/lit/ - Literature

The most redpilled perspective is that God is a cunt.

>>13251218
the ancient greeks believed their gods were bad natured...

>>13251218
>Is he able but not willing?
The answer is yes. The Truth is God loves child-rape as much as he loves sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation. God loves all of creation because True Love is ultimately all there is, in different degrees and configurations.

>>13251218
If you think of god as a man, you already failed christianity.

>>13251218
>free will
1. Natural disasters
2. You can make a world where people are able to will evil but unable to act upon that will.
>no you can't, ability to act on your will is essential to free will
I see, so when an evil person inflicts evil on me and deprives me of my freedom in the process, is my free will obstructed? If it is then why does god allow evil peoples free will to triumph over good peoples free will?

>there is more good than evil in the world
If you build 100 bridges and fuck one goat what do they call you?

>you can't apply human standards of morality to god
We don't need to. You can make this argument while adopting the Christian view of good and evil. I don't know a Christian who would deny that god allows evil.

>>13251218
Why do you say "theists"? why can't God be a malevolent being? What does that have to do with the theist - atheist dichotomy? If you don't believe in god/gods, there's no reason to discuss their nature (good vs evil). If you don't believe in god/gods because they may be malevolent, you are just another coping brainlet, similar to most christians

>>13251275
Free will doesn't exist in our world. Just take a cursory glance at identical twin studies and you will realize that every decision you will ever make it simply an expression of your particular combination of genes

>>13251340
Quantum physics

>>13251273
But he made us in his image

>>13251275
>If you build 100 bridges and fuck one goat what do they call you?
Are you supposed to be supporting your argument or dismantling it? Fucking a goat is so fucked up that it's more noteworthy than the bridges, that's the point.

the being we call god is really powerful but not omnipotent and is also not trivialized by his non-omnipotence

>>13251345
you don't understand quantum physics

>>13251375
you're literally just making things up, aren't you anon?

>>13251382
yes, like all good men of the cloth
it takes two minutes to come up with a religion, along with an entire model for divinity and salvific doctrine, and have zealots lining up to defend it with their lives. man in his natural state is a theist

>>13251413
religion is directing man's theism to good.

>>13251421
ah. call it cultism, then

>>13251356
I thought about that too after already having posted the comment but it is nowhere indicated that this image is meant to represent the physical properties of god. If it was meant that way other verses in the Bible would simply contradict it because God doesn't have any physical form per se.

>>13251218
>Is he able but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent

does not follow

>>13251378
https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/physics-free-will

>>13251218
Not a theist but this is easy bait.
1. God's reasoning is beyond human comprehension and everything we perceive as evil is some necessary step in a master plan
2. Evil isn't even a concrete term and doesn't have a solid definition, thereby invalidating this entire argument.

Take either or, both shut this down.

>>13251447
But we're talking about morality, not physical appearance. I sort of assumed this to also include a spiritual similarity, or something along the lines of the nature of our consciousness

>>13251450
complete non-sense. And you still haven't explained the fact that identical twins make the same life decisions 20+ years after being separated at birth

>>13251474
In the case of twins you're conflating likely outcomes with predetermined outcomes; saying "non-sense" is not a valuable contribution to the argument

>>13251450
>"Do We Have Free Will?

I must admit that I do not have a satisfying answer"

Congratulations, you contributed nothing. Changed no minds. Advanced no argument. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Feel shame and leave.

>>13251218
>muh why do bad things happen meme
every kick up the arse is a nudge in the right direction. If Epicurus hadnt of been such a limp wristed retiring faggot perhaps his philosophy could have held up.

That it is an undeniable fact that Epicurus believed whole-heartedly in the Greek gods.

The fact that more people have read this shitty little quote as opposed to his Metaphysical writings on here just goes to show you how lazy people are, and how readily they rally behind some anti-theist dogmatic paradigm trying to take hold.

The quicker this monetary aristocracy based on intelligence and ability takes over the better, we would like to stop being held back by incompetence and moronic ineptitude for FACTS. :3

>>13251454
i'm just shitposting, but

>[1.]
trivializes god by making him an unknowable figure cloaked in intellectual anarchy - by taking the master plan angle to its ultimate conclusion, you obviate any need to make god a part of human affairs, or to even contemplate god for any reason. he functions the way an abstract principle like 'fate' or 'destiny' would. he is a giant ontological question mark who might as well not exist at all
>[2.]
if we assume god is not deistic, but instead underpins and directs all human affairs, then 'good' and 'evil' can now only be defined one way: everything which is [good] is closeness to god, or something which "pleases" god, while everything [bad] is distance from god, or that which "displeases" Him. god becomes an existential point of reference from which all concepts derive meaning - an absolute standard. if we accept all this, however, we're back at square #1 with respect to the Epictetus problem

>>13251468
I now checked other translations, that is the Latin and the Ancient (Byzantine actually) Greek one and it doesn't sound like (according to my heavily limited understanding of Ancient Greek) it's meant to indicate that humans are in any way similar to god. It's only meant that humans were created according or also to a picture which in any way belongs to god. Whether or not that picture is meant to resemble god isn't indicated.

>>13251486
>Reddit spacing
>not responding to the argument but rather the statement that the author does not have a definitive answer
Still awaiting arguments against free will. I know your life is rough and it's easier to believe everything is predetermined but you'll have to try harder than this.

>>13251237
Not all of them. But it does resolve the problem Christcucks have falling apart before pathetic arguments.

>>13251539
the saying "the gods are fickle" comes from them

It's standard Christian understanding, at least historically, that the fault of evil does not lie on God, but on Man. That man introduced it into the world through the sin of the apple and that God had mercy on us and didn't zap us out of existence for this, and that evil has become a part of the world because of us.

>>13251530
>It's only meant that humans were created according or also to a picture which in any way belongs to god. Whether or not that picture is meant to resemble god isn't indicated.
Wow that fucks with a lot of what I've heard from my church growing up.

>>13251539
But OP wasnt talking about christcucks, he was talking about theists

>>13251537
>posting nothing but an entire fucking article
>the author of said article doesn't even agree that there is free will

also I'll space however I like, especially if it triggers your delicate sensibilities

>>13251218
Prove that an alternative world is objectively better

>>13251218
because if there was no evil niggas would just smooth sail into salvation with no opposition or self development gained from adversity

>>13251551
>didn't read the article
>mistaking mockery for offense
ISHYGDDT

>>13251448
>lets people gang rape children
>not malevolent

>>13251560
>I actually point out a direct quote from the article
>"YoU dIdN'T eVeN rEaD iT"

>>13251547
The phrasing definitely allows for the interpretation that we were made in his image but it's hardly the only valid one. Then again it's easier to imagine god as something similar to man, definitely easier than some kind of aether or force that either pervades the universe or is in fact the universe itself.

>>13251545

Also, would any you frankly be okay with a world where evil was just zip-zapped out of existence without regard for your autonomy and dignity as a human creature?

>>13251564
There’s nothing inherently illogical about the transcendent creator of all existence allowing or causing suffering to sentient beings within that creation. It would make less sense for there not to be suffering.

>>13251569
>facebook memes
>still no argument in favor of free will
>disregards the entire article for a single quote about ambiguity stating only that the author does not claim absolute knowledge
You have to go back.

>>13251577
wow anon, you sound pathological

>>13251573
Sin is the result of the lack of free will. Otherwise we would freely choose not to sin. There is no reason why devout Christians should sin, other than the occasional lack of free will.

>>13251577
suffering could just be minorly unpleasant things though. You dont need to experience torture to experience good things- most people have never been tortured but know the good. So torture is just pointless but it exists. The only justification would be if torture somehow allows for some greater good to exist for the tortured people.

>>13251583
not an argument. See>>13251552

>>13251592
not meant to be, just an observation

>>13251599
drop the “patho” and your observation is more accurate

>>13251580
try posting another article lol

>>13251564
those children's suffering will be rewarded in the afterlife for eternity and the guilty will be punished and tormented by their sins for eternity. It's all part of god's plan he crated mankind and gave us the free will to make our own way evil and suffering exists so good peopel and humanity in general acts against it and im proves itself in the process. We have free will god gave us the capacity to do all the evil we can and the ability to destroy our entire species and yet it hasn't happened

>>13251608
okay, THIS is pathological

>>13251608
What if the kid who was raped is a pagan dickhead though? Then he just gets raped and then sent to hell

>>13251608
>those children's suffering will be rewarded in the afterlife for eternity and the guilty will be punished and tormented by their sins for eternity
Unless the kids never grow up to accept jesus as their lord and savior, and the rapist does.

>>13251605
Imagine being this BTFO lol

>>13251618
>imagine posting an article where the author literally concludes by saying "I don't know" and thinking you contributed

oof

>>13251543
Yes, but you also have gods like Leto, who is purely good, and Prometheus, who thieves fire from Olympus to give to humans, allowing them to survive the wrathful gods like Zeus (who had deprived humans of it to begin with).
They are not all fickle, otherwise it would just be the opposite problem of Christianity.

The good is that which tends to existence. Since God gives existence to all things, whether they are subjectively good or bad to humans, alligators, birds, bacteria, and all things, God is objectively good.

>>13251549
Yes, I am saying Epicurus can easily take down Christians with this argument, as can even simpler problems. The Greek myths don't have this issue, there is much more consistency, one might even say an unbreakable hierarchy.

>>13251225
edgelord

>>13251356
He made us in the same sense as humans make chairs, however, He made Christ like humans make babies and rabbits make rabbits. One type of creation results in something different, with different properties, which is the former, and other type of creation results in something 'identical', with the same properties, therefore only Jesus was made perfect like God is, that's why we suck ass and sin. That also explains a bit the Holy Trinity, that the Son is God, and the Father is God, but The Father is not the Son.

>>13251552
ok
>hey guys its me god
>starting right now, all of your souls will leave thy bodies
>since you guys are free from the physical body you will not have to face the horrors of aging, illness, desire and sin
>no more sadness, no more anger, no more depression and that bullshit, only unity
>you will leave in the heavens with me as blissful souls
>and we will forever travel through the universe as one, comtemplating all its beauty

>>13251639
Christcuck cope arguments.
Existence is not Good, otherwise the Good would be Existence. If there is no difference then one idea is irrelevant.

>>13251615
>pagan
The plague these days is atheism, fool. :3

If your sardonic attitude fathered or mothered a child they would most likely be sent to hell after being raped, yes. And God probably would want it that way, seeing as you have chosen to reject him and spread THAT message.

>>13251218

That quote is completely out of context. The stoics never questioned the existence of God. He goes on to suggest that whatever God permits is good, therefore to complain about things that happen to you is immoral. The stoics were more interested in controlling their reactions to the world around them, then controlling the world around them. You idiot, he's not raising the question. He's answering it.

>>13251680
Well informed post :3

>>13251664
Wasn't he born to a prostitute? If he were perfect then he could have solved all the problems without a sacrifice and thousands of years of suffering.

>>13251678
>these days
And then the pagans.
Never trust Christcucks and their relativistic God.

>>13251680
>He goes on to suggest that whatever God permits is good, therefore to complain about things that happen to you is immoral.
this seems like the biggest cope of all time

>>13251699
Ohhh what's with this hate? :3

Not very kind of you, so-called academic enlighteners. You seem to be taking very low jabs at religious figures. IF you want to be viewed as someone high and mighty maybe you should ACTUALLY try to make the world a better place, instead of seeming like it?

Los Angeles, home of the atheists, is home to a tremendously rising homeless population. The fires were only the beginning my dear friends, you have physically and psychologically lost. You are the evil ones. Pretending to be good, and trying to make the religious seem like a choice. :3

>>13251707
You kinda have to cope

>>13251706
So much hate :3

>>13251707
christcucks don't seem to coping as much as militant atheists

>>13251711
Christianity begs these questions because it is unclear, even contradictory.
Interesting that you turn around and blame us for your own inability to persuade. A bit like your tempestuous God....

>>13251712
>>13251731
When you make the claim that everything is Good then you are permitting everything.
That may become a bit of a problem, don't you think?

>>13251734
Which religion? There are so many which believe in the one true God.

That must be because they are all elements of truth :3

>>13251745
This world displays God’s omnipotence and justice more than the fantasy world as described here >>13251667
God isn’t only concerned with preventing human suffering. We are special because of the relationship we can have with the Creator, but we aren’t everything.

>>13251793
How so? We basically live in hellworld and there are less signs of a benevolent God every day.

>>13251771
They probably fall to similar problems.

>>13251218
Evil is relative. Everyone is the protagonist in their story who always do the morally good thing as they see fit.God allows people to pursue good based on what that individual defines as good. Unironically the concepts of "good" and "evil" are spooks.

>>13251815
Is God not capable of creating the imperfect as well as the perfect? There is Heaven and there is Hell, complete opposites, with Earth in the middle. The whole world is made of opposites and complexity. There’s truth and beauty to this from an objective standpoint.

>>13251864
This is just obfuscating. We were discussing justice and omnipotence. Now you are saying that God puts those 'live laugh love' walmart boomer paintings in our homes so everything is okay.
No, it's literally hellworld. You know where the only True Christian Believers are? Living in the woods because they see that the Mark of the Beast is already taking over the earth.

>>13251218
>if he is able but not willing he is malevolent
epicurus judging god get a load of this nigga lmao

>>13251225
Rick and morty cum guzzler spotted

>>13251854
Lel bruh truth lets torture babies to death

>>13251218
I believe a typical Christian response would involve free will. But as I cannot see how Christianity avoids reducing to predestination idk

>>13251921
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. One of the most important aspects of religion is how it forms an image of Man caught between the created world and that of gods. This is something of a third-space between heaven and earth, what is often referred to as the Fall.

Without this, we tend towards being nothing but beasts. And our ability to test the gods is what makes us human, what allows us to live at the forest's edge, along still rivers, half submerged in the ocean - one may even say that this is a necessary element of religion, as without it we fall into being passive material receptacles. We exist tentatively, between the beauty that was given to us and the brutal laws that may destroy us even in piety. And so it is where nature falls away that we fall into conflict with the gods, where we find ourselves cultivating a dark territory between human and divine sovereignty. Such fateful judgement may reduce us to mere survival, but it is also where human strength releases its full potential, and where we sense the form of divine power. The gods may hand over dominion to us in trust when we prove that their authority is total, for they have freed our spirits into a greater being.

If we are not attempting to carve out our domain, becoming worthy of the gods, then we are forced to retreat. It is as if our rightful territory has been polluted and we enclose ourselves into ever smaller spaces of human imagery. The gods take from us what we fail to fight for and offer in return, for they have seen our betrayal of justice and weakness before the laws of dominion. A clear trajectory can be seen from the shrines on mountain passages to cult temples, to the enclosed churches, their being dwarfed beneath towers, and finally being abandoned or demolished - even in lands closest to the forest. We have cast ourselves out of our own being through a betrayal of the ineffable strength of humanity, through fear of those darkest pools amidst shadowy nature. Living tales were never meant to become hardened laws.

The void is really the opposite end of this human dominion, a space of negative forces where we are pulled from our bodies and souls, after we have finally polluted the last place. It is our weakness before the darkest reaches of the forest which petrifies us along the edge, until the entirety of the forest is consumed by darkness. Nihilism is nothing more than the desire for our return, a natural force being made into an impossibility after thousands of years of desecrating our rightful dominion.

Everything human is betrayed when it is unwilling to risk hubris, and so the gods take even more from us. This is what the Greeks understood so well.

>>13251573
Yes you dumbfuck. That's why we make governments. They're just much worse at their job than an omniscient omnipotent being would be.

>>13251218
Effortlessly.

Spinoza debunked this like half a century ago do you people read books or just shitpost? Nevermind I already know

>>13252363
>half a century ago

>>13252367
half, four, im ballparking here you get my point

>>13251237

According to Xenophon's depiction of him, Socrates honored the Gods and believed them infallible.

>>13251447
That would be Allah, Anon.

>>13251278
Absolutely, its just there are almost no theists in the modern world who don't believe in the 3O god, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. So yes you can deal with the argument by giving up any of these qualities but the issue is most theists don't want too.

>>13251499
>monetary aristocracy based on intelligence and ability
Perennial Bonapartism is a fucking plague on history. You're the collective, delusional convulsion of of a Terrorized people's cry for a king. You even name it aristocracy as you describe meritocracy, you're so moored to plebeian fantasy that you can't escape the crown, even in your dreams.

>>13251218
>If I don't like something, then therefore God doesn't exist.
Okay.

>>13251218

No sentence follows from the previous one. It's a daisy chain of quips, practically tranny twitter.

>>13251218
They take you to court and make you swear on the Bible

>>13251474

Free will does not entail necessarily unique will, much like random number generation does not necessarily entail even distribution of the all possible numbers.

What does it mean to be omnipotent? If God does not create leprechauns, does that mean He is not omnipotent? If God does not create evil, does that mean He is not omnipotent? Whether or not God exists, there must be a reason that evil and suffering exists; it must be necessary somehow. Atheists criticize God for allowing evil, but they do not criticize the natural laws of the universe for allowing evil. If it is logical that a natural universe produce evil, then it is no less logical that a universe created by God should produce evil.

>>13253207
The natural laws are not criticized because they were not designed. Intentions matter, and an all loving and all powerful god would not create a universe like this for sentient beings.

>>13251608
Top kek

>>13251707
We are talking about existence as reasoning a being who forms impressions on everything he experiences. You cope with everything, one way or another, all the time. If you don't want to cope then you can always kill yourself.
Being mad at God is a waste of time. It won't improve your situation. Either God intended for you to suffer or God does not exist. If God does not exist then there is no one to be mad at. If God does exist then your suffering serves a higher purpose, and you should be glad for it.

>>13253250
what if God is just a dick?

>>13253234
So natural laws are random?

>>13251583
>>13251586

This is not to say evil is necessary, quite the contrary, that Man would enjoy freedom even in depravity under a benevolent God. It being pointless and superfluous further proving his benevolence, not as in Ontological clockwork, that he might "mysteriously" make it worthwhile, but as true benevolence in accepting it as utterly unnecessary, for Man's sake alone.

>>13252317
Nice post anon

>>13253260
Thanks

>>13252503
Socrates was sophist child-fucker who believed to be more inteligent than anyone else. Fuck him

>>13251454
1. God doesn't need complex plans because he's omnipotent. If he couldn't execute plans that are easy to understand, he wouldn't be omnipotent. Therefore god wants to author our confusion as an end in itself, not because there's a better end in trade off.
2. Then god cannot be said to be an arbiter of morality. But this is what modern theists consistently claim of god.

>>13254327
There was nothing wrong with the sophists. They were actually pretty redpilled and preached relativism. Socrates was the one thinking morality was real and that we should be ruled by philosopher kings who know it best
Who's the actual bad guy, really?

Eternal reminder for catholics and other mongoloids that the problem of evil is an _internal_ problem for omnimax theists, whatever moral standard you utilize, God goes against it since by virtue of being omniscient+omnipotent everything that happens is sanctioned by him. Whatever horrible shit goes on in the world, he allows.
>free will
Since God is by definition morally perfect, he cannot act in any other way that what is maximally good and therefore doesn't have free will that's worthy of the name. Perfect beings don't lack good-making features, so free will is not a good and therefore free will is not an answer to the problem of evil.

>>13251218

Isnt the whole deal that the big guy gave humans free will, therefore the right to choose good or evil? Idunno man, shits gay anyway.

>>13251218
Unironically have heard Sam Harris paraphrase this in a debate and not credit him.

>>13254327
>literally says i know nothing
>constantly seeks out the wisdom of others
>H-HE WA-W-WAS C-C-CO-C-CORR-CORRUPTING DUH Y-YOOFS
Did Nietzsche even bother to finish the first page of Gorgias?

>>13251218
Im so fucking done with these threads popping up every fucking week. Oh BuT EpIcUriUS. Epicurius is a dumb cunt let me tell you. God is able to prevent evil, BUT HE DOESN"T because he also promised us FREE WILL, do you want to sacrifice your freedom for the safety of chains? No you fucking dont you dumbass. Ok then hes able, but apparently not willing? WHat the fuck does that mean. Im able to commit larceny, but NoT WilLing. You never do anything all the time, and as previously mentioned hes not concerned with keeping and maintaining our earthly idea of good and evil, for the sake of freewill. Why call him god if he does not wish to spare us our own undoing? Because we all deserve to burn in eternal hellfire. We all break all of the ten commandments every second of every day, and then we pose as pious players. The reason people abandon traditional value systems in favor for their own tailor made constucted value systems, is because they don't have to feel inadequate. Oh your a fucking trannie? Dont feel bad thats JUST THE WAY YOU ARE, because obviously NO ONE HAS CONTROL OVER THEMSELVES. We are all just products of the whims and wishes of the damned universe. Except were not, because we have free will, whicch leads us ack to the spawn of evil.

>>13254635
>believes the more inteligent you are the more good you are
Literal brainlet anyway

>>13251237
>/lit/ 2019

>>13253252

You still wouldn't profit by being angry about it. There's nothing you can do about it. In that case, you still eventually die, and suffering ends. It's not the worst thing God could do.

>>13254677
How do we know evil is free will? God makes a deal with the devil whenever he wants, so this negates any certainty of free will.
It's a shitty cope argument in any case.

>>13254714
>you die and suffering ends
what if he's REALLY a dick. I mean imagine how bad things could actually be

The mistake comes in the second assertion
>Is he able but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent
This does not follow

>>13251275
freedom =! free will

>>13254748
>> I mean imagine how bad things could actually be
You do. There's still nothing you can do about it. Also, things are not as bad as you can imagine. If things were that bad, you'd have nothing to worry about. The guy in OP's post would tell you to stop worrying.

>>13254677
kys retard

Does it matter? Theistic or not its obvious that evil comes from people.

The greatest of goods are great because of their triumph over evil and all things.
This means that evil is a part of Necessity, taking the form the least good. An evil-less world is devoid of meaning purpose and direction falling into stagnation—then, what we thought was paradise, is nothing but the greatest evil. An totally evil-less world is the state of morphine addiction, a constant hellish pleasure without justifiable cause.

There's a reason the first essences emanating from the One is Sameness and Difference.

>>13251819
‘Probably’?

Sounds very academic. :3

>>13251218
God gave us free will, He doesn't fuck with it. He can give advice as per our conscience, can give us revelations that seemingly come out of nowhere, but ultimately He leaves people to be as good or as evil as they'd like. After all, without the capacity for evil, what use is there of good? I could give a guy on the street $2.25 (which I did last night), or I could have attempted to beat him up and steal his pack, which turned out to be full of slightly-expired Toblerone bars. He gave me one for showing such generosity; I told him he could just keep the money for nothing and it was then that he told me of the bars and offered me one. Kind of him. Seeing as the bars were expired I'm disinclined to think he stole them, which actually I find relieving. I shared my bar with some people at a pub and had a nice conversation with someone though I can't much recall the conversation at the moment. I spent more money last night than I'd have liked... but I'm digressing hardcore.

That's my view; God allows us free will. Does he intervene sometimes in certain matters? Maybe, haha this one instance from high school came to mind; we were playing dodge ball and I was kinda in the zone. A funny and cool stoner guy who apparently ended up joining the Military (big fellow) whipped a ball at me and when I looked in that direction I could see it was coming STRAIGHT for my face. No joke, I fuckin' Matrix'd that shit and bent backwards, dodging it, and when I righted myself the stoner guy was just blown away by it, highly entertained, and I laughed at it myself. Thinking on it now, I'm doubtful that God had a hand in that situation, even though it was so awesome. I was trying to think of a sort of 'miraculous' incident and that came to mind, thought I'd share. Anyhow, all those people out there who were shot but "if it went THIS much closer to THIS part of their anatomy then they'd have died/been paralyzed", that could be perceived as Godly intervention because it all happens so damn quickly and people have NO control over it, virtually. So, if we assume for a moment that such a thing is Godly, then God can indeed intervene during acts of evil... even though he didn't intervene so that the shot wasn't even fired.

The world is a very rough place, and nobody is spared its pain, not even the most religious of Christians, the most devout of atheists, the most fundamentalist of Muslims, etc. Terrible things have and will happen to me, I simply don't blame God for it, however I do thank Him for my blessings on a very regular basis.

>Thanks God for good things
>Doesn't blame Him for bad things

This seems hypocritical, I am aware. Perhaps this is where the concept of Satan and demons come in. Though then, the individual who pulled the trigger in that scenario, it wasn't Satan who pulled the trigger but the individual with the firearm of their own free will. Or, what if it happened by accident? Was that the individual's own ineptitude, or was it Satan?

>>13254888
That’s a Metaphysical relation and has little to do with religion.

I will admit, though, Proclus took Aristotle’s Metaphysics and applied it in a very religious way. You could consider Nous as the very beginning of a long and logically correct reverence for the Creator :3

>>13254878

This is a perverse inversion, Good and Evil are neither relative, nor do they work in a "Newtonian" way, i.e. a negative charge beckoning a positive one. See: >>13253258

>>13254921
>Free will is the source of much evil
>Free will is granted to us by God
>God is the source of much evil

That's an interesting line of logic and some might consider it solid enough to accept and thus reject any theology whatsoever. I don't think it's complete, though. It doesn't take into account the individual person, with their individual experiences, their individual mindset, their desires and aspirations, etc. Well, is each person made by God? We're made in God's image, whatever that means. Apparently the Bible says that God knows us even before the womb if I'm not mistaken, in a way this is like DNA, since the sperm and the egg hold information that ultimately leads to us and by the time both come together, upon conception, it's already pre-determined what the baby's eye colour, hair colour, height (given a proper diet), weight tendency, etc. will be. So that's an interesting thought, and if God knows everything then He'll know which sperm will win so He literally can know us before conception.

Does He choose which one will win? Perhaps that's the crux of the matter; free will eventually leads to children, God doesn't choose who will win but will know before-hand who will win, and so that creation will be its own unique individual separate of God's will unless they become a Christian and pursue to enact God's will as best they can perceive it. If they perform evil, it is the evil brought on by the individual's free will. But, could God have intervened to choose which seed will hit the egg? I dare say he could, so why choose an evil individual to win? Well, all people are capable of good or evil, as Carl Jung said, "the line between good and evil runs down the heart of every man", so ultimately it's up to if the individual ends up giving into one or the other. This can be influenced by how they're raised, by some experiences with the free will of others, etc. Though individuals probably have an inclination towards good or evil intrinsically, though of course they could always resist to be a better or worse person. One example is that, as long as I could remember, I've always wanted to play a good character in videogames. Even in games where I have the option to be evil, I rarely give into it, though I probably do sometimes. Morrowind comes to mind; I recall after I had slain a town for kicks (which itself is evil though mostly just done out of boredom rather than malice) I then went around and undressed all the females. Actually may have undressed everyone but of course I would have focused on the females.

Anyhow, I think it's an interesting thought on the matter. I could get spiteful at God for not intervening to make my life better, but I accept that life can be extremely difficult, perhaps even feel unbearable at times, but God supposedly never gives us challenges that we cannot overcome. I am hopeful that this is the case.

>>13251356
>muh G-d is a person
“In his image” is a fucking metaphor, you retard. It means that humans have the 10 divine faculties of emotion that allow for rational thought, free will, and creation. These actions typify are our understanding of G-d, even though the manifestation in humans is a corrupted. For example, the G-dly manifestation of creation is creating something from nothing, while the human manifestation of creation is to transform one thing into another thing (i.e. something into something) in a very limited, time- and energy-costly way. The shit that gets posted every day on this board about religion is pseudo-intellectual at best and shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental axioms of Abrahamic religion. You can disagree with axioms and use your own, but that is the result of faith. Whether you have faith in the scientific axioms or religious axioms is a personal choice, but in order to “disprove” Christianity you need to have an understanding of what the axioms actually mean and imply and then use those axioms to prove a fundamental unsolvable contradiction that arises. Some pseuds on a Vietnamese basket weaving image board aren’t going to solve this 2000 year old argument.

>>13254940
Courage is a good existing in triumph.
Wisdom is a good existing in knowing where triumph is.
Mercy is a good only existing in opposition.
Relief is hopefully self-explanatory.
Hope.
Free-will.
Etc,.
Then we have Beauty itself, perfection lies in a first impression of an illusory flaw; and that is what evil is: a nonexistent impression only seen by not looking far enough ahead. The only evil that exists-actually is the free choice of not choosing good in place of vice.

>>13251520
Also shit posting, as again I'm not a theist, but these arguments are too easy to dismiss. (Though, full admission, I think God arguments are stupid s fuck because they all end in "you don't understand his master plan because it's beyond human comprehension").

>1
so? God is God and we are humans. God owes us no explanation and we cannot be expected to grasp his/her reasoning. We don't need to understand how God plays into human affairs, just trust that he's always right.

>2.
God and Humans by no means are subject to the same standards of good or evil. The only thing we can say for certain is that different cultures have different definitions of good and evil. What you think is good and not what someone half way around the world thinks is good. They have different holy books than you do, and their "gods" say different things. As such you'd need to prove which God is "the one true God" if you were going to use the Word as a basis for morality. Since you can never clear that first hurdle, you can never even begin to approach the second.

>>13254338
>1.
God doesn't need anything. He does what he does and it's always 100% right. You're trying to pass judgement, which is not the human's place. Perhaps what you perceive is evil is actually Good from God's perspective. Your opinion, relative to God's, is worthless.

>2.
God is the arbiter of morality and you still can't clear this hurdle because of what I said about point 2 to the other anon.

>>13254892
Nice argument.
But you were the one with the vague comment/question to begin with.

Not even the Greeks have all the answers

>considering evil and good from a human's standpoint
>not seeing such a simple contradiction

How the fuck is Epicurus even relevant anymore? Is it only because of brainlet atheists?

Aquinas btfo this guy

>>13254771
It does in the Greek sense. They didn't see evil as Christians do.

>>13255098
And even before Saint Augustine of Hippo BTFO him

EVEN IF THEY HAVE NOT HEARD MY WORD THEY SHALL ATONE FOR IT!

>>13255078
>

>>13255078
Do you have them?

>>13255098
Imagine believing this.

>>13255081
This fails when God is supposed to be the source of morals and represent an ideal Good, and is supposed to have entered into a special relationship or have a special interest in man and is all powerful.
How can Evil be secretly Good outside of the human standpoint if God Himself frames that human standpoint and seeks our happiness? It only works if God is somewhat disinterested in humanity, or vying with other powers towards his own ends, such as in Greek polytheism.
Again it just begs the question why would a Good God demand worship from those for whom he creates evil?

>>13251218
have sex

>>13255384
>God is not able to violate the laws of logic
So he isn't omnipotent at all then.

>>13255384
>God is not able to violate the laws of logic
Yes he is. He's God.

>>13255384

Basically: >>13253258

>>13255403
>>13255404
Retards
>>13255410
Nonsense

>>13255416
Not an argument brainlet

>>13251218
Epicurus didn't know about original sin and Christianity, which answer all of that stuff

>>13255404
>>13255403
I hope you realize that this is a laughably retarded counter argument.

No, God cannot violate the laws of logic, leave that for his enemies to do, like you.

From God flows all reason :3

>>13251367
And allowing hundreds of thousands to die in natural disasters and allowinf little kids to have their hands chopped off by warlords isn't as serious?

>>13255384
>>13255403
>>13255404
>What are miracles

>>13255421
>from god flows all reason
>>13255423

>>13255426
How do miracles contradict the laws of logic

>>13255434
>A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.
Therefore, not rational or logic

>>13255421
Logically that does not make sense of God is truly omnipotent. Reason is created by God but God is not bound by reason, hence 'mysteries' like Revelation and the Trinity.
Limiting God to logic is blasphemous honestly.

>>13255442
Miracles contradict natural laws, therefore they contradict logical laws...
I'm not seeing the connection here.

>>13255457
Do you think nature makes thing because yes? Have you ever read some biology? Things like principles of economy, etc exists in nature. Also nature is deeply matemathical and geometrical btw

>>13255466
No, I think that nature follows order, but the order it's following cannot be contradicted or broken. No number of non-sequiturs will make me think otherwise.

>>13255505
I don't understand your position then. Are you a deist?
God intrudes upon nature, punctures the order of things. The virgin birth of Christ does not follow the order (logic) of nature, and neither does his miracles or Resurrection. Do you not believe in these? I am just assuming you are coming at this from a Christian perspective but correct me if I am wrong.

>>13251218
Like dis.

>>13251218
God doesn't care or is evil.

>>13255523
Contradicting natural laws do not contradict logical laws stupid.

Doing good is only good if it's freely chosen. If you donate a million to charity because someone points a gun at your head, it's good for the people who get the money but it's not a good deed on your part. To be able to do something truly good, you have to be able, in principle, to do evil as well. Therefore, for the possibility of good to exist, people have to have free will, which by definition is unpredictable, even for an omnipotent being - just as well as an omnipotent being couldn't square a circle etc. And this possibility inevitably entails the possibility to do bad or evil. So evil, or at least the choice to do evil, is necessary for good to exist. Otherwise the human race would just be a vacuous mass, devoid of any value.

>>13255420
How so?

>>13253159
What? No.

A ‘moneyed Aristocracy’ in the sense Tocqueville uses it, is essentially the transitional state from an Aristocracy to Democracy (in some ways Feudalism to Feudalism with monetary credit to Commercialism with monetary credit basically). Some states negated this transitional phase, others like England embraced it, staying with a constitutional monarchy for quite some time thanks to the likes of real intellectuals like Edmund Burke. :3

>>13251218
>if god real why bad things habben

>>13251218
He isn't malevolent, he is allowing us to be free.

>>13251218
The first part of this essay is the best answer(from a Christian afaik)
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm

>>13251218
why is epicurus referring to a single god as "he"?
the greeks had many gods

>>13256310
So if I'm understanding correctly, god can't predict human behavior perfectly, and thus this is resolved by assuming a nigh omniscient god?

>>13251218
I would respond that despite that meme quote, Epicurus believed in One God.

" First believe that God is a living being immortal and happy, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of humankind; and so of him anything that is at agrees not with about him whatever may uphold both his happyness and his immortality. For truly there are gods, and knowledge of them is evident; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that people do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the person who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in people like to themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind. "

http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/menoec.html

>>13251218
God exists outside of concepts like good and evil. For him there are just things.