
>implying the perfection of heaven could be improved by suffering/decreased by a lack of suffering
HERETIC

>>13017392
>haha your baby died of brain cancer just like one of the story books :) wouldn’t the world be so dumb and irrational if he didn’t lol

>>13017174
>>when you know,control and created everything but aren't responsible for any of it
>>>Why can't I blame my parents for everything I do?!?!
>>>Why can't I just pretend being a glove puppet > having my own will?!?
Because God and your parents did not create you for you to remain a moral idiot, and the fact you want to be one is more likely your parents' doing and your own than that of a deity. Stop trying to offload your human responsibility on to others; it is the first step to not being the shitheel spoiled brat you are currently.

>>13017363
>why would I deserve to suffer before I was born?
Did you suffer before you were born?

>>13017388
>in this deep denial
There was no creation. The universe just Is.

>>13017396
>citation
Check the dictionary. Notice who publishes it.
And it is you who says god cannot fathom
>justice
Something else you have no idea about.

Goodnight

>>13017223
What the fuck are you even saying? How is it irrelevant that there's no such thing as good or evil? How can you then use good and evil as premises for your argument against God's existence? The whole thing falls apart if you do that. Stupid trip fag

>>13017301
Ok fair enough but how do you define the good then?

>>13017437
>The universe just Is
prove it

>>13017437
>the universe just is
>whatever, i judge jesus anyway! evil is god's fault
>god doesn't exist, or is evil
>ok guys punchin' out goodnight!
You are very confused.

>>13017443
The definition of Plotinus, Jesus, the book of John, Aquinas, et al.

The form of the Good. A form that illuminates all others. A light that burns and is not diminished. That which is perfectly beautiful, radiant, and makes of itself the image and likeness of itself: the love of God, divine grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the world itself (which was deemed very good). Our best things, love, that which we want for itself, is imitation of this. Faith, hope, charity. These are the ways of love that mark all good things. Even human justice, even when harsh, is founded on them and sustains a peace.

>>13015006
>whatever I don't like is wrong

>>13017485
>everything I like is right

>>13017448
What’s at the nd of the universe?
Gods pimply ass?

>>13017461
Evil is a subjective term. Killing babies off with parasites has been brought up. Is that enough of a bad thing to label it evil?
You’re confused, I’m fine. The world is a weird and miserable place for the believer of an ancient Hebrew myth.

I’m so happy I read Pascal and became a Christian. Through faith comes understanding. I once agreed with the atheists, but now see their faults

>>13017502
>you're an inhuman monster!!!
I SAID GOOD DAY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpK36FZmTFY

>>13017483
Yikes that's very assumptive. Probably not what good actually is. If there is such a thing at all.

>>13017571
The good is that which tends to existence

>>13017571
If you say so. Words mean things. Read more.

>>13014840
>The universe has created suffering through rational laws, supposing God does not exist. Therefore, atheists shouldn’t think that this universe, being created by God, is any less rational than a godless universe.
There's one you never see the proud atheists adressing, they zealously rail against the idea of God for creating all the pain and suffering in the world but enthusiastically suck the cock of the study and mechanics of a universe that created all pain and suffering purely by coincidence, simply because a diety didn't create it that way. I have to wonder why that is.

Nothing happens to anybody which he is not prepared by nature to endure.

>>13017607
>God never gives you more than you can handle
based

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJFYm5CQuxg

>>13017620
>God never gives you more than you can handle
Right on, brother!

>>13017580
Creation requires destruction. People are afraid of destruction and call it evil. Wouldn't you say that creation of new things however, is better than just passive existence? In fact creation too is usually shunned and called evil as most people are just content with existing and afraid of change.

>>13017630
I'm aware, anon. Terrible crime, committed by animals who deserve death. And you use her passing for an argument against God. You don't know her. You aren't Job. Sin is everywhere my man. Resist.

>>13017648
It's wishful thinking that the boys that did that too her, and the people who helped cover it up, will be punished by a metaphysical force when they are dead.

>>13014869
>>13014905
>attempting to apply human psychology to a deity
>actual heresy

>>13017641
Creation, destruction, joy, grief, light, dark...all existent forms in this world. Is it not complete?

>>13017630
The soul endures. Body is meant to die.
And people are evil. We all know why that is also. Lets not pretend the struggle of right and wrong doesnt exist.

>>13017662
It's complete for those who never want to see improvement.

>>13017680
Is there not improvement and change too?

>>13014808

his analysis is correct, the demiurge is malevolent

>>13017690
Yes but only when the incomplete world is brought closer to completion. One such step to improvement is eradicating faggots like you with their gay semantics games.

>>13017658
>wishful thinking
Perhaps to the uninitiated. Karma would say she earned her death, it was punishment for past deeds or a calling away to special purpose. Anti-Christian brainlets would say God is cruel to allow it to happen. Both of these view presuppose knowing the mind of God. Of some cosmic idea of fairness that should exist, but which these brainlets have no idea of how to prove. Read the Bible. God is not fair. He is jealous and vengeful to those who do not keep his covenant. He is also merciful, and everything you can see with your eyes or think with your brain has been given to you.

If it were up to me, the rapture would be tomorrow. We've had enough. But given that it will most likely be just another day: why not be good? Why not have faith that even in a monstrous world, the mortal life we live is only a portion of our being. Seriously. Read some of the background on this. Empiricism is not the end of knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwZ8KII_c0

>>13017713
>Why not have faith that even in a monstrous world, the mortal life we live is only a portion of our being.
There is no reason to. You yourself don't even know if you have a soul, you can't feel it, and you have never witnessed any type of supernatural miracle.

>>13017770
Why do y'all always speak on things you have no knowledge of? You don't know what I have witnessed. You only extrapolate from your own barren experience and project it onto me, assuming it must be the same. That is not honest inquiry, or how knowledge is transmitted.

Anyway. I hope your ears are opened some day. Read some quality books, do some thinking, then revisit the issue.

>There is no reason to.
Yes there is. Go read this thread: >>13016063

>>13017800
not him, but
>You don't know what I have witnessed
lol anecdotal evidence

While the yamaka'd grugs is this thread quietly quibble over how much random human pain and suffering they're willing to accept from magic sky daddy (as long as it's happening to other people far away), there are secular countries working to cure cancer, fix birth defects before they occur, develop functioning limb/organ replacements, explore space, eliminate food and energy deficits, and generally transcend humanity from suffering entirely. They're doing it without dressing in robes or chanting to Baal, too.

Religious institution today, astrology tomorrow.

>>13017800
You feel your soul and you saw a supernatural miracle?

>>13017858
based bugman and the armies of STEM. to what end.

>>13017859
>>13017847
Do you know what mysticism means, anon.

>>13017920
>belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

>>13014841
what the fuck do calvinists actually believe this shit?
calvinism is more evil of a heresy than i originally thought

>>13017858
>>13017920
>based bugman and the armies of STEM. to what end
Ask AN Whitehead
>It is the business of the future to be dangerous; and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties.

>>13014808
another reminder

>>13018184
science is hypothesizing that a flashlight exists, then searching for it, recording your results, changing the hypothesis such that one does not exist, searching again, recording your results again, noting that they are consistent with the new hypothesis, submitting it to peer review, and then being called a retard by the rest of the scientific community for not flipping the fucking light switch

>>13018184
These memes always bug me. What scientist worth their salt doesn't include caveats and margins of error? The people who propagate these memes though are so fucking afraid of uncertainty they might as well be fundie evangelicals.

>>13018199
>literal meme doesn't have P values
This obviously isn't meant to be taken with any scientific value anon. It's a cartoon cat.

>>13018219
Tell that to everyone who spread it all over the internet like it was their version of Jesus Saves

>>13017859
Yes to both, not him

>>13016113
Kek

>>13017670
complete word salad

>>13018371
nah.

>>13014808
God is merely divine knowledge

>>13018184
What is it called if you enter into the room with a flamethrower?

>>13018675
Postmodern neomarxist

>>13014808
If God exists, then his actions are the very definition of good by which the rest of creation is held to account. There is no possible universe where a being that could accurately be called God, could also accurately be called evil.

>>13014879
If God exists(a divinely simple one because that's the only coherent conception of God), then his standards and actions are the definition of what we call good.

>>13018371
come on dude, it's obv what he's saying

>>13018675
Esoteric Hitlerism

>>13018708
if evil exists, it's only because a god has defined it as such. since the Christian god has defined evil, that means that it exists. from here, OP's pic follows
the only way to avoid OP's pic is to say that since "God is good", everything he does through action or inaction is good, so evil doesn't exist, so he has provided humanity with explicit untruths

>>13017859
Many would answer yes to both questions, including me

>>13017139
You don't get into heaven by flattering Jesus, you have to sincerely accept him. If on your death bed you just say you accept Jesus but don't have any remorse your actions or sincerity, you aren't getting into heaven. Do you think God can't tell when you're sincere, that you can just trick him?

Humans do not understand absolute morality, God does. All suffering serves an ultimate good. In our short loves with our flawed perspectives many things appear to be absolutely evil, but from God's perspective even the greatest evil serves to further the greatest good

mfw noone knows that suffering is the condition for life because noone reads buddhist source text

>>13019081
Ok Leibniz, didn't you get mocked by Voltaire enough?

>>13019137
Voltaire's critique is literally just "bad things happen so this world is bad," it doesn't actually criticize Leibniz

>>13019163
The absurdity lies in the claim that a perfectly good God created our world so perfectly that we must accept everything. "Cultivating our garden" and all that is the real take away. Other apologists have disagreed with Leibniz too, his God is one that only appeals to a weird subset of mathematicians, who themselves are prone to Platonism.

>>13017039
>no replies

The annoying quip about God being "above human reason" might be incidentally true in that the people parroting it are below Reason in general.

>morons further degrading aquinas' moronic arguments
>the pascal poster
>men that cannot refute a woman

Pathetic.

>>13018708
If God exists, then his actions are the very definition of evil by which the rest of creation is held to account. There is no possible universe where a being that could accurately be called God, could also accurately be called good.

Satan is the god of this world, and we unwittingly tend to worship her.
If we lived better, there'd be a lot less suffering.
Earth is the domain of Satan, not the domain of God, and according to Genesis, we chose it so.

>>13015611
This the garden of Eden was the perfect world.

>>13015365
because its up to you to destroy evil in the world to test your humanity, if everything was fine on earth, why would that world even exist for, if we could just live with god in heaven

Just a reminder that Plotinus BTFO Epicurus forever and ever.

>>13019440
>The annoying quip about God being "above human reason" might be incidentally true in that the people parroting it are below Reason in general.
Tautology; people who merely parrot are always beneath reason in general. That being said, reason is a whore to all of our repeated processes, habits, preferences and flaws.

>>13018268
>>13018749
Tell me how do you feel your soul, and what miracle or miracles did you witness?

>>13015554
>>13018184
this is your brain on atheism.

>>13020205
Intense meditation, Wim Hof method, and attempting to astral project. You get a feeling of physical disassociation, like your physical body is asleep while your actual, spiritual body becomes active and starts vibrating to an extreme. You see lights in the distance and gain a feeling of levitating over your body.
As for miracles, I had 3 days in a row where I was hit by cars at the age of 18 -- first time was when a car turned without looking and hit me, second time was inside of someone else's car, and the third time was when a car drove straight towards me on the wrong lane at 45+ mph in a 25 mph zone. I got off with barely any injury every single time, although the experience made me realize the importance of my time and pushed me to study spirituality, eventually arriving at Christianity

>>13020292
>Intense meditation, Wim Hof method, and attempting to astral project.
First of all, the myth of meditation giving special powers or "siddhis" to practitioners has been around since the Pali Canon or before, but it's important to note that originally the enlightened masters were said to be in possession of powers such as levitation, clairvoyance, changing one's size, teleportation, etc.. What happened with the arrival of the modern era, journalism, photography, scientific method, laboratory techniques, is all these powers, the ones that that were more on the surface, that could have been easily displayed, have been relegated to the background, even people like Osho and Gurdjieff never displayed them. I think its important to note their complete disappearance. After that you are left with the ones that are more difficult to display, the ones that are hiding beneath the surface if you will, such as mind reading, knowing the future, healing, and seeing things outside of your body. There have been many claimants to such powers, but not one could be verified in a normal laboratory setting. If you want to know about the existence of such phenomena refer to Susan Blackmore's In Search of the Light, The Adventures of a Parapsychologist. In her own words:
>It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena—only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a skeptic.
I think it might be important to note that no one has claimed the prize in the Randi challenge either.
Secondly I have myself tried astral projection, and felt the vibration you're talking about, but there has been nothing in my case to suggest that it was anything but lucid dreaming, which can be pretty cool, but it has nothing to do with one's actual soul leaving the body, because at all times, there is one piece of evidence that is always lacking, and that is verifiability. If you could use astral projection to look into who is behind this post, where he lives, how he looks, etc.. Then you could convert atheists on this board non-stop, but you can't and you will never be able to.
I'm also not surprised that your supposed miracle is in the form of a coincidence. People get hit by cars A LOT, and some are injured and taken to the hospital and consider it a miracle they survived, some are left unscathed and consider that a miracle, and some die and are unable to make any supernatural claims, nevertheless, man is a superstitious animal, and likes to consider coincidences as paranormal. Pic related, couldn't fit into 1 post.

>>13020556
Have you tried phiscadelics they can help you reach higher states of consciousness the lazy way.
But they do exist maybe astral projection is too much of an ask for getting a reliable results every time but I hardly think it's impossible.

>>13015611
>>13019807
So the Bible lied about God's omniscience then? Did he not know that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If he is omniscient as the Bible claims then he would know that creating the tree would be the root of all evil, but he decided to do it anyway. Sounds pretty malevolent to me.

>>13020646
I used to visit a website that had a picture hidden 24 hours before it was revealed, and people had to describe the picture using astral projection. I was in my teens then, but everyone's results were sporadic, not just my own. I remember reading about US military conducting their own tests, (The Men Who Stare at Goats, Ron Jonson), but nothing conclusive there either. And yes I would like to try Psilocybin mushrooms sometime, might try growing my own, getting a fresh perspective on things can be healthy, but I doubt it necessarily imbues users with a belief in the mystical, only that users use the language that they have been given by society to describe those experiences, see UG Krishnamurti. Terence McKenna's timewave zero didn't actually predict anything real either.

>>13017437
>There was no creation. The universe just Is.
Are you by chance an autist?

>>13020812
Consider the fact that there is no alternative to existence. Nothingness is not a thing, therefore the universe doesn't need creating but exists as a brute fact, what you call non-existence must collapse into existence. So tell me, are you the autist?

>>13020556
I appreciate informed skeptics like yourself. I'm one who believed in the existence of the supernatural, based on my own personal reasoning (ex. you've either had one life prior to this, or you have not), but without much investigation into the matter. I'm now trying to actually look into evidential dimension of this sector, and am disappointed by how little there is to corroborate what I considered possible. Astral projection, for example, has a multitude of books written on the subject, and is a very popular topic in the domain of spirituality, yet has almost no scientific verification for itself. Yet, I have seen one video on Youtube of a test where a scientist placed a 5-digit number on a cupboard (I think?) close to the ceiling, and a sleeping woman served as the test subject for astral projection. Her brainwaves were monitored, and when she resurfaced, she stated the correct number, and when indicating the time she "projected" at, apparently her brainwaves changed from their ordinary pattern to one not common of a sleeping brain. Apparently the study has not been verified again with more subjects, though - why not? That's disappointing to me, since it should have way more researchers and volunteers looking to further an investigation of it.

I was previously too casual in my approach of this subject, but am now more skeptical and cautious in what I throw my affirmation onto. I've recently decided to try astral projection for myself, to see if it has reality. I'm just baffled that it could have so many people behind it, claiming it to be real, while not being so. At the very least, it must be a hallucination - the mind creating a dream wherein it explores the reality around it in a disembodied state.

I personally still do have belief in there being a spirit, though, just on the basis of my independent reasoning. Consciousness is either a biological product, or is not. If not, it has to have existed prior to it, and will exist after it.

When children report of past-life memories (which is a very common, universal phenomena) among these subjects there are either real memories or personal delusions of such, and if the former, it means that the brain is not the storage container of memories - but that memories somehow exist non-locally such that two completely separate brains can access the same ones.

There are many other, and better examples of simple, binary reasoning I could leave here that help display why I personally don't consider it irrational to believe in the possibility of ourselves as having a spirit, which I won't go into. But I appreciate your skepticism again, and share in it too. Following the skeptic community's addressal of these realities helped me to tame my own latent impulse towards believing in them, and proceed in a much more grounded fashion than how I was previously.

Hopefully my attempts at astral travel are successful, lol.

>>13015554
here is your world for you :)

>>13014820
He wasn't an atheist, but what somewhat of an apalatrist, he thought it wasn't necessary to worship the gods.

>>13021177
No, he maintained that Gods are immortal and perfect, and they do not care about the affairs of Men

>>13021177
If I remember correctly, I did once read his metaphysical idea of the world and it was indeed influenced by Gods. In other words, Epicurus did indeed believe that Gods created various aspects of the world.

This is important because it’s just another example of atheists taking words out of people’s mouths for their own ‘cause’ :3

>>13021074
btfo

>>13018184
The implication here is beyond stupid. To suggest that the first three fields are looking for something so concrete as a cat in a room is beyond stupid, compared to hard sciences which actually are. The comparison makes no sense.

>>13015554
>Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself--as though that were so necessary-- that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar.

Suffering is inherent in the nature of man. Your utopian idea is suitable for some alien species maybe but not for humanity. Suffering is part of life, without it you would not feel human, you would not appreciate the good parts of life.
I am no theist but as a human I would sooner believe & worship the Christian God than submit to the idle existence of your ideal benevolent provider of all.

>>13019762
absolutely heretical

>>13022376
>thinking that Satan is male
you're even more heretical than he is

>>13022379
>thinking that was the heretical part
I mean it is burn it’s not what I meant

>>13022022
so you're admitting that philosophy, metaphysics, and theology are literally all just looking for imaginary things

woah..makes you thinkk

>>13022022
this
>>13022384
also this
>>13022382
not him, but it's extremely obvious that that was what you were focused on

>>13022590
based

To Leibniz plebs: you're making him not-omnipotent by limiting him through the principle of sufficient reason.

>>13015258
The suffering of Christ is a good thing, why else would the cross be such an important symbol for Christianity? The crucifixion is important because it connects God to humanity. God became a man and suffered to relate to us

>>13022598
Elaborate

>>13022799
Leibniz claims God is constrained through the principle of sufficient reason. He does this as a solution (or one of them) to theodicy. It's bullshit, Epicurus isn't even wrong if that's the case, and most Christians wouldn't even agree that God is constrained in such a way anyway.

>>13014808
Why did God create good?

>>13022848
God is Truth, Truth is not outside of God. God is simply acting by His nature.

>>13015147
Adam and Eve we're immortal before they ate the fruit. Just because they didn't die immediately doesn't meant that the fruit didn't kill them

I like the Buddhist interpretation that God is the mass consciousness that all humanity springs from. When we connect with him we are connecting with other people, thus banishing hate and bringing about love. Ego and hatred comes from humanity separating from this mass consciousness and falling into the illusion that their ego creates.

>>13014825
His ways are not our ways, you actual fucking retard

>>13017530
Why a Christian and not any other religion? What reason do you have to think that Christianity, of all religions, is true?

>>13022918
please have sex

>>13022923
Someone's projecting.

>>13022918
Pascal spends literally over half of the book explaining why Christianity is true. Do you read what you criticize or just slurp atheist propaganda on the internet?

>>13022918
Pascal adresses this in Person if you read the whole book

>>13022964
Lol yeah dude and animals are automatons and also this is the best of all possible worlds. But I'm the one slurping up atheist propaganda. Anyway brb gonna have some sinful gay sex

>>13022918
absolutely based

>>13022913
>god HAD to kill those babies retard, they had it coming
holy... based

>>13022500
>not him but let me project meaning onto your words
nah

>>13017139
>God saves the people who sell their soul to Jesus, regardless of what actions they committed
No. Read the catechism. Look up mortal sin.

One does need to have heard the gospel to be saved.

>>13023085
>being Catholic
almost as cringe as being Protestant, yikes

>>13022964
>Pascal spends literally over half of the book explaining why Christianity is true.
He was shilling for Christianity like a salesman, many circular arguments, a better case could be made for Buddhism.

The most based and redpilled argument against God.

>>13023141
>look at me! I’m enlightened!
-Gautama

1. I don't really want to respond too much to this argument, so my response will be condensed. It is an obvious one though, as anyone who knows the literature on POE will agree.

2. G.E. Moore's response to the sceptic:
Sceptic's argument:

I cannot know that I am not a BIV
If I cannot know that I am not a BIV, then I cannot know that here is a hand.
Therefore I cannot know that here is a hand.

Moore's response.
I can know that here is a hand,
Therefore I can know that I am not a BIV.

3. POE
There is unnecessary evil.
If there is unnecessary evil, then God does not exist.
Therefore God does not exist.

The theistic solution to the riddle is obvious.

>>13023225
Yeah, something you can achieve for yourself, whereas in Christianity you have to take Jesus' word on faith, not that I care about either of those religions.

>>13023249
You also have to take Gautama’s word on faith. Who knows of Nirvana? How do you know if you’re enlightened? Isn’t there faith in Buddhism, too? Gautama claimed to be enlightened without the assistance of God, while Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If both were sincere, and not lying, then only Jesus could have preached absolute truth. Gautama was a philosopher, using his own, limited reason to dream up what he thought was true (how does he know?). Jesus was prophecied in detail in the Old Testament. How does Gautama compare? The town “Bethlehem” literally means “house of bread.” You can’t make this stuff up. So many authors, separated by centuries, all forging a religion they take seriously? I mean, if Jews were so knowledgeable about the OT, likely being Jews themselves, why purposely fake the messiah and go through such effort? What parts are fake, and what aren’t? Was Jesus real? Did he merely trick people into thinking he was the messiah? Was Paul fake, or did he travel town to town spreading the gospel for amusement?

And then you have religions like Buddism and Islam...easily faked

>>13023038
You just don't understand.

>>13015220
Explain what is wrong with following the Bible. Why is being free to do anything you want a good thing?

>>13023311
>Who knows of Nirvana?
You can watch this interesting lecture on the possible brain changes that may occur during what is called "enlightenment": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqrpKUTMXgY It's not a verified theory, but a hypothesis. There are numerous people currently who claim depersonalization and unity experiences without putting forth supernatural claims, see Suzanne Segal, John Wren Lewis, U.G. Krishnamurti. There are Satsangs dedicated to this, Mooji for example. Either way there are many lies and myths in Buddhism regarding supernatural claims, but at least there is a practice that might actually bring about change in brain states, whereas in Christianity there is no practice, there is nothing you can do. So there is one religion where you can try to verify the truth for yourself, and one where you cannot, so which one is superior? Not that I'm shilling for Buddhism, as I said I don't care for either one.
> If both were sincere, and not lying, then only Jesus could have preached absolute truth.
So you respect the person who told the biggest lie? On that token shouldn't you wager on Islam, because Muhammad is the most recent prophet of the same God?
> So many authors, separated by centuries, all forging a religion they take seriously?
If your religion is true and the other ones are false then self-delusion and lies are intrinsic to human beings, because non-Christians outnumber Christians in the world, and they take their own religions seriously, and have been taking them seriously for thousands of years.

Every problem anyone has with God comes from the mistake of anthropomorphizing him as a magical man in the sky

>>13023492
every problem anyone has with atheism comes from the mistake of not anthropomorphizing god as a magical man in the sky

>>13023492
Their mind is rooted in the material. They’re in that middle state—intelligent enough to question the literal interpretations, too dumb to understand symbolism.

>>13014808
>implying will and evil exist