/lit/ - Literature

>>14960448
Yes it has numerous times. I know this is a shitty bait thread but in the chance that there's someone on here who still falls for this fedora crap, i'll explain:
The chart makes a huge error on the forth box down. It assumes that if God doesn't want to prevent evil, he must not be all good. This is flawed because it doesn't account for any possibility that there is a morally good reason for not preventing evil

>evil
>real
you can't be serious.

>>14960464
>could god have created a universe where this "morally good reason for not preventing evil" could be fulfilled without evil being present in the first place?
>Y: so why didn't he?
>N: then he is not all powerful

BTFO

Yeah, the greater good is to allow the potential for evil because free will is a greater good, even despite the negative consequences of evil.

But God does fight against evil, through the humans who choose to do His will (by their free will choice).

>>14960482
God is maximally benevolent when evil exists, though. Omnipotence is also maximized through the creation of evil and the various mixtures of good-evil throughout creation.

>>14960485
God could have created a world where all being freely chose good. He didn't. Care to explain?

>>14960464

The thing that you have just written is clearly false on its face, and your precious theologians are the ones who have fallen into error. Shame on you for falsely believing that you hold the intellectual high ground in this debate.

>>14960482
>could god have created a universe where this "morally good reason for not preventing evil" could be fulfilled without evil being present in the first place?
yes
>so why didn't he?
Why do you think I or any other human could know this?

>>14960448
It has, God is not all powerful.

Why call him God then?

Because that doesnt contradict the definition of God.

>>14960492
>The thing that you have just written is clearly false on its face
And yet you've offered no refutation of it

>>14960494
we know from this that he is not all good

>>14960464
>there is a morally good reason for not preventing evil
And what is that?

>>14960498
No we don't, we don't at all know God's intentions

>>14960489
God did create perfect worlds with perfect robots.
Kind of boring after an eternity.
Free will universes of natural evolution are exciting, creating unique spontaneous happenings.

>Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

>But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

>“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

>Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”;

>>14960504
It's impossible forGod to create something with free will, since he is omniscient and omnipotent.

Which kind of a god are we talking about here?

>>14960448

You cannot confine good and evil to be totally dependent on subjective experience. What seems good to humans is good and what seems evil is evil. But this totally disregards God’s conception of good, which is more objective. A world in which humans only perceive good is therefore not necessarily objectively good.

God’s objective omnibenevolence/goodness/justice is not affected by our subjective views. God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator. In the same way that I eat animals for my purpose, making it good for me, God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good. Unfortunately this allows suffering to exist for us, but God is merciful, so he allows a way to salvation, which we can either accept or reject

God is objectively good, but also subjectively benevolent to humans. But God can also be subjectively malevolent. This has to be the case, since some people hate God, and some people go to hell.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Deuteronomy 7:9
>9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

The problem of evil is a subjective problem only, made worse when you’re an atheist.

>10But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

>>14960506
>Just listen to this schizo hearing voices in his head, guys
No.

>>14960496

It's trivially self-refuting, out of some badly misplaced sense of "humility at knowing that one doesn't know everything". But one can know enough. Assuming an omniscient entity (whcih may be omnibenevolent), there is no good reason for "complexity" in the moral calculus. Just make everything be perfect and give everyone cummies all the time. And if not, then such a creature should of course be rejected, even and especially in the case that we are powerless to do otherwise. The point is to reject the notion of god as a moral imperative.

>>14960519
>there is no good reason for "complexity" in the moral calculus.
That's literally just your opinion

>>14960507
Being omnipotent, God can also limit his omniscience and omnipotence.

>>14960511
In other words, if you believe in God you cannot believe in morality, since all human understanding of right and wrong is "subjective".

>>14960517
if you want to play that card then this whole discussion is pointless

>God is so good and powerful and all knowing, he created me with free will though he knows the choices I'll make in life and if I'll end up in heaven or hell thus creating me with an already established path

>>14960448
forgot to add 'by humans' on the end of "the quick and easy guide to God"

>>14960527
No, God tells us what is morally good for us. Those moral standards don’t wholly apply to God just as they don’t apply to chimpanzees.

>>14960526
That is nonsensical.

>>14960488
>>14960506
>>14960511
/thread
/problem of evil

>>14960533
Sounds pretty ad hoc. So children being tortured, or dying of cancer, is actually inherently a good thing? Not buying it.

>>14960525

No, it isn't. The absurdity of the idea is contained within the notions of god's omniscience and (alleged) omnibenevolence. There is no subtlety on this point.

>>14960448
It's year 2020 and people still believe in such shitty charts.

1. Testing changes the subject. Therefore you may put people to tesst not because you want them to see the outcome but you want them to pass it.
2. Self-imposed rules. God put "no intervene" clause on itself the world after creating world with free will but without evil. Humankind "invented" evil then by itself.

>>14960545
>So children being tortured, or dying of cancer, is actually inherently a good thing?
No, just as when suffering exists in stories, it is not inherently good. Yet the combination of the suffering and the overcoming of that suffering creates meaning and new forms of good that could not exist without that suffering. Imagine literature without any conflict, how restrictive our imaginations would be then. God would also be limited without evil, and would thus not be omnipotent.

It's impossible for humans to perceive infinity beyond an axiomatic concept, the lack of an end. Each of these omni-traits implies an infinity of that trait. If we can't understand infinity beyond its abstract concept, then it follows that we can't understand any of these traits as they appear in god.

Based on this, I think that your argument is beyond the purview of human determination.

>>14960494
>you can't know!
Ah, the rigorous inquiry Christian philosophy is so well known for on display once again.

>>14960559

It isn't a shitty chart. It correctly explicates the rejection of the popular idea of god.

>>14960561
So children being tortured is good because it may provide other people with some sort of spiritual epiphany? Sorry, sounds like bullshit.

>>14960568
>It correctly explicates the rejection of the popular idea of god.
I'm an atheist and even I know it's shitty.

>>14960448
What is evil? Is it suffering? Poverty? Is every minor imperfection in life evil? Is stubbing my toe a curse from God? These arguments are childish, and neglect the idea that God isnt your servant, in fact God finds most human beings to be despicable at the end of the day.

>>14960571
children suffering is good world building. Slippery slope ahead.

>>14960559
Free will is inconsistent with God's omniscience and omnipotence.

>>14960579
Just admit that Yahweh is an evil demon.

There are three options, any number of them can be true:
>God is not all knowing
>God is not all powerful
>God is not all good
Any decent, non-monothesitic theological system takes these positions.

>>14960604
all-good doesn’t have a proper, commonly understood definition. Evil allows for the existence of newer forms good, as well as intensifying good in relation to evil, so it can be argued that God is all-good when evil exists. Or at least, God is maximally good given that he is also omnipotent and has other God-like motivations

>>14960578

So, you are mistaken. I am sorry to hear of your backsliding.

>>14960583
It's not.

Few years back I've been playing vidya with my nephew. Needles to say I was far better than him. He insisted to play vs instead of co-op.

In that very limited context:
- I knew it'll end with his loss
- he had his free will and decided to do the impossible

The same goes for the God. It may be able to know the outcome of our actions but still let us do whatever we want.

>>14960625
not a good analogy for your argument. Winning or losing is based on ability, so let’s talk about pure choice. Suppose you knew he would choose x. How do you know this? Doesn’t your knowing this prove that he would inevitably do it?

>>14960448

>>14960621
>I am sorry to hear of your backsliding.
I find God's idea very interesting from theoretical point of view. I like to speculate how such theoretical entity would perceive reality or what it would do.

However putting faith in such being is something I would never do.

>>14960625
>>14960628
and I’m a Christian btw. I’ll believe in free will when I’m able to do what I know is good for me without failure. What is the purpose of being free if it does not lead to rectification? Why is no one perfect?

>>14960625
Are you retarded? He is omnipotent AND Omniscient. So when He designed us, He knew exactly what we would do in perfect detail. If He didn't want to see any of that behavior, He could have changed the design. He choose not to.

>>14960628
>Suppose you knew he would choose x. How do you know this?
I know him.

>Doesn’t your knowing this prove that he would inevitably do it?
No. It's his decision. My knowledge about the outcome doesn't change damn thing.

His statement that God is love seems aimed at that saying of Ecclesiastes that we cannot tell whether God bears us love or hatred. "Nay," says John, "we can tell, and very simply! We know and have trusted the love which God hath in us. God is love." There is no logic in this, unless it means that God loves all men. In the preceding paragraph, he had said, "God is light and in him is no darkness at all." We are to understand, then, that as darkness is merely the defect of light, so hatred and evil are mere imperfect stages of agapê and agathon, love and loveliness. This concords with that utterance reported in John's Gospel: "God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should through him be saved. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already. . . . And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and that men loved darkness rather than the light." That is to say, God visits no punishment on them; they punish themselves, by their natural affinity for the defective. Thus, the love that God is, is not a love of which hatred is the contrary; otherwise Satan would be a coordinate power; but it is a love which embraces hatred as an imperfect stage of it, an Anteros -- yea, even needs hatred and hatefulness as its object. For self-love is no love; so if God's self is love, that which he loves must be defect of love; just as a luminary can light up only that which otherwise would be dark.
Checkmate gaytheist, and I'm not even religious. Proving that God is one is the real challenge when it comes to abrahamic monotheism and even being able to deal with that inquiry is a pleb flitter in itself.

>>14960646
What you're missing is that God doesn't just "know" us, he CREATED us knowing the exact behavior each of us would produce. You didn't create your brother.

God is perfect; perfection means capable of all things. There is no good or evil. Good and evil, morality in general, are bastardised anthropomorphisms of our own creation and their incompatibility with transcendental concepts such as "God" indicates a flaw in our framework of reason, rather than constituting a problem for the concept in question i.e. the nature of God.

Besides, even if it did, to suppose that we could understand the mind or will of such a being is, well, typically human in it's arrogance. the universe and it's composite elements are under no obligation to make themselves intelligible to/through our profoundly primitive perceptions.

>>14960646
>My knowledge about the outcome doesn't change damn thing.
But the question is how you have that knowledge. If you understand his behavior so well, then it’s clear that his inner workings are causally predisposed toward some end. It’s not as if you magically know the outcome as if you’re a time traveler.

>>14960666
The idea that any human can "know" about the existence of some supernatural entity is the ultimate arrogance. And nice digits, Lucifer.

>>14960619
All good doesn't need a rigid definition for this to be true.
All people are aware that there are bad things, and have experienced bad things. God has no reason to allow these things to exist. There does not need to be bad in order for there to be maximum good, infact the fact that there is bad invalidates the possibility of maximum good.
>Other Godlike motivations
Sounds like "god werks in mysterious ways" nonsense

Any intelligent person that carefully reads through this thread will conclude that to say that God is not benevolent or omnipotent is taking a leap of faith through your own reason, hoping and praying that God is evil or weak, so that his non-existence is more likely, so that your sins are less likely to be remembered.

>>14960697
Fluff. Why use a word without a definition? Did you even read what I said? It can be argued that even in a world without evil, that God is not omnipotent or maximally benevolent.

>>14960697
>All good doesn't need a rigid def.
So it's subjective?
>...God has no reason to allow these things to exist
As far as you can tell
>There does not need to be bad in order..
As far as you (could) know
>Any attempt to understand the motivations of a transcendental conceptual entity
Yikes

Go read some Descartes

>>14960448
Foreknowledge does not impose necessity. God knowing the future does not cause the future, in the same way that you remembering the past does not cause the past.

>>14960698
Projector.png

>>14960713
>Foreknowledge does not impose necessity.
It does when combined with omnipotence in the creator of the universe. If he didn't like what people would end up doing, he could have changed the design. He knew exactly what he was doing.

>>14960720
Theists aren’t the only ones who have faith

>>14960499
because god would be bored or something lmao idk

>>14960748
I just don't think him being "evil" makes his non existence any more or less likely

>>14960748
retard sinning or not sinning doesnt improve your odds in any way

What makes you think that evil exists?

All is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.

>>14960481
Not even a Nietzschean but honestly >>14960448
evil is just foolish. There isn't any such thing as bad imo.
Or if you just can't accept that there is no such thing as evil: its so we can have free will.

why does this keep cropping up? People will forever be turning 12 I guess.

>>14960448
Define evil

>>14961212
Outcomes and actions that ought to be avoided.

>>14960492
There is no such thing as evil you twat

>>14960494
>it's just like a mystery bro
The last refuge of the Christian experiencing cognitive dissonance.

>>14960448
>Could God have created a universe with free will but without evil?

No, because that would be impossible, it would be like making 2+3=4. God is all powerful in how he rules the universe, but not the actual laws of logic and the necessary.

>>14961284
Utter nonsense.

>>14961293
If free will exist evil will necessarily exist.

>>14961293
Please define what exactly God should step in and stop as bad/evil actions? Kids with cancer, is the go to and there’s hardly any argument against that but what about physical or verbal harm caused by others? Should God prevent others from being able to call you names? What about physical or verbal harm caused to oneself, should he prevent you here? I would also go as far to state that doing anything that is not the absolute pillar of health (eating crap food, not getting enough sleep, etc) is self harm and thus on some level myopic evil too.

If you can tell me where exactly the line is and how we would still have free will (in the sense of an independent choice) then I’m happy to concede.

>>14960856
>he thinks people are only good for spiritual/material gain
Who hurt you?

>>14961346
Cancer can’t be evil


Anyways setting an exact point is very difficult, good things there is a God who figured it out

I can't believe we're this far in without mentioning Augustine's btfo of this. Evil is not something real, it is the absence of goodness. All evil is the result of man, in which case preventing this evil would be to hinder free will, which would be in contradiction to God's inability to do bad (as a result of having no absences) and therefore God would not prevent man's evil. Natural "evil" is God repurposing natural disaster to punish man for his sin.

>>14961346
People only do bad things because they are motivated to. Give people only benevolent drives and you will get only benevolent outcomes. Give them uncontrolled greed, lust, sadism, etc and you will get evil outcomes.

>>14961300
Wrong.

>>14961300
>free will
>evil

Anon, I...

>>14961384
Completely ridiculous.

>>14961394
No

>>14961397
Nice meme, you know I'm right. Name one evil action that doesn't take away from a particular goodness.

>>14961399
What?

>>14960448
This is all based on the assumption that evil is a real thing in of itself, which it isn't. it is merely a disorder or absence of good; an ontological accident of Being. What we discern as evil is mostly passions pushed too far.

>>14961405
Oh, you're baiting.
>>14961411
Based

>>14961419
You replied to the wrong post.

>>14960448
Your concept of existence is wrong

>>14960448
>muh evil
why would you believe that a garden variety set of things you personally don't enjoy are on the level of kosmological constants?

this is literally star wars delusion

>>14961433
OP never mentioned "kosmological constants", bitch boy.

>>14960448

>>14960448
Christians claim there's no such thing as evil, there's just the lack of goodness

>>14961449
Not an argument, brainlet.

>>14961451
No they don't.

>>14961452
Cope

>>14961455
For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil." (In: The City of God, XI, chapter 9

>>14961465
Whenever you sin, you commit evil.

>>14961472
Again, name one sin that isn't the loss of a virtue.

>>14961472

No one ever sins though, since sin is that which is contrary to god's will.

>>14960488
>There could be a morally good reason to have evil
>Goodness is more good when there is evil
You're conflating so called objective God conceptions of good and evil with our own. Dialectics aren't exclusively godly logical devices and it's fairly obvious to think of evil as what isn't good and vice versa

Doesn't explain why we need evil for good and why there's so much of the former

>>14961455
I go to a university where the department all believes this

>>14960448
Good being there purest Good is further removed from all evil, and as a result no evil can be asccribed to the ultimate Good anyway.

>>14961478
In other words, we don't have free will.

>>14961483
How do you know what "God conceptions of good and evil" are? Do you pretend to be God?

>>14961478
God's creation is a means to an end, the means are not necessary for the end, God can bring a person into being who can then decide not to Live in accordance with their nature( God's will). They might not have the freedom not to exist but they do have the freedom to choose how they do so, Aquinas believes that God creates because his goodness is defusive, his perfection being himself reveals his intention to create, the means he uses to reach his goal are not necessary, or else he wouldn't be omnipotent, if God's will is driven by his love of himself, and he has perfect knowledge of himself, and he brings creation into being with the intention of it reaching his goodness, and creation is good in its nature as it's being is willed by God, an intelligent agent not acting in accordance with it's nature is acting freely but not in accordance with it's true good

>>14961385
Then you’ve just constructed a world (and defined the current one) without free will as all actions are only the result of predetermined circumstances so you’ve proved my argument. If free action is allowed to happen then inherently so do evil actions (arguably only subjective, reverent to the interpreter but that’s a different debate).

Once you understand the dualistic nature of this realm you’ll be able to accept that.

>>14961527
Did I say I knew what they were? Does it seem obvious they are like ours?

>>14961551
You claim that they differ from our own. How do you know that?

>be god, an omnipresent diety with infinite wisdom and power
>do thing for god reasons
>mouth breathing apes question your existence because the only pleasure they can wrap their heads around comes from eating things they kill, and busting nuts

>>14961545
Well, sure, free will doesn't exist in the first place. But putting that aside, if free will did exist, if would obviously have to be consistent with the existence of biological drives -- hunger, lust, power, etc. So even if one's actions are free in principle, there is no motivation to perform "ungodly" actions unless those drives are hardwired in. God could have hardwired in only godly drives, but he chose not to.

>>14961563
>a mouth breathing ape with schizophrenia claims he hears the voice of a powerful supernatural being in his head telling him what to do
>other mouth breathing apes believe him because they're fucking retards

>>14961555
My answers as good as yours is to the contrary bud. Some of us treat all paradoxes equally, others prefer to stick to a few to say is dogma, like a virgin mother or an all loving ruler of general misery.
You Christians are the ones jumping through so many hoops to define what god meant in his proclamations of love and evil and it’s hardly as complicated without dogma, but you probably couldn’t bear the nihilism which would probably follow you. Idk. Enjoy your hell, Christian poster.

>>14961578
I'm not Christian, asshat.

>>14961572
You have the freedom to choose ( will) not freedom not to exist, what do you think freedom means?

>>14961586
Freedom means God didn't predetermine all your actions when he created you. Which is obviously inconsistent with the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Yes yes we have determined all the traits that a god should have.
.......but to what degree?

Maybe it shouldn't be framed as "the problem of evil" but rather "the problem of ultimate evil".

An anecdote.
there was some bullet point in 2016 presidential run, that said that the effectiveness in a "leading body" isn't what it gives to the people but rather what it prevents from crashing down on to all of our heads.

And now wig this coronavirus, prople saying its a nothingburger, when all efforts are devouted to ensuring this doesn't become a nothing burger.

Now consider the interaction of a unstopple force vs immovable object.

Then theres that one adventure time episode when finn was tasked with training that one bubblegum sphinx thing to be a good leader when princess bubblegum is away etc...

also the balance in opposites in the in the yinyang.

My point is this.maybe god is ultimatley good becuase it is preventing ultimate evil. And since ultimate good and evil are locked together.
that gives us room amd ability to breath amd exercise free will. Otherwise we would oppress ourselves through "good intentions' or be crushed under the fear of draconian evil.

Becuase on a cosmic scale, wiping out all life on earth isn't really "the worst thing you can do". Fucking with humanity or terrestial life is bad, but not the height of "cosmic" evil.

>>14961576
>a mouth breathing ape comes up with the flawless argument of "if god good why bad be"
>a second group of mouth breating apes rally behind him and feel superior to the first group because "they think fairy tale but me thinks science"

>>14961611
There are no gods, monkey boy. But nice try.

>>14961620
>t. literally believes the universe has no cause or reason

>>14961620
Yes, only shadows.

>>14960448
>God is not loving because he does not want to prevent evil
>evil = bad
why

>>14961640
>still believes in causation after Hume

>>14960448
Answered in the first 3 chapters in the bible

>>14960448
learn more about the concept of 'Karma'

>>14961595
In that sense not even God is free as he is forced to work things in one way instead of any, sin wouldn't exist as it would be in a humans nature to commit sin, if God's wanted to achieve something by creating he would be imperfect as he had something to gain which he lacked, as he lacks nothing being entirely perfect( whole) and knowing himself ( being) and loving himself ( wanting to be) he had no compulsion to do anything than be, he must be as we exist ( long story), if every action has an end and the end is a goal, and God created the world he already has what he intends to gain, if creation (being) is seperate from God ( Being) as creation is in motion (change) which implies that creation has potential for something, and if a intelligent( self knowing) living( self moving) agent ( you) has the potential to choose how it acts, it's acts being driven by seeking it's perfection ( it's form of being) as it recognises it lacking ( has potential to change) it in itself, it's nature is good as evil is lack of good ( hole in a sock) but it's choice might be evil as it's detrimental to it's nature, it might see a perversion to be good for it when it isn't as it doesn't know itself perfectly ( love itself). God was not compelled to bring non being into being, he foresaw it happening knowing all the potential of being before he let it be, but he was under no compulsion to let being be ( create), his thumb is not on top of us, eternal life in Christ is not in out nature but in God it is, in Christianity you choose to be Christian, you can choose not to as God is not a tyrant, choosing what isn't good is sin but you are not predetermined to do it, only to be. Hopefully I havnt misunderstood Aquinas

>>14961663
then theism is just as likely

>>14961572
>>14961595
The problem you have is that your mind is trapped in a dualistic worldview and the true nature of life is very paradoxical - or at least appears paradoxical on your current plane of understanding. It's not your fault, your mind was developed in a primal way to filter through safe and unsafe, uncertainty was not an option and through this language was created and is thus inherently flawed for discussing such topics.

There are many layers to the Self, the first being your body. This is your genetic make up, a predetermined component outside of your control at birth which influences your personality and abilities. Then you have your mind which is conditioned by society, arguably again outside of your control but then you have your soul or higher self. This is the level that free will (as most conceive it) comes into play as you have the ability to go against your conditioned/genetic selves, though this is within parameters for a less evolved being a free element of choice is still there. Greater freewill or control can then be gained through certain actions but I'm not getting into that. There are higher modes of Self in between but the highest is when we reunite with God (though we were never separate). This is where all is one, outside of any constructs but also without individuality, thus God is all knowing, all powerful because God is all and everything that has every been or will be. At this level all concepts of duality such as good/evil fade into one.

As you can see at the highest level all concepts of morality, time, individuality, free will, etc are gone but it's impossible to operate in this plane without some sense of Self which is inherently an illusion, even though it's a necessary one. As people begin to peel back the Self and realise that it's not real (particularly at the genetic and conditioned levels) they aim to create certainty for themselves. A good way of doing this is by committing 'evil' actions because if one is able to go against everything he has been conditioned as good then surely he must have something that is independently himself. Thus evil actions are necessary for most peoples perspectives of free will though, good/evil and free will are not real in their highest forms.

>>14960530
>One stike and the whole species burns

>>14960448
God loves me :)

Not preventing evil does not inherently make you not good.

Next!

>>14960506
If God was almighty then why did he not give us power to understand His ways?

>>14962375
We wouldn't be human beings then, which God intended us to be.

>>14962375
Why didn't God just give everyone the ability to spawn a giant tome that answers every objection to him? "Bro stop being so entitled bro, you're just a lowly human, you're a pot bro, pot's can't talk bro"

>>14962387
Retarded. God tell you about his ways sometimes but when it comes to other things "OHHH NO IF WE KNEW WE'RE NOT HUMAN ANYMORE"

>>14960448
>then god is not good / god is not loving
Imagine being this RETARDED.

>>14960448
>Evil Exists
wrong

>>14960499
burden of proof is the other way around

>>14960448
We wouldn't know what we would do if we were tested.
Also >>14960464

>>14960673

The statement itself can only be made from a God's eye perspective.

>>14962398
You were a dumb moron who lost your pants, then you found your pants by luck. God did it, NOW ZEALOUS LOVE GOD/THOR/SHATAN/JEREBUS

>Imagine being this RETARDED.

>>14962375
Because God is Truth, and only Truth can know itself fully.

>>14960448
When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they obtained the capacity to define good and evil for themselves, rather than trust in God's self-evident righteousness. The entire reason evil exists is only because humanity thinks it does; it's a coping mechanism to explain things we don't like as being "wrong" on some sort of fundamental cosmological scale.
Evil does not exist from God's perspective, and the evil and sin talked about in scripture ALWAYS are referring to humans using their free will to stray further away from God. That's all it is.
If you knew anything about theology you'd know that this is the first thing that any religion answers.

>>14960448
>Evil Exists
No

>>14960448
Evil doesn't exist, evil is the state of being away from God. Your stupid chart fails at the first fucking point.

>disproving God whit a concept that only exist because of God
>>14960481
This is the real consequences of rejecting God

>>14960448
The problem comes by a*heists not understanding what "all powerful" means. It doesn't mean God is powerful he can do things that are absurd or contradictory. Like making a universe where agents somehow have free will but evil doesn't exist.

>>14960448
>evil exists
>yes

>>14960448
good and evil is a spook

>>14963249
>The problem comes by a*heists not understanding
Could have just stopped here, but yeah the rest of your post is correct too.

>>14960464
good cannot exist without evil

>>14963255
This. Can't believe Manichaeans managed to wedge this meme so far into the western collective subconcious. Like good for them, but it's not funny anymore.

>>14963249
>Like making a universe where agents somehow have free will but evil doesn't exist.
I’m not sure why you think free will necessarily implies the existence of evil. If I recall, Paul describes our situation as being slaves to sin, not freely choosing to do it.

OP. Is. A. Fag.

>>14963269
Wrong, it is not a two-way relationship. Like saying Light cannot exist without shadow, but obviously it can and does.
Like shadow, evil is simply an illusion, not an actual concept, which is produced by the absence of Good (or absence of light in the analogy).

>>14963273
Heraclitus debunked this shit back then
"The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish can drink it, and it is good for them; to men it is undrinkable and destructive."

>>14963281
We are slaves to it because it is in our baser natures. We chose to leave the Garden of Eden which severed our deeper connection with God, and from that point on we have had Satan on our shoulders, telling us to do selfish things and disrespect both God and our fellow humans. We are slaves to sin because it is our desire and instinct to give in to it, but obviously the choice exists. One must simply fight the temptation. Such is the "battle between Good and Evil".

>>14963288
Building off of this because I posted before re-reading, and now I see I strayed from my initial statement:
Shadow cannot exist without light, but light can exist without shadow.
Evil cannot exist without Good, but Good can exist without Evil.

>>14963318
You're giving Light/Good an absolute ontological reality while only giving Shadow/Evil a relational reality.

evil is evil, but how does one prove that the existence of evil is also evil?

>>14963360
Correct.

>>14963383
Yeah then you haven't solved OP. Especially since your "Good" is a personal God that acts in the world and enters into covenants with people etc.

>>14960494
So reading the Bible is pointless then right? I couldn't understand it so what's the point. Following any religion would be an offense to God because they all pretend to make knowledge claims about God and what he wants...

>>14960526
>God limits himself for no other reason then our suffering
what a benevolent guy

>>14963437
How does it not refute OP? The absolute most basic foundations of OP's issue are founded on misunderstandings of the fundamental doctrine of one of world's largest, and arguably THE most influential, religions. The issue of "why does a Good God allow Evil to happen" has been solved in too many ways to name, and not only that, this discourse and the answers provided over centuries is very public and well-known.
If you or OP are unsatisfied with that answer then look to the Gnostics, or try Hinduism or Buddhism.

>>14960464
t. has never read the five dialogues surrounding the death of socrates

based unthinking zealot

>>14963476
There is more grace to be experienced in choosing to reunite with God than simply being an automaton that follows His will. Therefore, free will produced more Good overall. The beauty of this world that God created is that it functions on its own, without Him controlling every minute aspect of it. Necessarily, humans as the caretakers of this world, cannot lack free will.
Also do not give in to pride and suppose that you are in a position to to judge God's character. Rather than being upset that you are a human rather than angel, you should study scripture and become a good, holy, person.

>>14963437
actually this is one of the better answers. why would any of this matter if you simply conclude that evil doesn't exist?

>>14963525
>There is more grace to be experienced in choosing to reunite with God
why is God so obsessed with forcing grace upon us? He could have made us as graceful as the angels, with no need for evil. Perhaps you mean to say it is God's vanity which makes him test us?

What's the point of being human if you can't think for yourself? It's the basis of free will.
And you can't understand what true bliss is without knowing any hardship. Just like a picky kid that do not know shit about famine with his food.

>>14963372
Based retard

>>14963562
He's explicitly not forcing grace upon us, that's what free will means my guy. Try to approach this without all the baggage of being a vindictive atheist who hates your impression of God. You're never going to understand other viewpoints while you remain so mired in your own preconclusions.

>>14963288
nah that’s retarded. you can only tell things are light because other things are dark

>>14963297
Based, stop skipping over Greek wisdom anons.

Neoplatonism.
Evil is necessary for free-will.
There's beauty in pain and tragedy, imagine all movies being trash comedy of no substance.
There's no progress in utopia, thus no life in paradise.
Every life is an actualization of God's infinite potency, and every evil is only evil due to the limitation of human life.
But Limitations are also the keys of all beauty and meaning, without limit you have no purpose.
Only One who has forgotten herself can experience the beauty of every moment again, the beauty in every kiss, smile, horizon, dawn, and eclipse.

>>14963577
No, you can tell because there are different degrees of brightness, of which darkness is included, but it is not a binary distinction. What we recognize as darkness is only the quality of being furthest from "light", but you can still distinguish the brightness of a lightbulb from the brightness of the ceiling around it.
The only way darkness would become its own independent concept is if literally all light in the universe stopped existing, but that's pretty far into hypotheticals and I wouldn't see how the analogy of good and evil extends that far.

>>14963608
>you can tell because there are different degrees of brightness
yeah, some are darker than others.

>>14960448
Bro. Evil is literally just a cheeky prank. Get a sense of humour. I mean... you're going to die. HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAH

>>14960448
So much mental gymnastics in this thread from dumb theists to justify their deeply flawed and nonsensical beliefs.

>>14963982
What's your belief, smart guy?

>>14963602
So Neoplatonism is just another way of saying "seize the day!"? Instagram is the new Plato's Academy.

>>14960448
>bro god works within our moral relative boundaries xdddd
cringe

>>14960448
Christians have regularly failed to understand the meaning of faith this leaving them to be exceptionally threatened by the problem of evil. If one continues to believe the Bible is anything but the story of humans interacting with faith, then not only will the atheist always win in debate (as this thread shows) but they will also never understand the conclusion of the book of Job.

Christian beliefs are usually stoic based. The Nature in stoic philosophy explains this whole "evil" shit.

>>14960734
Wrong. God is atemporal and what he sees is one big event happening at once. Pretending that "past" "present" and "future" means anything to Him is a function of your ignorance, not his impotency.

>>14960464
Solution: God could not have created a universe without free will but he is still all powerful. He also could not square a circle or exceed the speed limit on a German Autobahn - and is still all powerful.

>>14964313
What the fuck are you talking about? Christian beliefs are based on the Bible. They certainly do not believe their God is anything like the Stoic god.

>>14964300
>not only will the atheist always win in debate (as this thread shows)
lol we must be reading different threads

>>14964324
Ok but the reason those things are impossible, is because of the laws of nature and the universe that we are governed by.

Who created those laws?

Well, God.

So could God create a universe with laws allowing him to square a circle, etc?
If yes, your argument doesn’t hold up, if no, God is not all powerful.

What is there to solve? I genuinely dont see the problem here. The only one that may be hard for brainlet atheists to understand is that God does want to prevent evil, but he is the source for everything, both good and evil.

>>14964320
You're the one making that presumption, not me.

Evil will no longer exist after 2045.

>>14964320
>God is atemporal and what he sees

Oh, dear. Making not only objective claims, but making objective claims of what others perceive.

>>14964320
If he's atemporal then how can he change his mind, as he does so many times in canon scripture? And how was existence created "in seven days", which suggests a passage of time, even at the beginning?
I don't see how the claim that God being atemporal can hold up under scrutiny, and I think it's just a nonsense assumption made for millenia by humans who didn't grasp the full implications of what they were supposing.

>falls apart

>>14964547
so he’s not all-powerful or all-good, thanks for your contribution

>>14964937
>brainlet atheists
Thanks for demonstrating.

>>14960448
You didn't allow us to answer no to 'evil exists'. Who are you trying to trick?

>>14964965
>wants to do something but can’t
not all powerful
>produces evil things
not all good. these are both standard beliefs even amongst Christian theologians; you don’t know that because you’re a 19-year-old who “converted” to catholicism because /pol/ told you it was the based thing to do

>>14965003
Read Augustine.

>>14960448
What if there is not a single infinite god but multiple, vastly complex yet finite beings who rule over different aspects of the world we live in?

>>14965834
so...polytheism?

>>14965834
Hypothetically true but logically unlikely because there are too many variables and assumptions to make.
Also what made those deities?

>>14960579
*rapes and murders your pregnant wife in front of your eyes*
hehe complaining against this is childish, you live to serve God y'know...

>>14960507
The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius

>>14967333
I've actually heard Christians say that you're not allowed to dislike the suffering you go through for God lol.

>>14965867
corrrectomondo

>>14965924
The empirical evidence of religious experiences across the world, to me, points to that.

There are also experiences of communion with a unitary, eternal "ground of being" from which everything comes, but calling it a god and thinking it has a personality is going too far, if you ask me

>>14965867
I should have added this. Is the book that convinced me.

>>14967824
>>14967824
fuck

>>14960666
Of course the Sabbatean denying absolute morality gets the 666 trips.
>>14960448
If you are not a Christcuck, it's easy to understand that God is not omnibenevolent (i.e., the flowchart ends at step 3). This clearly corroborated by the state of the world. That being said, God is "more fond" of cooperative beings than noncooperative, and hence the success of human beings, mammals etc. It's built into the fundamental structure of reality that traits like kindness and compassion are more successful in the long-run that agression and violence (which still have their place).

Also worth noting that by the omniscience of God, He knows the suffering of any being with as much intimacy as if He were experiencing it (more so, since He can feel all the past and future sufferings, all the sufferings causing and caused by a given act of suffering) so ultimately by "putting" any being through suffering, He is the one suffering more.

>>14960448
Why would anyone willingly hope that God is not good or even malevolent. Just why. Of all the sins that cause your personal and other people's suffering one would imagine God not to be a fountain of Good and Love, but something impotent or malevolent to make it all thousandfold worse.

Why don't atheist follow to their own conclusions. It is like they actively hope that 'God' is Evil and therefore their Evil actions will be rewarded or something. If there is no God (anything not-omnipotent & benevolent is not God by definition) and no immortality of the soul, every action they take are necessarily meaningless and absurd yet I don't see them suiciding out of the eeeevil meaningless wurld.

>>14960448
"God is good" is a fairly bizarre assumption. It takes quite a lot of faith to say that in the face of actual reality.

That said, most religions historically have not made that assumption. Christianity and maybe Islam from the big boys.

>>14960604
>Be me
>Zeus
>Can only rule the sky, therefor not all powerful
>Get tricked by Prometeus, therefor not all-knowing
>Rape nimphs, therefor not good and loving.
>But am still a God.

>>14969624
Every pagan would admit the divinities whatever they are, are clearly not good. You life in a world where you kill to eat, others kill you, rape you and danger is everywhere, people grow old an die, etc.

This is the nature of reality, and only power keeps us from the level of pure animals.

>>14961686
karma is bullshit because its a loop and innocent animals suffer too

>>14969666
Yes.

>>14962995
NIGGER

>>14963574
>He's explicitly not forcing grace upon us, that's what free will means my guy. You have the choice, and if make the wrong one you will burn in hell for eternity. Free choice. No coersion here.

>>14964477
The things I mentioned are not impossible because of the laws of nature. A perpetual motion machine is thus impossible, but, sure enough, if he changed the laws of nature, God could create one. The things I mentioned are impossible for solely logical, conceptual reasons, i.e. because they are nonsense. You cannot square a circle because if you could, it wouldn't be a circle; you cannot exceed the speed limit on a German autobahn because there is none. In the same vein, God could not have created people who are both able to choose freely and would necessarily choose good, because that would be a Contradictio in adiecto. If they are able to choose freely, the outcome cannot, by definition, be known in advance, even if you are omniscient. It's like saying God could see something that is invisible; if he could, it wouldn't, by definition, be invisible.

>>14960448
Literally has been answered for ages
Hundreds of books on it
Antti Laato & Johannes C. De Moor - Theodicy in the World of the Bible
C. S. Lewis - The Problem of Pain
Chad V. Meister - God and the Problem of Evil
Chad V. Meister & Paul K. Moser - The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil
Charles Seymour - A Theodicy of Hell
Errol E. Harris - The Problem of Evil
G. W. Leibniz - Confessio Philosophi: Papers Concerning the Problem of Evil, 1671-1678
Gregory A. Boyd - Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy
Henning Graf Reventlow & Yair Hoffman - The Problem of Evil and its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition
James L. Crenshaw - Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil
James L. Keller - Problems of Evil and the Power of God
John Piper, Justin Taylor - Suffering and the Sovereignty of God
Mark S. M. Scott - Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil
Mark S. M. Scott - Pathways in Theodicy an Introduction to the Problem of Evil
Michael Stoeber - Reclaiming Theodicy: Reflections on Suffering, Compassion and Spiritual Transformation
Michael Stoeber - Evil and the Mystics' God: Towards a Mystical Theodicy
Pavel A. Florensky - The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters
Philip Yancey - The Question That Never Goes Away: What Is God Up to in a World of Such Tragedy and Pain?
Trent Dougherty - The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy for All Creatures Great and Small


Check out the Youtube videos of William Lane Craig or John C. Lennox on the subject.

WLC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q5zQC2BEVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY7cjmm50jM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9hHo_H2rM

JCL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssb47DEmn9U

I'm not going to bother replying in here though. Know that there are books and lectures on the subject, if you would but bother looking.
God bless everyone in this thread.

>Open a cheap bait thread, most likely by a retard shill
>Full of replies
Ah yes, the most enlightened board.

So this is how 4chan looks like when schoolchildren have free time

>>14970065
Hell is a state of soul, the state of rejection and abhorrence of God, not a magical prison, you utter cocksucking faggot.

Alright I'll bite.
>Evil exists
Subjective in nature, but bad things do happen.
>Can God Prevent Evil
Any omnipotence could theoretically do so
>Does God know about all the Evil
See last response
>Does God want to prevent Evil
Probably. Or maybe he just wants YOU to prevent it.
>Then why is there Evil?
Because there is Free Will
>Could God have created a universe without these?
He could have created a perfect world without Free-Will, but men would be no more than animals.
He could have created a world without Evil, but then there would be no Free Will.
>Then why didn't he?
You, a fucking human, are supposed to know WHY an omnipotent being would create the world as he did? Perhaps their is some outcome that can only be obtained through these means. Perhaps he simply decided this was the best course. The mind of a man cannot fully comprehend the mind of an omnipotent being.

I would go on but it's not worth typing the rest to refute silly points so let me just address it directly.
1) A flow-chart is designed to condense ideas, not to encourage thinking. It is meant to push concepts easier such as, if, or, and, & not. It is NOT designed to ask questions unless you design a chart big enough to incorporate every possible theoretical answer and at that point the chart itself loses it's purpose.
2) Bad things happening is not strictly evil. A tornado for example is not evil, nor is famine, drought, death, or disease for that matter. These are merely aspects of suffering that humans must live with and it would be foolish to generalize it.
3) Free Will is the concept of choosing. One can choose a plethora of neutral options, benevolent options, or evil options. Not all of these options may cross your mind when the time to make a decision is at hand. But if you separate the neutral into their degrees of benevolence or evil, and remove evil as an option, you have taken away the agency of choice and thus Free Will. There is no evil without Free Will as evil must be something chosen.
4) Suffering is itself not evil. Humans grow during times of strife and when facing challenges. Was everything peaceful and we had no need for adaptation, we would not have civilization as we know it.
5) Your shit's all retarded and you're a fag.

>>14960481
only based post itt

>>14960448
A-prior presuppositions as to the nature of good and evil and what they constitute.

You can say the exact same thing about every mother who brings a child into a world knowing that he will suffer and die.

Following The Problem of Evil to its ACTUAL logical conclusion requires that you be an antinatalist and a literal misanthrope--which all Atheists are, so I suppose that is evidence to my point. Everything else is just sophistry. The only serious option is to make axiomatic changes to your definitions of good and evil so that you can produce a result that is actually coherent.

I.E., for example, that a Perfect God would have no reason to create a universe at all that is intelligible along these lines, ergo there must be some BENEFIT to imperfection that justified our creation and thus our suffering. That suffering therefore has an innate value. You don't need to look too far to find proof of this, it's called basic plot structure.

Stories are about conflict. Ergo, adversity MUST exist for a story to exist. Ergo, sentient life MUST suffer because adversity requires it, and there is no other way to justify existing at all. This is as fundamentally true as a square and a circle being mutually exclusive shapes.

>b-but that would mean that
Yes. That would mean that God is a storyteller and that if you have ever written or told a story in your entire life that was anything other than a pure description of non-events, you are Evil by Epicurus's definition. We are characters in a story, and there is no moral component to the Author which genre he chooses to write us in. We can only pray that the story has a happy ending and that Salvation awaits us after death.

>>14970316
You posted this same image in another religion thread. Better get some new material, Chaim

>>14960448

>>14970891
Because you keep vomiting same cheap garbage over and over again. Maybe you would have a brain capacity to come up with something new, if it wasnt damaged due to you sucking cock like a fervent faggot all the time.

>>14960448
WHAAAAA, God allows shit I don't personally like! Fuck off, you're just a beta loser. Define evil so I can send some your way you absolute slave moralist.

human nature is in itself so corrupted by original sin that our conception of justice and "good" is disordered. of course it's hard to justify God by our terms, because by our terms, we want ourselves to be God, which makes His justice seem evil

>>14970941
>heh... nothin personnel, atheists...

>>14970871
I do not believe The Problem of Evil to require one at it's end to be an antinatalist or the such. A logical conclusion could simply be to take joys in the way you grow through adversity. To become strong through not only challenges but your choices in life can justify being alive regardless of the known evils and suffering life will undoubtedly bestow upon you. I do however feel it is at odds with modern Christianity in which they would teach you to be pacified and simply pray the gay away instead of praying for the strength or wisdom to overcome the challenges. Instead of learning and taking in knowledge of the generations of people before us that have had to struggle and grow it seems modern Christianity wishes you to be content in it's protective bubble as it were when the Bible would have you do otherwise.

>>14970871
>haha yeah dude sorry your little brother died of cancer but god really needed to get good ratings on that week’s episode
If you actually believe this and still bow and scrape for mercy from God you’re more of a cuckold than Joseph was

>>14960448

This is stupid. An omnipotent being is, by definition, all-powerful. Thus, an omnipotent being would have the power to be omnibenevolent despite evil exitsting. If he couldn’t, then he wouldn’t be truly omnipotent.

>>14960527
If you throw away your subjective right and wrong and practice forgiveness, only then are you actually behaving rightly in the first place. Remember, eating from the tree of good and evil resulted in every misery in the first place, so how do you think salvation consists in beliefs about right and wrong actions?

>>14970941
>WHAAAAA, God allows torture of innocents, the rape of children and the infamous fawn dying in a forest fire!
Yes, this is indeed a problem for God's infinite goodness.

>>14970996
Every child's life lost to something like that is all the more reason to fight against it. Just taking it as more justification that life is shit and unforgiving is childish. Cancer itself is another hurdle for humans to overcome.
Even in a non-HFYA way of speaking, such an incident is not without it's consequences. Everybody grows and develops from incidents. But at the end of the day there are too many factors affected by one incident to count, for better or worse it happened and affected the world around it. It wouldn't be about being dramatic as your shitpost implies, but the ramifications of it during and after the fact.

>>14971015
Define good without circular reasoning, question begging and violating the is-ought fork and I will listen to why this is a problem.

>>14960448
WAAAH WHY ISNT THE OMNIPOTENT PARADOX THAT EXISTS BOTH OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE AND YET IS ALSO IMMANENT IN EVERY ATOM COMPLYING WITH MY MONKEY-BRAIN CONCEPTION OF ‘GOOD’, THIS ISNT FAIR!!!!

>>14970306

all this invalid cope

>>14971045
There is no outside of the universe, turdbrain

>>14971039
Not him, but I will attempt.
Good is:
>The choice to, through intention, affect another's life in a way that benefits them
>The choice to, knowing your other options, decline an evil approach
>The act of giving part of oneself to another without want for equal trade or repayment
>The consideration of the well-being of those around you without specific regards to how they could benefit you
But as those are more examples than definition:
>Leaving an impact on the world from which the world grows, improves, or otherwise benefits from
That's the best I can do off the top of my head. What say you to that Nietanon?
Though I'll be real and have no idea what question begging or the is-ought fork is. I can get from conjecture that circular reasoning is saying some stupid shit like "Good is good because it's positive" and I almost did that until I figured it would be a piss-poor argument.

>>14971049
Yes there is, idiot.

>>14971045
"God" is a monkey brain conception. If it isn't, you can't conceive of god, because you're human just as all of us.
If you can't conceive of god, how the fuck can you make any claims about him at all?
Fuck you and your piece of shit "arguments".

>>14971048
Seething faggot

>>14960489
>all being freely choose good
Wouldn’t be free if they don’t have the option to choose evil.

>>14971226
You can't conceive of his entire being, i.e. all that he is or is not, all that he knows or knows not, or even what the fuck he looks like. You can however know concepts of God. Even then, you can come to understandings, however full or shallow they may be, without understanding the bigger picture.
"God is good" is not something beyond human conceptualization whereas God's exact stance in morality might be something beyond conception. Not that it would be impossible for someone to possibly figure it out over the span of an entire lifetime, but that would be one small piece of the whole.
Lastly, humans in general have their concepts planted firmly in human bases. Immortality is an idea we can grasp but being immortal is not. Person to person morality or societal morality is something we can understand, morality over the course of a universe's existence, is not.

>>14971257

get a load of this good christian over here

>>14971354
>get a load of this good christian over here

>>14971372
Don't post that, post the fedorafag using morality as any sort of argument.

>>14971382
A bit of variety now-and-then doesn't hurt

>>14971387
Fair point, but soijacks and the like definitely don't fall under variety at the moment.

>>14960488
Why does omnipotence have to be maximized if the higher moral decision would be to suppress omnipotence?

>>14971382

Not only does religion not have a monopoly on morality, but the "fedora morality" that you scorn does not derive from christianity, is not the pale imitation of it that you'd like to believe that it is.

>>14971406
Yeah, but if he's using a bait image it might as well be a more fitting one, neh?

>>14971327
This post is nonsense.

>>14971412

>neh

You are not a cute anime girl, please don't do that.

>>14971481
That would be Ne (pronounced like a rejecting nay)
I used Neh (pronounced like meh)
It's common lingo here in Hell

>>14960448
>Does God want to prevent Evil
>No
>Then God is not good/loving
doesn't logically follow

If God is all-Good by nature than whatever he decides to be good is so, with the caveats of fighting evil vis a vis the devil and the trickery involved in testing human wills (hence the existence of it inside a creation that is itself good)

I mean

Does the problem of evil really boil down to that you think everyone automatically should get salvation because of your moral standards? Does it boil down that everyone should be immune from suffering because of your personal moral standards? It's dumb as shit to argue these points ("It would be unjust for Satan to trick people so God should smite him immediately") disprove the existence of a higher morality just because you disagree with them

How fucking arrogant can these reddit types get

>>14971704
e.g. your opinion of what "Good" means doesn't rule out the idea that God is Good and simultaenously something else; God is inherently and always right on these matters but people obviously have flaws, are mistaken, etc

The concept of the argument boils down to that "if God is Good [which all sides accept], he will act according to X moral value that people follow and that I agree with". Someone saying "it's immoral for God to flood the Earth because they were disloyal, therefore God isn't Good, therefore God isn't real" places their own moral assumptions above the religious presumption that God's actions are self-evidently good. It's not even close to an argument; if God exists and acts that way, your moral outrage is just human whining and lacks moral value since it isn't grounded transcendentally

>>14960464
No god could be amoral. Lets take the first world war for example. God did not prevent it because humanity needed this lesson to progress. In the long run many artrocities might be a blessing, but only an omnipotent being could know that

>>14971078
Ah, well, I will be of help replying to my post. What is the is-ought fork you ask? Well, it's contained in Hume's 'A Treatise of Human Nature.' I won't bore you with it, I'll just present the problem. Imagine you say the following; "slaves are people, therefore slaves ought to be freed.

Now the issue here is that the statement "slaves ARE people" has nothing to do with the OUGHT statement, that they should be free. What IS, in short, has no logical connection to what OUGHT to be. You can't logically extrapolate an OUGHT from an IS, because a normal logical statement follows the format IF x IS, and x = y, THEN y IS. The is-ought problem, says that ought or should, isn't actually syllogistic with is.

You can find it on Wikipedia if you like, if you type "is ought problem" into a search engine

>>14971048
kek you're the one coping OP. Read the book.

>>14970306
based bibliophile shutting OP's butt down

>>14973016

It doesn't count when the arguments are invalid.

>>14973034
You haven't even read a single book from the list. faggot. You are merely a 5th class dogmatic atheist of the many.

>>14973051

I don't have to, because they are a priori invalid. Also: how christian of you.

>>14971466
Cope!