/lit/ - Literature

>>16288164
It's been explained

>>16288176
How so?

>evil exists
gonna need a citation on that bud

>>16288164
There are morally sufficient reasons for why God allows evil to exist. The only “problem” is that humans do not have the wisdom of God

I think the problem of evil is solved when you devote your life to watching slice-of-life anime

>>16288164
>>16288200
i think the qualia question is way more interesting.
pictures like >>16288164 only invites coping christcucks into this thread

>this thread again

>>16288164
>Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?
No because that is logically impossible and omnipotence does not require the ability to do what is logically impossible

>>16288164
This is a strawman based on Christian views of God. Bugmen can do better. Try again.

>>16288164
Why would a man born centuries before christ be attempting to refute the Abrahamic concept of a monotheistic god?

>>16288261
This.

>(3:3.5) Omnipotence does not imply the power to do the nondoable, the ungodlike act. Neither does omniscience imply the knowing of the unknowable.

The value of a free will universe is greater than the deleterious ramifications of potential evil.
And God does fight against evil, through those free will beings who choose to do God's will.

>>16288261
>where there is God, there is liberty
>Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Free will doesn’t imply having the choice to do evil. Free will without sin does not lead to sin. The most free being will not commit sin, because being truly free is nothing more than the ability to do what’s good. Who freely chooses to do what’s bad for him? Is this freedom, or slavery?

>>16288335
What does a free bad action look like?

>>16288356
no such thing. The closest thing possible is freely choosing an act that you think is good, which is actually bad for you. But in this case your freedom is limited by your ignorance, so you’re not truly free.

>>16288164
>God knows the result of the test, therefore no test is needed
Retard detected. One is real and involves an actual exercise of free will, the other is just God's thought experiment. The point of a test is to test people, not just getting an outcome.

>An all-good God would destroy Satan
A contradiction. God does not destroy those who rebel against Him, He simply denies them His kingdom. Destroying someone for using the free will He himself gave them is not good. Instead, he simply leaves them to themselves, always offering them His love if they will only accept it.

Reminder, Evil is just a rejection of God's will. It can always be changed and forgiven by God.

>>16288375
>Evil is just a rejection of God's will
then god is not omnipotent and there is no master plan, you christcucks twist yourselves into pretzels rather than applying occams razor to jewish mysticism

>>16288395
>then god is not omnipotent
How? It's simply a choice he allows you to make. He could remove it, but doesn't simply out of love.

>>16288401
Then it is in accordance with gods will, rendering your point wholly moot

>>16288365
It sounds like you're just redefining "free" to mean "free from harm"

>>16288414
No, it isn't. God's love and God's will are separate things.

>>16288428
having a free will doesn’t mean having a corrupted will. What’s so good about freedom if it implies sin? Sin does not imply freedom, and freedom does not imply sin.

>>16288438
You said evil is a rejection of gods will not gods love

>>16288458
Yes, and evil is in accordance with gods love, not will.

>>16288468
sounds like satanism

>>16288164
But God did create a universe with free-will and without evil.

>>16288164
It's not an explicit contradiction, because all the "omni" characteristics of God are too ill-defined. And again, evil is too ill-defined. One is free to brush aside Epicurus' so-called paradox like Leibniz did, and say that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. As funny as Voltaire made out Leibniz's thesis with Candide, it might actually be the most rational assumption. At least it avoids the 404 error.

Or one could be flippant and say this >>16288200

>>16288473
ok but your wrong

>>16288164
>Evil Exists
No it doesn't.

Evil occurs for many reasons, often the person doing it does not perceive it as evil and is able to justify it rationally from his perspective. It serves a multitude of functions, including everything from the benefits of ritualistic sacrifice to securing the groups place in the world through social validation. There are of course those who are mentally ill, but those have physical explanations. The majority of serial killers and serial rapists have had trauma to their frontal cortex.
In any case, if I'm being honest with myself evil is entirely relative, which I hate to say. But it's the truth. What you perceive as evil someone else may perceive as holy, and a cornerstone of their society.
Also, you're thinking in basic bitch youtube atheist terms. Science is beyond all that, bring yourself up to speed.

>>16288223
And this is your gods fault.

The real problem of evil is that the people who created god are zealous fanatics who would never get into a rational discussion about this. To prove it, just ask if a child being born with some horrifying disease and dying of starvation in a warzone is evil.

The religious zealot will be forced to say that no, it is not evil. The child had no opportunity to sin or do anything that deserves that kind of horrifying reality. Even if they did something in a previous life (if that's what their religion claims), they would have a hard time defending why the child must pay that price. So their only escape route is claiming "that is not evil". Do you think you can realistically argue with people who don't find this evil?

Humans created the idea of a god for a reason. That reason was not to be perfectly bullet proof. Everything created by humans is imperfect and flawed in some way. That includes religions.

>>16288223
How did you come to this conclusion? Are you god? Do you know something we don't?

>>16288309
God created everything.
Why did god create evil to fight against?

>>16289280
>Sauron!

WHY IS EVIL ALLOWED?! WHYYYYYYYYYY?!

>>16288309
>The value of a free will universe is greater than the deleterious ramifications of potential evil

According to who? That's not how I see it.

>>16288164
Because freedom

>>16289800
Well you are not God. Why do you expect to see everything as he does?

>>16288164
To test us.
>If god is all knowing, he would know
God can make rocks too heavy for him to lift. We are the rock that's too heavy

>>16288164
The entire axiom of this "logic" is that evil is bad, which is inherently wrong.

>>16289309
You answered your own question.
God created evil so that we could fight it, he created bad so that good could exist. Good and virtue cannot exist without bad and evil.

>>16288164
>evil exists
Absolute state of /lit/

>>16288164
9 minutes Anon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo4hF3IYGp4

>>16289280
A rational atheist would also be forced to concede that a child born with a horrifying disease that died of starvation in a warzone is not an example of evil.

At least I think if one is committed to being rational and an atheist, one wouldn't make stupid claims that imply objective morality, imply that human nature (which is in reality only a minor modification of chimpanzee nature) is a unique exception to the amorality of the universe and that people are in any way bound to meet your moral expectations, or imply that an amoral, unthinking universe of chemicals and atoms, should constrain itself to not occasionally fuck up, and create deformities that nobody would dare print in even the darkest fiction.

In short, I'm not even sure if evil is mere rhetoric even in the context of religion, but you can fuck yourself if you think I'm going to let you get away with mere rhetoric and call it an argument.

>>16292376
>if one is committed to being rational and an atheist, one wouldn't make stupid claims that imply objective morality, imply that human nature (which is in reality only a minor modification of chimpanzee nature) is a unique exception to the amorality of the universe and that people are in any way bound to meet your moral expectations, or imply that an amoral, unthinking universe of chemicals and atoms, should constrain itself to not occasionally fuck up, and create deformities that nobody would dare print in even the darkest fiction
Absolutely. I can't believe there are so many retards who don't get this. Just check the numerous comments on youtube and facebook.

>>16288164
>does god want to prevent evil
>no
>then god is not good/god is not loving

Does not follow. Prove me wrong. You can't.

>>16288164
Read the book of Job.

>>16292376
Scientifically, there is no objective quality of Evil, nor does it exist. You are simply disturbed by this implication and are trying to assert meaning into your perception of the world.

What if suffering is part of what makes life good? That is to say, it is an intrinsic part of life - a part that makes it worth living. The calm after the storm is sweeter than sameness. Variety is the spice of life; sameness cannot be appreciated, thus change is necessary. And, in order for change to be allowed, comparative differences in one's wellbeing MUST be encountered. Hence, "evil" is a part of goodness of life.

>>16288164
An omnipotent being would be able to be omnibenevolent despite the presence of evil, otherwise it wouldn’t be omnipotent

>>16288164
Yin and Yang, ask the slant eye men, they know
Will good exist if there's no evil?

>>16288375
Are you really denying the reality of God's omniscience? Self-btfo.

God's thought process is infinitely complex, and we of course cannot understand infinite complexity. For this reason, it is pointless to ask why God makes the decisions that he does. Instead, just trust that they are correct.

>>16288562
It avoids one error for an even larger one. Good job.

>>16288164
Remove jews, the problem of evil will be solved

>>16294039
Ought implies can.

>>16288375
>God does not destroy those who rebel against Him, He simply denies them His kingdom.
Why didn’t he let Onan make the choice to spill his seed on the ground? It was his choice, and god destroyed him for that

>>16294688
then stop making this fucking thread every day. You don't believe in Evil than God can do no Evil, stop asking "how can he be real is there is Evil", you don't fucking believe in Evil by your own admission

everyone is this thread save some rare anons managed to get caught in the pleb filter
>a baby dying is evil boohoo
I'd love for OP to define what the fuck does he mean by evil because as far as I can remember no church says that, evil is understood as "that which goes against the desire of Heaven" and has no ontological reality being merely a denial of Good, if a coconut falls on your head and kills you that's not Evil bud.

>>16288164
>Could have God created a universe with free-will but without Evil?
>No
>Then God is not all powerful

I'm not sure this argument works. It depends on how you define potentiality and omnipotence.
For a starter, I would claim that a potentiality requires the possibility of being actualized for it to be a potentiality. If something cannot be actualized, then no potentiality can refer to it. So, if there is no way to actualize a 6-sided triangle in an euclidean plane, then there is no potentiality for which we can actualize said impossible figure.

As such, not being able to actualize that figure does not imply impotence. An omnipotent being is a being who can actualize everything that can be actualized. If you can argue that an evil-free universe with free will cannot be actualized (and this is a whole different argument), then you can still claim that God is omnipotent.

it's impossible to refute, christfags BTFO'd

the only possible excuse is that god's plan is beyond our comprehension

>>16288309
then he's not all-powerful

>>16294892
Evil as in anything imperfect or not of god

>>16294960
He's all-powerful in the only sense that matters. He can't make an object that both exists and does not exist, because that's ridiculous, but he can do everything that makes sense. The agreed definition of "omnipotence" does not exclude this.

>>16288164
Nobody can refute this, they just resort to ad hominems because their world starts to fall apart when they realize how fundamentally stupid it is

>>16294939
We have no obligation to worry about things that are beyond our comprehension

>>16294892
Why is a baby torture universe "good"?

evil is not a problem. It has its place and deserves to be there as much as you or I

>>16288562
The Leibnizian error is such a horrible one because whose "best" is it that you are referring to?

>>16294934
All these posts are too good for the mouthbreathing teenagers who make these threads.

>>16294726
>>16294788
>What if suffering is part of what makes life good?
You only think this because you are a bourgeois civilized white male. There are people that live short lives of pain with no respite, and others that live gluttonous lives with little pain and effort due to nepotism. So it is in no way individually "balanced". It would be easy to imagine a man being tortured, hooked to a machine constantly poking at nerve-endings, living to 20, then dying in a horrible, Sadean manner. Where is the balance there?
>Variety is the spice of life; sameness cannot be appreciated, thus change is necessary.
That sameness cannot be appreciated would then be a mark against the god, since the tying of evil to good would allow the existence of evil, which would be worse than a world where you could appreciate sameness, where evil wouldn't need to exist.

>>16294934
>As such, not being able to actualize that figure does not imply impotence. An omnipotent being is a being who can actualize everything that can be actualized.
That implies that there would be an essence constraining god that god is not above, which means that god would not be all-powerful.

>does God want to prevent evil?

No. God is not humanist. Faggots who want someone to change their diapers have the most ridiculous conception of God

>>16296961
This would be true only said essence could actualize the things God "can't". If instesd God can do everything that can be done, he is all powerful, omnipotent

>>16292376
>>16294876
>you can't say "God is not real, because there is Evil", because you don't believe in Evil
But people, who believe in God, also believe in Evil. And >>16289280 just disproved them on their terms. Turns out, their terms are flawed.

>>16298036
People who trivialize suffering are scum.

>>16289299
You realise that the Bible is the literal Word of God? How else do you think he knows, retard.

NOOOO WHY DOESNT THE INCOMPREHENSIBLY POWERFUL CREATOR WHO PRESIDES OVER THE WHOLE OF REALITY AND UNREALITY, RESIDES BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE PHENOMENONAL WORLD AND HAS A WILL SO GRACEFUL AND INFINITE THAT EVEN THE SMALLEST GLIMPSE OF IT ON EARTH TOPPLED THE OLD GODS, COMPLY WITH MY CLOISTERED, PRIMATE-BRAINED PERCEPTION OF LOGIC AND RATIONALITY????!!!!! THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>16288164
>Then why didn't he?
I've done countless things without having any reason to do them. The only paradox is the author being unable to fathom an action without purpose.

>>16298142
yeah, why can't he eliminate evil? cringe bootlicking simp

>>16296947
>Bourgeois civilized white male
What are you, then? And why do you assume that suffering is only defended by those who do not know it? Is it possible for you to concede that maybe, those who defend the abyss have looked into it?

>>16298219
>those who defend the abyss have looked into it

ask me how I know you haven't looked into it

>>16298201
Evil is a human characterisation of an effect generated by freedom of will.

>>16288200
Make it say
>Gazooks!
Instead of
>Gracious!

It will rhyme and be better.

>>16298111
Yes, I also pity religious zealots

>>16288164
Nothing and all exists at the same time, including the evil

>>16298234
I won't, you're a weak fag and I can almost guarantee you I've been through more pain than you have.

>>16288164
I fix it by removing Abrahamic junk from the concept of God, and non-Abrahamic God doesn't need to be good.

>>16294788
>yin and yang is good and evil
peak whitoid intellectual dishonesty.

>>16299322
Where did I say that you dumb nigger

>>16299399
You implied it pretty strongly

>>16288200
Exactly. Stirner is pretty trash imo though. There is only good. Were just to egotistical and ignorant to perceive it.

>>16289776
Why do you think we can know what evil is? Your assuming based on your own disposition. Stop being such a child and grow out of your own self pitying ideology.
Why do you think it says in the gospels: judge not lest ye be judged and that the ultimate sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
Not a Christian btw.

>evil exists
I.e. I choose to believe in evil because I'm a mental weakling who wants an excuse.

>>16288261
And therefore god is limited. Because god is limited he's not all powerful, aaaand we're back in the paradox

>>16298251
No.

>>16289280
>Horrifying disease
>Starvation
>Warzone
None of these are inherently evil

>But my physical pain and suffering!
You atheists cannot see the forest for the trees. You deny the true, transcendental existence of man and confine him to his lowest realm, the material. So what if there is physical suffering upon Earth? The soul is infinitely beyond such a temporal existence. To say that anything material is 'good' or 'evil' only applies insofar as it affects the soul, and when you say that something is evil only because of its material ends it only proves how narrow and childish your view of creation truly is. Your contrived example of this supposedly irrefutable evil is in fact no such thing; in itself it is neither good nor evil and the morality as such is only revealed in how it acts upon the child's soul.

>>16300972
>faux grandiloquent tone
>abominable midwit

every time. cringe.

>>16299765
being a boomer about the problem of evil lol. worm.

>>16299807
see >>16296295
"omnipotence" is not defined as requiring the power to do the logically incoherent, all it means is that god can do things like create the universe or cause miracles without any difficulty

>>16288223
>>16288261
>>16291653
>>16291655
>>16291697
>>16298142
>>16298219
>>16298541
>>16302419
Retconing gods authorship of EVERYTHING, as written in the bible means renouncing authorial power over logic and thus leaves the spiritual realm subject to the same logic that dictates matter (determinism). Also why is interventionist evil necessary? and at such high levels? Knowingly not helping someone in need that you can help is evil enough, no need for the raping and murdering of children.
Also why send sinners to hell? Forever?
It's just having your cake and eating it, by saying right makes might you end up with denominations and groups (mafia) that think their successful as a consequence of being "good" because only "good" people are successful.
It's impossible to be only good and all powerful, moral good is an exclusive set of actions, proof of exclusionary realization. And proof of absolute power is the non-exclusionary realization of all actions.

>>16298541
Doesnr matter how much he suffered. It's a fact that there are people whise luves are pure suffering, people who die of starvation at age 6. Go to one of those starving children and tell them that suffering is the spice if life.

>>16300972
What exactly makes murder evil? Or rape? You will probably say something like it goes against will, but if the physical doesnt matter why exactly do those things go against Gods will? Why does hurting people make the soul impure and helping them clean the soul? Why is it good to feed the poor? Most of Christian and other religious values is based on physical wellbeing and prevention of physical suffering, but whenever that logic doesnt suit your argument you deny it.

>>16304016
*against God's will

>>16303791
Why did you tag me? My post says exactly what yours says, moron.

>>16300787
What is it, then?

>>16288200
Oh grow the fuck up you Stirnerite manchild.

>>16304776
That was an error sorry.

>>16288164

>Then God is not all powerful
>Then God is not all knowing
>Then God is not good

These are really just false dilemmas that don't invalidate God in a reasonable way
God can be very powerful but not all powerful
God can be very knowledgeable but not all knowing
To say that god must not be good because he chooses not to prevent evil is just a highly subjective judgement which is meaningless because it is based on limited if any information it's purely a jump to conclusions to put it simply
In a practical scenario God not being powerful enough to fully eradicate evil wouldn't warrant ignoring or discarding him in the same way it seems ridiculous to do the same to any other being

All evil is necessary evil.
The perfect sine wave is ugly.
Disorder is what perfects perfection.
Life without purpose is no life at all.
Purpose is the perception of some evil and some good, to move from the evil to the good.
The evil becomes good as a thing to move away from.
The One-Being is both Rest and Motion.

Omnipotent means everything possible.
Something impossible is not included within the potency of omni.

for fuck's sake op's pic is valid if we replace good and evil by pleasure and suffering

> Does God want to prevent evil? No? Then God is not all-loving

False.

>>16288164
>God could and would destroy Satan

That is exactly what the Bible teaches. But God will do it in his own time, not man’s limited concept of “time”.

>>16288164
what about god can prevent it but he wants to not prevent it to allow a superior good, the free will that allow humans to become good because they have to have freedom to choose to be good to become truly good? Think about it, when you are a baby you're nor good or bad because have no free will

>>16288261
if free will necessarily implies evil, then it would seem that giving a creature free will, in a theretofore perfect world, would be an evil act.

>>16288223
The amount of desperate cope in this post is pathetic

>>16305144
>To say that god must not be good because he chooses not to prevent evil is just a highly subjective judgement which is meaningless because it is based on limited if any information it's purely a jump to conclusions to put it simply

To say that the waiter is going to serve you shit because he is standing on the table spreading his ass cheeks above your plate is just a highly subjective judgement which is meaningless because it is based on limited if any information it's purely a jump to conclusions to put it simply.
And being in a scatophillic restaurant doesn't fix anything, if i don't want to eat shit then i don't want to become a scatophile even if the shit tastes good once i become a scatophile.

>In a practical scenario God not being powerful enough to fully eradicate evil wouldn't warrant ignoring or discarding him in the same way it seems ridiculous to do the same to any other being.

There is no sufficient proof that god has or is gifting us anything, civilization is excessive proof that humans have and are gifting themselves anything they conditionally can.

Also infinte power makes god amoral and finite power makes god relativistically moral (that 2 reason not to worship) as >>16303791 demonstrates.

>>16305469
>god is so kind he that he is going to solve a problem he created, but only if you worship him

>>16305400
ok so now he's relativistically moral, great and still has insufficient proof of existence.

>>16305460
False

>>16305509
gods judgment is subjective and free will is obedience to the conditionally strongest desire in your mind.

>>16298251

This does not affect the question at all.

>>16288164
It has no solution.

>>16296862
It's not an error, because "best" was always a subjective quality. So it's the correct non-answer to the biggest non-problem.

>>16298036
I believe in God and don't believe in evil, so checkmate you dumb fucking monkey. You set yourself up for this, because you made your argument disprovable by a single contradiction.

>>16288164
why presuppose a god even exists, though. we're perfectly capable of fucking ourselves up, or saving ourselves

>>16305936
>Infinite power makes God amoral
This is the only logical possibility, but it's not a conclusive reason not to worship God. Amorality is baked into the system of the Bible though, and is also an empirical fact. This is because as is even said in Matthew 5:45, God causes "the sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and causes rain to fall upon the just and the unjust."

But that amorality is not immoral. It's just neutral or indifferent. Anyway, Jesus continues saying from Matthew 4:46 onwards; "if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect."

From this latter exhortation to be "perfect" we can observe that what he really means is "be amoral, and don't rely on human ideas of morality." People will disapprove of this, but if we define "morals" to mean subjective human morals (which I think in the 21st century we must concede all morals are subjective), the only objective way to behave in a world of subjective morality would be to behave amorally. Consider how Atticus Finch goes against the morality of the deep south in "To Kill a Mockingbird," and how he argues the case of a man from the deep south's visible underclass in court without a moral bias, in other words, amorally.

Therefore the only way in which an amoral God ought not to be worshiped, is if we humans were moral. But since we are immoral, God's amorality puts him above us as something worthy of praise and emulation.

>>16306704
>We are perfectly capable of fucking ourselves up
Sounds reasonable,

>Saving ourselves
I'm going to need a citation.

>>16305055
its okay, sorry for calling your moron

>>16306831
No problem, all's good.

>>16306518
Why would he eliminate Evil when the distinction between Good and Evil is, for God, absolutely meaningless?

>>16288164
That thing fails at step one, as other have noted. WTF is "evil," exactly?

>>16288164
>Then God is not good / God is not loving
This one doesn't follow. You can not wish to prevent evil if you acknowledge that it is the existence of evil which makes the existence of good appear. You can also be both good and evil in varying degrees / to different people, and still be loving.

>>16306823
>christoids would rather worship an amoral eldritch entity than just admit the gnostics were right

>>16307220
Gnosticism is just not an argument, but rather a superstition. If you're "big brain moment" is just saying that there's another God higher than God, then your just a pagan.

Also it's not an argument to use words like "christoid" and be disdainful. The God of the Bible is amoral because he wants to give undeserving bastard sons like you a place in heaven. If I were God, then an electrified toaster oven would have miraculously appeared in your bathtub, and the world would be a better place without you wasting the air.

>>16307371
terrible post, you trad larpers are a blight on true faith and wisdom.

>>16307381
Not an argument again.

What I've said is true; the God of the Bible wants to give undeserving bastards a place in heaven, and I'm not as merciful as that. Were I God, stupid people would be dead, that's a fact.

I'm not a Marcionite cuck who thinks that being Christian means being "nice" to everyone. Stupid people, ad homs, and Gnostic pagans can get fucked.

>>16307371
>there's another God higher than God

Unless your God is evil and ignorant and allows for a worldhood that produces evil, there is indeed a higher God.

Imagine actually thinking "omnipotence" requires God to be able to perform logically nonsensical statements like "create freewill which cannot be used in the service of evil"

>>16307652
In this whole thread, evil has not been proved to exist, so there's no point to suppose a higher God than God.

>>16307831
Evil has to first be defined before anyone can prove it.

>>16307632
>I'm not a Marcionite cuck who thinks that being Christian means being "nice" to everyone. Stupid people, ad homs, and Gnostic pagans can get fucked.

it's pretty obvious you don't understand marcionism or even gnosticism on any real nuanced level.

>>16307836
Precisely, and nobody can do that either.

>>16307686
>omnipotence is constrained by logic

lol.

>>16307838
Ok champ, whatever you say. Now please make a real argument instead of just criticizing me personally in that half-hearted and pathetic way that a brainlet normally attempts. Have you really not learned anything about argumentation in all your, presumably extensive, time here?

>>16307859
>make an argument

You've made assertions, not arguments. When will you brainlets get this very simple, very important, distinction?

>>16307842
capwhenyoucan,capwhenyoucan,capwhenyoucan.

>>16307831
>evil doesnt exist
are you retarded?

>>16288164
evil is only that we are retarded and use it to justify opressive enslavement of the patriarch/matriarch

its not real
chemical reaction doesn't care about evil/good dichotomy, it just happens.

>>16308003
>chemical reaction doesn't care about evil/good dichotomy, it just happens.

and that's what evil about it you dense fuck

>>16308011
fuck you and your morals making me feel bad about anything
Just go fuck yourself

>>16308024
kek. literal child

>>16308041
>defending copelet ideology of anykind

>>16307220
tell us why your god who is outside the material world doesnt stop the demiurge immediately or why did that god even allow an emanation to birth it? why did your god give birth to evil? isnt your god evil now?

>>16308282
my god isn't omnipotent. i'm a dualist so the rest of your questions don't apply.

>>16307849
Logically nonsensical demands like "unfree free will" don't have any semantic content. It's the same with all the nonsense about a rock so heavy it can't be lifted by God Himself. These statements are meaningless, equivalent to gibberish. God can't "bjwkeqfb a nkfnw" either, but that doesn't limit His power because these phrases are just strings of words, not meaningful statements.

>>16288164
Evil = things I don’t like
I like everything
Therefore, evil doesn’t exist

>>16308603
I've known people in my own life who have free will like the rest of us but simply don't possess the capacity for evil. you've already been refuted by real life.

>>16305630
The idea is that a lack of free will is a worse evil, creating a meaningless universe where we are all essentially machines

>>16306823
>>16307371
>>16307632
Your either lazy or stupid (deceitful is a likelier option), you didn't understand a single thing i wrote.
Everything you wrote is ass backwards, a god impartial to others is partial to himself and human ideas of morality are functionally identical to gods ideas, platonic object no different than arts in a museum or vehicles in a military arsenal, links in the chains of fate.
Gods tastes are his own and he can keep them to himself, any shared tastes do not justify my complete subjugation to his aesthetics.
Objectivity is truth but truth has always been a mere leyline to nexuses of transformative and predictive power.
A god who makes a factory world that aims to transform me into a human version of himself and throw the defects into his burning landfills is a relativistic god who craves the narcissistic stimulation of exerted power/imprinted aesthetics.
I should not worship your god because he is relativistically moral and only gods with finite power are like that.
A truly amoral god is ALL moral, a non-exclusionary realization of actions, something akin to pantheism come to think of it.

Conformity is only a virtue for bootlickers.

>>16308304
based

>>16308603
Free will as in free free will is equally nonsensical.
An alcoholic who choses to stop drink is disobeying his desire to drink because he is obeying his desire to stay sober, his desire being a desire perceived as his own.
Also choices are functionally indistinguishable from non-choices, a robber robs, a judge judges, a chooser chooses and a knife cuts.
Form dictates function, past effects of causes are current causes of effects.

>>16288164
Did this sophistry exist before Hume?
Epicurus was just the 'actor' explaining it in the devil anglos dialogue

>>16308852
Ass-reamed monotheist foaming at the mount

>>16288164
What problem? God doesn’t have the same perception of evil that humans do

>>16288164
>thinking you're smart because you know religion is bullshit

>>16305936
>(that 2 reason not to worship)
How? The entity that created the entirety of reality should be worthy of worship whether or not you think he'd be a cool dude as your roommate or something.

>>16306826
[14]

>>16308737
You would call me deceitful, but you are a hypocrite; your very language is designed to obfuscate and undermine any real engagement with your ideas, it sounds like PoMo, but I'll give common sense a try.

It doesn't follow at all that an amoral God approves of all morals any more if follows that he disapproves of all morals. Such things as approval and disapproval hide value-judgements that an absolute being could not possibly share in.

Objectivity isn't truth, truth is being objective. Knowledge is power, so might makes right. You sound like some next-level esoteric SJW when you talk about truth.

Finally you're just strawmanning like a baby; I never said that God was morally relativistic, but you took my words and flipped them on their head to make it seem like I had said the opposite of what I did.

In short, if I am deceitful, you are on another level of deceit that makes me look amateurish.