/lit/ - Literature

>>18773555
It's better to believe in God while being unable to explain evil, than to believe that it's all just random chaos.
There, that's the best rebuttal.

>>18773555
God is the solution to evil.

>>18773555
Evil is subjective. In the beginning there was no evil until humans came and started to categorize things according to their dualistic model "good/bad"

>>18773560
t. Wittgenstein

>>18773599
I'm glad you think I'm unbelievably based anon.

*kisses your cheek*

>>18773742
>Dosto being unable to come up with a rebuttal to the Grand Inquisitor
fuuuuuuck, it's such cope, pure, uncut copium.

>Reason has shown that we commit Evil through the free choice of the will - Saint Augustine

>>18773766
Free will doesn't exist though.

>>18773555
The four Platonic virtues: justice, wisdom, courage and discipline. And also the Platonic concept of justice in general, which shows that the universe (as a whole) is as maximally just as it can be whilst still allowing lesser souls to operate within it.

>>18773766
>Reason has shown that we commit Evil through the free choice of the will
dumb

>>18773768
I have the free will to reply to your post and prove you wrong.

>>18773780
no, I programmed you to do that

>>18773555
Schelling.

>>18773766
Basically this. There is no evil in itself, only the corruption of good. Even when somebody is doing something that is "evil" or morally wrong they are doing it for some sort of gain, which means from their perspective it is "good." Rapists rape for pleasure/power, murderers for satisfaction/revenge. It is a warped perspective on proper behavior as a result of the fall. Without the option to do evil there is no option to do good. God respects our freedom above all and allows people to torture and cause suffering to one another. He is not a mechanistic puppet master like certain forms of Protetantism claim.

Nietzsche

>>18773789
>Even when somebody is doing something that is "evil" or morally wrong they are doing it for some sort of gain, which means from their perspective it is "good."
Is this Jungian?

>>18773798
It's actually Platonic (perhaps Jung as well). Plato talks about this in his moral dialogues. The difference between Good and bad is that the bad is taken up due to lack of wisdom, but to the unwise the bad appears as the Good (due to this lack of intellectual vision/foresight).

God created the lower visible world, which is beautiful in its own way, although inferior to the higher spiritual world.

>>18773804
thanks, can you remember what dialogue(s) talk about this?

>>18773780
That's cute. Our will to live refutes free will. One makes no choices of his own volition, one simply does as biology instructs him to do. All living things in existence compete with one another to stay in existence and spread their genes, they do so not by choice but by instinct.
And the Milgram experiment absolutely BTFOs free will in regards to moral choices. We have a biological instinct to listen to authority figures, and commit genocide, should we be instructed to do so.

>>18773789
This doesn't actually hold up under scrutiny. It is entirely possible to do bad things without being under the delusion that they'll produce good effects.

>>18773814
>Our will to live refutes free will
Suicide. And remember, depression isnt a physical disease :^)

>>18773814
>One makes no choices of his own volition, one simply does as biology instructs him to do.
Explain homosexuality, suicide, and antinatalism then. People are clearly not completely bound to biology. Biology and other pressures influence our choices and sometimes do rob us of choice (a prisoner locked in a cell can't really choose to not be in the cell) but those are just influences.

>>18773555
There is no rebuttal other than he does whatever he wants but of course this shows that God isn't love or good. But this cooking doesn't matters, he knew everything, like single fucking event of past, present and future and everything beyond. If there is a Christian God then it doesn't matter if you're good or bad or believe or disbelieve because you're a retarded fucking puppet.

>>18773555
if you need a rebuttal you're filtered by life

>>18773808
Meno is short and addresses it directly, it's also in the Republic naturally and Protagoras. In Meno I think the relevant part starts at 77a.

>>18773818
Could you provide an example? Because even if you went out and did something awful to disprove my point, for example, the positive effect is that you get to prove me wrong and help my case. There are extreme cases or psychopathy and such but those are out of the norm. My point is that people always do things that benefit them, even the most heinous things aren't done to make someone's position in life worse

>>18773842
help *your* case, not mine

>>18773555
Schelling, Essay on Freedom
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Investigations-Contemporary-Continental-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B004A15UNM/
and the Philosophy of Revelation
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Revelation-1841-42-Related-Texts-ebook/dp/B085RCSTDZ/

>>18773842
People might INITIALLY make choices that they believe are helpful, but you can ask any addict or any historical member of a tyrannical government that past a certain point they knew what they were doing, to others or to themselves, was damaging but they found themselves unable to stop.

>>18773818
It's not, if it only produced bad effects no one would do it. There has to be something good about it for the person for them to do it. It could be something as vain as temporarily inflating their ego to make a whole series of other negatives worthwhile for that person. This is what he means by the corruption of good.

>>18773555
1. Deny the existence of evil.
2. Deny the importance of evil (eg. Heaven provides adequate redress for victims of evil)
3. The existence of Good requires the existence of Evil
4. Deny the omnibenevolence of God