/lit/ - Literature

>>18262837
true good can't exist without the free will to commit evil

>>18262837
spoiler: Vedanta solves it

>>18262837
>Whence comes evil
Nature & Single Vision

>>18262837
These arguments are always presented in such a way as to frame God as this agentic being: I get that saying "God did/allowed this or that" or even "is willing" like he is some kind of giant superperson with superpowers is useful language to describe him but at least from my humble understanding of God, the way it is being used in these arguments is missing the point. Being "able" and "willing" imply there are other alternatives, and God for what I understand, is the supreme, highest good possible. Reality manifests the way it does because of God not just in the past, but present and future. There are no other alternatives of "what it could have been if..."

Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers.
Eventually because he was a good man he was allowed to become the Agricultural Minister of Egypt
Later the Israelites were starving and begged for food and they were only given it because Joseph was the minister. He wouldn't be the minister if we wasn't sold by his brothers.

>>18262837

>>18262965
I only know of this story because I read Jung's MAHS. It wasn't even on his very own chapter.

>>18262950
>>18262879
This. There is no question of Evil since Evil is lack of being, thus non-being, thus non existant.
Atheist can't grasp the "nature" of Evil as they can't grasp the nature of Goodness.

>>18262837
god is just an evil that forces you to call it god and all other evils evil

>>18262837
aelfrics homilies.

>>18262837
Isiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

>>18264243
If so, then evil is non-being, if so, then the evil of sin is also non-being, and sin does not exist, and if so, Christ did not need to die on the cross to redeem us. If we don't need Christ, then clearly we are all Jews or don't need to worship God to be saved.

>>18264452
"Evil" being an absence of good means we are less than good, which would still necessitate Christ's sacrifice due to God's compassion, not His moralism.

But you are still a Jew.

>>18264452
>sin does not exist
sin is decrease in being.
>Christ
And there is accordingly increase in being (i.e. revelation of the deity).
Hell is lack of Hence Jesus went to hell during his crucifixion to manifest the totality of divinity.

>>18264680
lack of being*

>>18264680

Not him but I read a thing once which said that sin is that which is contrary to the will of god, and it was based upon that other definition that I concluded that there is no such thing as sin.

>>18262837
ITT: christcucks so buttmad about a pagan greek that they invent magical schizo logic just to cope.

>>18262837
Omnipotence creates both suffering and joy, actualizing truth to the fullest extend and maximizing meaning

nope, its all mental gymnastics op, from people who can't cope with reality.

>>18262965
This doesn't prove anything

>>18262837
Plotinus says evil arises from non-being, and since matter is nothing, evil comes from matter.

>>18265023
It's contrary to the will of the infinite being for us to do things that limited our being.

>>18265023
But ontology is not understood by ignorant people

>>18265066
>ITT: christcucks so buttmad about a pagan greek
He got BTFO by other pagan Greeks long before Christians ever existed. Plato and Aristotle both destroyed the epicureans, then the death blow was dealt by the Stoics. Christianity didn't even need to get involved, Epicureanism was a dead philosophy long before it even came into the world.

>>18265066
>magical schizo logic just to cope
ontology, ignorant.

>>18265939
matter not in a modern sense though

>>18265286
>I want to fuck, I need religion to be false

>>18262950
Then there is no free will

>>18265939
So it's basically Dualism Lite.

>>18265939
>evil arises from non-being, non-existence
>matter is non-being, it doesn't exist
>evil arises from something which doesn't exist
>something must exist in order to produce an effect
>evil requires matter to exist in order for itself to exist
>matter does not exist
>ergo evil does not exist
And we arrive back at Vedanta / Hindu monism.

>>18266222
>Evil IS non-being, it IS non-existence, evil IS matter (which is to say, non-existence)
If this is a potential response, then what is the difference between this and saying evil IS not? Which is to say, evil does not exist?

>>18262837
>Is there a good refutation
Once you grow up you stop indulging in faerie tale mind games
>Dude Gandalf was so Powerful
>S-s-santa isn't real?
It's bedtime stories, and you are all little bois

>>18266026
Keep telling yourself that christcuck
Epicureanism created the modern world

>>18262837
>Is he able, but not willing?
>The he is malevolent.

Does not follow.

>>18264243

This just renames the problem to the problem of "non-being".

>>18266277
It doesn't actually, it entirely eradicates it by showing that Epicurus' entire argument is based on a false presupposition (that evil exists). Epicurus' entire "paradox" falls apart as soon as you invert that presupposition ("evil exists", becomes, "evil does not exist").

>>18266283
So then why do people always lament that there is evil in the world, especially the religious? Are they just imagining things?

>>18262965
Yes, and?

>>18266289
>Are they just imagining things?
Yes. It's ignorance of the inherent goodness of reality, which is caused by the discoloring of reality by the human organism.

>>18266283
>>18266305
>i testify that its works are evil - jesus
>no actually you testify that its work are like...a discoloring of reality by the human organism and also like don't really exist LOL - the catholic

>>18266315
I'm not a Christian.

How do I reconcile with the dualist elements in Christianity?
It's heretical but I can't understand evil otherwise. There are so many instances of the Bible where a mitigated dualist cosmology is heavily implied - how do I see past this?

>>18266343

The argument is Catholic nevertheless.

>>18266356
You have to move upwards to Christian mysticism (Neoplatonism/Hermeticism), or else ditch Christianity and come to Vedanta, Sufism, Ismailism or another esoteric school of the East. You can't expect to find Truth in exoteric dogma. What is usually "heresy" is tolerated in mystic schools so long as it is kept quiet.

>>18264243
Do guenontards really believe this?

>>18262879
>>18264243
>>18264452
>>18264680
>>18264686
>>18265939
>>18266222
>>18266245
Niggas unironically still believe in privatio boni in 2021. You fucking pseuds make me sick

>>18266273
The only thing worse than evil is for the good to do nothing about it.

>>18262837
>is he able, but not willing?
>then he is malevolent
Wouldn't the real malevolence be destroying any value and meaning that Good has by destroying Evil entirely?

>>18266356
>it's heretical
I don't see a "Pope" or "Church" in this book. Why does what they say have to say possess any value to you?

>>18262837
Go back to /his/. If not for the take, then for the fact that the problem gets periodically debunked there.

It also periodically mutates into normies screeching about determinism, which I see happening here as well lol

>>18262837
the parable of the wheat and the tare answers this pretty well
read bible

>>18262837
As you can plainly see from the responses in this this thread, no.

Evil and The God of Love by John Hick

>>18262837
The answer I like most is the official position of the Catholics and Orthodox:
We don't know.
That's it. It's simple, and true. Much better than a wrong answer

>>18267377

Good doing something about Evil would spare Evil of its due consequences. Moreover, in this mixture, Good would acquiesce to Evil, whereas if Good does nothing then Evil is left to incur fatal consequences and be destroyed, acquiescing to Good without mixture.

>>18267592
Where did you read this position? Both Orthos and presumably Catholics reference Gregory of Nazianzus, who addressed this long ago by pointing out that evil is a unnecessary derivative and that the question presumes dualism.

>>18262872
Riddle me this Christfag: is it possible for God to have created a world where people have free will but always freely chose the good?

>>18267689
>the could-he x should-he switch setup
not him btw

>>18267730
not an argument

>>18262872
As the other anon points out...how do you explain someone like Jesus who freely chooses the good? Or what about when we are in heaven (I am using the standard conception of heaven here). To have free will shouldn’t create the potential for evil, rather it should always lead to good. It’s the lack of free will that causes evil.

>>18264243
Evil obviously exists. Evil is suffering, that which is unwanted. The real question is why do unwanted things exist? Because they must be wanted by someone, that is, God. Why would God want there to be suffering? Well, God knows all things, experiences all things. It’s my belief that God himself suffers all things, so God is not causing others to suffer, he is only causing himself to suffer in the form of humans, etc. This is for omniscience, omnipotence,experience, etc. How could God be perfect without having knowledge and experience of these things? There is no good conception of a world without these things. Such a God would be less than perfect

>>18267916
I called out the fallacy before it happened, if you can't see that far ahead, no problem, just stick around.

>>18267618
>Good doing something about Evil would spare Evil of its due consequences.
What a cucked philosophy.

>>18267930
>Evil obviously exists.
Not by itself, it's a derivation of Good.
>that which is unwanted
Great example: there first ought to be something wanted, a desire that needs to be contradicted.
The person you replied to is correct, Evil is a construct, whereas Good actually has existence.
Btw I don't see how your last sentence follows from all that you wrote... God created things, he let things come to suffering... what about that makes him less than perfect?

>>18267994
How do you know good isn't a deviation of evil?

>>18262837
Epicurus never said that you absolute retard. This is what Epicurus actually believed.

>>18268060
Because the things and aspects that we call 'good' can exist without 'evil' even remotely in the picture. Gregory of Nazianzen puts it into an allegory of healthy vision. Seeing is a function, it works by itself, no other conceptualization necessary. But to address blindness, you must first conceptualize vision and its lack or decay. Hence blindness is a derivative concept, dependent on vision. Whereas vision is the actual thing with its own actual existence.

>>18267994
I meant that God would not be perfect without suffering.
> Not by itself, it's a derivation of Good.
Where is this in the Bible? I think I could find the word evil very quickly in the Bible. By the way, even if what you call evil is “non-existence,” no one is talking about this, but suffering

>>18268092
A child can suffer from birth without knowing many pleasant experiences. Suffering is not the lack of pleasant experiences. They are two different things. And both of them certainly exist

>>18268096
>I think I could find the word evil very quickly in the Bible
You could, and you could even find God stating he's the source of "evil" in most English translations of Isaiah. But the Christian understanding is that evil is dependent on the good, whereas good has its own existence. Narratively depicted by Satan, dogmatically by most laws really teaching against perversion of 'good' things.
>suffering
Suffering is your mind and body in decay, what you're asking then is why would God create finite things. And I can actually answer that, as a finite thing: life is dope lmao

>>18267963

Why?

>>18262837

Yes... there is. Don't think of God as a conscious being.

>>18268118
>A child can suffer from birth without knowing many pleasant experiences.
And if we could equate moral good with bodily pleasures and moral evil with bodily pains, that would be a very relevant example. But since we can't equate those, I'll have to ask you to elaborate.
Yes, a child can suffer or even die during birth. How does that suggest that evil exists independently of good?

>>18268092

You haven't answered his question. By this Logic, seeing can just as easily be said to be a "concept derivative of" blindness.

Not really life is essentially evil, and not by design. Just chance.

>>18268146
>And if we could equate moral good with bodily pleasures and moral evil with bodily pains, that would be a very relevant example
I actually do. Whatever is preferable is good, and whatever is not preferable is bad. Without preferences, morality is non-existent

>>18268154
No it can't and I said why - you CAN have vision without conceptualizing blindness. You CAN'T have blindness without conceptualizing vision.

>>18262837
The word Epicurean became the word for heretic in Hebrew

>>18268160
That doesn't connect bodily pleasures to moral good. You can actually feel pleasant about evil things.

>>18268170
>You can actually feel pleasant about evil things.
they’re only evil insofar as they cause suffering to someone. Good and evil are subjective. Again, without preferences, emotions, etc. there is no morality or goodness or evil

>>18268182
That's a way to look at it, you're free to believe that. It still doesn't help us navigate the "child can suffer since birth, hence goodness as such is not primary" objection. It still doesn't follow.

>>18268203
Since evil is the experience of suffering, it exists and it is not necessary for good to exist, that is, pleasant experiences. Sure, there is some interplay between the two, a mind can become hardened by suffering, or spoiled by constant pleasure, but a painful experience is painful in itself. Even if evil required the existence of the good, evil still exists

GALAXY BRAIN: ONLY EVIL EXISTS IN THAT THE PHENOMENAL WORLD IS EVIL ITSELF AND, CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC DELIRIUM, THE NOUMENAL WORLD DOES NOT DISTINGUISH ITSELF THEREFROM BY EXISTING PERFECTLY BUT BY NOT EXISTING AT ALL: DURING DEATH ONE LITERALLY GOES UP THE COGNITIVE VISTA INTO REASON ITSELF, EXPERIENCING AND FULFILLING THE VERY DISTANCE AND DISCRETION OF REASON FROM THE INSIDE, GOING INTO THAT "INEFFABLE" SOURCE WHENCE HE FREELY RECEIVED RATIONAL THINGS IN THIS LIFE, SNEAKING PAST THE EMPIRICAL AS RATIONAL THINGS THEMSELVES SNEAKED, APPEARING IN FRONT OF THE RATIONAL UNTOUCHED BY THE EMPIRICAL, AS RATIONAL THINGS THEMSELVES APPEARED TO HIM.

>>18267386
This guy gets it. Without the gradation existing between vice and virtue and good and evil there is nothing to describe. It's that plain. From that development becomes linear. It's a sort of Buradin's Donkey situation. It's evident that biology, generally, requires perturbation. Were you situated in a mythical realm where all needs are satisfied to what end do you work? Quite probably to none. Of course, you'd tire, this feedback loop becomes baseline and you become bored. You create, you destroy. Good begets evil and evil begets good and we oscillate upwards obliquely. It's all relative countervailing forces that give human life impetus. Lower order sentience is less sensitive but still observably generates similar outcomes, and even at a cellular level there are advantages conferred like population distribution, albeit following pareto power laws.

>>18266273
This is also true. Especially if we consider the concept of Lila. Alteration of outcomes defeats the purpose of the tool, writing a script makes the story predictable.

>>18268226
>good
>that is, pleasant experiences
I can unequivocally grant that you can be in pain without ever experiencing pleasure. That doesn't grant evil independence. It grants suffering a temporal independence from pleasure. It's like saying that blindness is independent, because someone could have been born blind. Sure. He never saw. He was always blind. Vision is still a necessary concept to conceptualize blindness.
>Even if evil required the existence of the good, evil still exists
The same way blindness "exists". As a word.

>>18268161

I am currently not perceiving Phenomenal aspects I have no concept of and so are you.

>>18268255
Blindness is the lack of vision. Suffering is not the lack of a pleasant experience, but a different type of experience in itsellf

>>18268269
That may be true. The point still is that once you create a new phenomenal channel, you create that one aspect. You don't create its absence, the absence isn't even a thing. The channel is a thing.

>>18268275
I know. And I'm telling you that I can readily grant that the experience can exist independent of pleasure. But since I don't conflate pleasure and goodness or suffering and evil, it's irrelevant to proving whether or not goodness is primary and evil derivative.

>>18268294
Why do you assume that a secular criticism of the existence of evil is based on this so-called “Christian understanding” of evil? When people ask how God is loving when evil exists, they are clearly referring to suffering.

>>18268294

This is starting to sound like the pejoratively "postmodern". If you want to make Theological arguments, how else would you be a mostly a non-perceiving entity if God had not literally created your absences?

>>18268248
Based schizo

>>18268327
If you're applying Epicurus' quote to a deity completely different in nature from a monotheist deity, just tell me and I'll gladly admit I have nothing to offer. That's the "Christian understanding" part. As to suffering, I by no means discard suffering, I just don't concede to the conflation of suffering and evil. There are very pleasant evil things, it's a dysfunctional equation.

Believe it or not, this "Christian understanding" (which really is just moral monism), applies primarily to suffering - all suffering you can name is just decay or absence of the good. This may sound like a souvenir shop quote, but it actually inverts your whole take on your pain, to the point where people diagnosed with terminal cancer out of the blue said they never felt more alive than then - because they switch to the monistic view, focusing on the actual reality rather than its absences and decays.

>>18268353
>literally created your absences
The point is precisely that you don't create absences. You don't create non-existence, it's an oxymoron.

>>18268371
>the holes in this net were not created

>>18268391
Precisely. You didn't create the holes, it's a linguistic construct. You created the ropes and knots, and it's the ropes and knots that catch the fish. "Creating holes" is a linguistic construct for choosing to leave a spot without a rope, as it was.

>>18268406
>choosing to

Never mind this being a synonym for "create", but what about tires and bottles and such? The whole reason they exist is their absences, so you have deliberate absence both Ontologically AND Teleologically.

>>18268364
Why is there suffering?

>>18268447
>choosing to
>synonym for "create"
Not when you're choosing [not to create] a rope there, like in case of holes.
>what about tires and bottles and such
Same thing. You create the material thing, the rest of your 'creation' is a linguistic construct.
>deliberate absence both Ontologically AND Teleologically.
Absolutely! The absence is actually ontological, there is literally no existing rope in the hole. And it's teleological, we actually want there to be absence of rope in the hole. That you "created" a hole is still a linguistic construct. You teleologically avoided creating something, it remained an ontological void.

>>18268470
Because we haven't found a way to cope with finitude.

>>18268471

Does water sit in a glass due to a linguistic construct? If you remove linguistic parties from making and/or observing the glass, would the glass repel the water?

>>18262837
Spinoza's response is pretty decent. You can avoid the issue by giving up on the idea that you have any real knowledge of good and evil.
If you are going to be Christian about God, no. God's love would never allow his precious babies to be hurt.

>>18268512
Perfectly viable to believe that all is good from God's perspective

>>18268479
Why do we not have this ability?

>>18268364
From what basis do you form the idea that good/evil are ably confounded with suffering/pleasure? It seems to me that often doing good can be conferred with what could equally be described as suffering, but relies on a framing delusion to assert it's pleasurable, if it is interpreted as such, rather than being a "necessary evil", e.g. the loss of money or other resources in the act of philanthropy. While confounding evil with pleasure, drug use or rape for example generate pleasure moreso than they do suffering.

Good and evil aren't considerations of suffering and pleasure, they're virtues to abide by to glean directionality and thus a quantifiable gain in the society that acquiesces to the dictates that define them. Juxtaposing one against the other could yield wholly similar or totally dissimilar results. That is to say one culture could, with a moral explanation, eschew materialism and progress while good and evil trace a similar path to a value system that places materialism and progress on the highest order. Neither case is wrong, as there is no right answer. Either would assess the other as evil though, as a product of deviation from their value system and thus a violation of their moral directives or social direction.

>>18268510
>Does water sit in a glass due to a linguistic construct?
It sits there due to fitting in between the walls. That you "created" that space is a construct, it's a way of talking about it. And it's not accurate, because you didn't "create" space. You don't create non-existence.

>>18268522
You're in the exact same position to answer that as I am.

>>18268536
I am against conflating good and pleasure or evil and suffering.

>>18268540

Whence existing things? If ex Deo then, obviously, the absence would have to be deliberately created. If ex nihilo, though you claim that nothingness does not exist, then the absence would have to be likewise deliberately created since nothingness neither is nor is not, and existing things would have to be deliberately distinguished from nothingness by what they are not just as much as by what they are, i.e. the water in the glass does not sit in a vacuum, relative to which only the glass is, but in an absence as deliberately made as the glass itself, permeable to this but not to that.

>>18268536
>drug use or rape for example generate pleasure moreso than they do suffering.
then why don’t you rape? Why don’t you do heroin?

>>18268595
>Whence
stopped reading there

>>18268595
Even if it's ex Deo, it's not like you start out with literally everything literally everywhere and carve out the absences.
>you claim that nothingness does not exist
I claim you don't create nothingness. That "nothing" and "nonexistent" are synonymous is a semantic insight.
>nothingness neither is nor is not
In which case your claims to 'creating' an absence fall flat by virtue of this alone.
>existing things would have to be deliberately distinguished from nothingness
Yes. Which would be the process of creating existence. Which you would then argue through linguistic constructs actually amount to "creating" nothingness, although that's both internally contradictive and inconsistent with nothingness "neither [being] nor [being] not". You could at best argue that creation amounts you to be able to differentiate between being and non-being. But then you're leaving ontology for epistemology.

>>18262965
Proves nothing

>>18268647

Is the water in the glass actually resting in a vacuum in the glass?

God allows evil to exist because it's a stalemate.
He is equally on the side of a paedophile as he is on the side of a child victim of rape.
Each has a soul to be saved. Refusing one person's ability to act is condemning that person to judgement without the ability to repent as he would not have any guilt because he didn't do the thing that would make him evil. Yet he would still do the evil thing if he had the chance.

We have a responsibility to each other and to ourselves, and we can't blame God for not treating us like babies.

There's no safety net. As a living person I think of myself as a sort of cosmic operator. On earth, we are behind enemy lines. We can fuck up in the heat of battle. Actions have dire consequences. God is a neutral party.

>>18268683
If you yeet that shit into space, yeah, there is vacuum in the glass in which the water sits. I don't see where you're going with this

>>18268621
Conformation to the contemporary moral code I was conditioned with.

>>18268704

Then, obviously, that which receives the water, on Earth, is not the absolute absence relative to which the glass alone is, but a secondary absence, as distinguished from the absolute absence as the glass itself.

>>18268708
I would ask more questions but I don’t have time to wait on you. The reason you don’t rape is because it actually tends to cause more suffering for you. The same is true for drug use.

>>18268722
Sure, you can have absences of 30 sorts over. None of which solves the fact that you don't "create" non-existence. You create existing things.

>>18268737

Whence the plurality of absences? Note that if you claim them incidental to existing things then you have almost stumbled into claiming absence as superior to existence.

>>18268755
>Whence the plurality of absences?
From the plurality of our linguistic constructs.

>>18268777

You claim the water DOES rest in a vacuum (>>18268683) absent of linguistic parties creating and/or observing it?

>>18268733
Not really, I was a polydrug ab(user) for a decade and the only reason I stopped is UA's. The reason I continue my abstinence is I find it virtuous. As far as rape, not only do I find it morally repugnant, but unsportsmanlike which is probably enjoined with its moral repugnance.

>>18268791
Yeah, if it's in space there's literal vacuum around it.

>>18268805

On Earth?

>>18268814
In space. >>18268704
Is there something that will solve the "creating non-existence" contradiction or should we call it a day? It's getting late here.

>>18268857

What about on Earth then, per my initial question?

>>18268798
>The reason I continue my abstinence is I find it virtuous
yes, and not because it avoids all the unhealthy side effects of drug use -_-

>>18268885
That's correct, yes. I'm much more happy when self-medicating, this in turn invigorates a depressed creative engine, social interactivity, and general wellbeing through a large reduction in stress and heightened focus as well as being given tools to temper the mind as needed. The attention is all to selfish ends, though. Existence without is more an act of mortification than it was before, but work well done nor a noble mind and body emerge from ceaseless hedonism, do they? Nor does solidarity emerge from disparate souls shorn by a growing gulf created conscious alterations of drugs, rendering it an incomparable chimera.

Society is virtue.

>>18267689
Not a Christfag, but it depends. If you believe that God really has UNLIMITED POWER, then there's no real reason for the world not being a paradise, other than him being a dick. Either way you look at it, God is either not all that allmighty or not all that good.

>>18262837
Doesn't evolution solve the problem of evil? We see some things as evil because our ancestor's avoided things they were repugned by.

>>18269859
I wrote that wrong, you get the idea anyway.

>>18269348
>then there's no real reason for the world not being a paradise, other than him being a dick
The Bible explains this. Humans made the decision.

>>18262837
>Evil God challenge
Read the Bhagavatha Vahini.

https://www.sathyasai.org/sites/default/files/pages/discourse-writing/vahini/bhagavatha-vahini/bhagavatha-vahini.pdf

>>18267930
>Evil is suffering, that which is unwanted
Cringe slave morality

>>18262837
Way can't God be morally grey? Why must he be good? Are we talking about the God that punished the Jews? That sent a flood? That got angry at his people for their lack of competence? Must he be good? Why can't he be in the middle?

>>18262837
Yes. Type "theodicy" into Google and have your pick.

>>18268160
>>18268182
>>18268226
>>18268275
>>18268621
>>18268733
>>18268885
> hedonism
Just wait for artificially immortal full dive VR then, infinite pleasure, or, in your worldview, good! Therefore God is infinitely good in the end!

>>18267689
Nah that wouldn't be free will.

I am not saying I believe in God but I don't think there is a contradiction here. God is not a dictator who programs all our actions, he just lets us go into the world and hopes we will do the right thing. Kind of like any father does with his children.

>>18270224
I’m not advocating “hedonism,” only that the best life is the most preferable life. It seems as though you don’t prefer the life in the image, where exactly am I wrong?

>>18267689
that wouldnt be free will you absolute mong

>>18262837

Why would a perfect God make imperfect beings?

>>18270338
Because God is the only possible perfect being, all else is imperfect

>>18270307
>free will: the unexplainable compulsion to do that which is bad for you rather than using the freedom ;) to always do the good
I hope you are using this definition. Then your logic would at least be valid

leibniz solved it already.

>>18270389
Why is there an imperfect "all else"? Wouldn't a perfect God make everything else perfect, therefore reducing everything to itself? Would a perfect God let imperfection exist?

>>18270908
Maybe we are 'perfect' in this way. God cannot make error in His creations, for that would make him not perfect anymore.

>>18262837
>you're living in a dream world, neo.
Just as a parent isn't aware of the details of a child's dream, God isn't aware of this world.

>>18266273
Exactly. He just makes a fool of himself when he says that.

>>18262837
Holy fucking reddit argument

>>18266187
So?

>>18271901
Let's rephrase the question then: why would god create a world at all?

>>18262837
Theres no such thing as suffering because nothing your body feels matter.
All this shit is irrelevant to your soul.
Your physical life is a tiny, tiny sliver of time between your soul being plucked from the womb of the void and eternal wholeness.

>>18267689
By His omnipotence and omniscience, God creates the absolute BEST POSSIBLE world. Since we have free will, by necessity we call it a good. So a world where human-like automatons do no evil is POSSIBLE, but it is not the BEST possible world.
The choice to not commit evil is meaningful only if you have the ability to actually do it in the first place.

>>18267930
>Evil is suffering
Suffering is suffering. Evil causes suffering, but it is not suffering in itself.
Also update yourself on Christian metaphysics, Evil doesn't exist as an entity or a principle, it is a deviation from existence and principles. To give Evil an independent existence is Manicheanism, a Gnostic heresy, sadly prevalent in the US.

>>18267930
>>18272428
An example: there is a hole in the wall. Both the hole and the wall -are-, but they -are- in different ways. There can a be wall without a hole, but a hole without a wall can't exist. A hole is dependent on something else to exist, and we can even say there are no holes as objects, just broken walls. A hole is an imaginary object, even worse a "parasitic" one (can't exist without being in something else, broking their wholeness), not "real" in itself.
Such is Christian evil. It is not something created and independent of Good, but a parasitic non-entity, an umbrella term to apply to instances of actual objects being broken, abused or misused.

>>18272428
>>18272451

AHEM! Your answer, please? >>18268878

>>18262837
Evil is caused by matter and conatus

>>18262837
What a whiner

Does he expect God to do everything for him?

>>18262837

The fall from paradise is a metaphor for when human beings discovered cunnilingus and then became truly capable of bottomless evil

>>18266222
Matter is becoming, not non-being. Back to Plato

>>18266356
Just become Zoroastrian. Read Mardanfarrox's Doubt-Removing Book.
All of West Eurasia was meant to be Zoroastrian but devious Semites won in the end for some reason. Leave behind the druj of daevas and embrace the Gathas.
Also, I am a prophet, so you can follow me instead.

>>18270066
God's perspective, and thus the actions precipitated by his omnipotent processes is exactly the definition of good from his supplicants. Not necessarily other groups who worship other gods, or independent moral agents who either eschew godhood or elect some other means to give bearings to their direction.

>>18262837
You can't refute what's right though. Philosophy doesn't work that way. Epicureanism is in the right side of thought.

>>18262872
"free will" is a nonsense word phrase. You can't even properly define it. It's like "square circle". Any attempt to define it tacitly presupposes determinism

>>18262872
Soi good isn't truly good because being evil is against his nature, got it