/lit/ - Literature

>>19113560
>couldn't have chosen to create an imperfect universe
It's imperfect as long as you are ignorant. Problem solved.

>>19113560
kek these anti theism arguments are more retarded day by day

I really wanna get into Christianity, but between you and CS Lewis' inability to construct an argument beyond the capabilities of a kindergartener, youre doing it a disservice

>>19113560
Let’s say that God is an omnipotent, omniscient being.
Since God is omnipotent he can create as many universes as possible.
Let us assume a utilitarian ethical system where the optimal moral end is the maximization the difference of (happiness - suffering).
God has an ethical duty to create every possible universe where happiness is greater than suffering.

>>19113560
>If God is perfect, then he couldn't have chosen to create an imperfect universe.
How do you know that an imperfect universe is not something God would have made, or at least allowed?

>>19113601
As many universes as he chooses*

>>19113581
>the world is perfect actually

>>19113604
1) God is perfect
2) All God's actions are perfect
3) Creating an imperfect universe is an imperfect action
4) A perfect God would never have chosen to create the universe.

>>19113560
This question has been asked 2k years ago already. Go read books.
Of course they can co-exist. Anything God creates is going to be lacking in his perfection in that it is not him. Just because the universe lacks some of what God has in no way makes it a threat to God. The fact that God has what the universe lacks in no way makes God a threat to the universe. In fact without him, it would cease to exist.

>>19113597
Try prayer, reading scripture and actually talking to someone from the Church instead of 4chins. St Augustine and St Aquinas are good too.

>>19113635
>Anything God creates is going to be lacking in his perfection in that it is not him.
So why would God create anything? He is entirely self-sufficient and self-sustaining. Why create something imperfect?

Your misconception is to think our imperfect intellects can comprehend the perfection of God.

>>19113626
>Creating an imperfect universe is an imperfect action
God did not create the universe imperfect. He created it very good. Part of that goodness was the ability of free creatures in the universe to love him. He allowed them not too, which they decided upon. An imperfect universe arises from a perfect creation. Your definition of perfection doesn't align with God's.

>>19113651
I said, go read books. Nigga, I'm not going to spend the whole night teaching you the basics of theology. If you truly wanted to learn them, you would pick up books and read. But you do not want answers, you do not give a fuck about knowledge. You just want to btfo Christians.

>>19113659
>He allowed them not to
Which, since loving God is more perfect than not loving God, is imperfect. But how could a perfect God choose to create the imperfection that free will allows?

>>19113651
Not the other respondent but heres my take:
By claiming that creation is imperfect your committing the common mistake of confusing your opinion for the Truth. Revelation has shown us the Truth. Now go read scripture prayerfully and see for yourself. Heres a starter for you:

>7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love
1 St John 4

>>19113676
Again, you're definition is what is causes this dilemma. Perfection is what God wishes. It does not exist outside of the will of God. If God wills for creatures to be allowed freewill, then that is perfection, by definition, regardless of imperfect consequence. That consequence, which is sin, is a corruption of God's will, which is why it is imperfect. The existence of imperfection in the universe does not mean that creation was made imperfect.

>>19113707
>revelation
The eternal cope of the Christian.

>>19113723
So God can only will perfection because perfection is defined as being whatever he wills? Are you retarded by any chance?

>>19113738
Perfection is a description of God's will. Definitions are inherently circular, so your point makes no sense. Define what words are without using words.

>>19113723
>my sinning is perfect
alright but I'm not sure you're on orthodox theological ground here anon

>>19113614
It is. And God has also given you freedom of will which allows you to see world as imperfect if you wish so.

>>19113723

>>19113752
Sin is definitionally not perfection. However, the ability of man to choose to love God is perfection. The decision to love is God's will is part of the perfect creation, not the sin. The sin is a unfortunate byproduct of it.

>>19113601
>God has an ethical duty
He has no duty, he is free.

>>19113755
>evil only exists because of my point of view

>>19113651
Abhinavagupta has answered this question.

>>19113763
I don't think you understand the argument anon: it would have been more perfect if God had not created the universe, rather than creating one in which the imperfection of sin was a possibility. Whether the imperfection is caused by created agents or not is irrelevant to the fact of non-creation being more perfect than creation.

>>19113763
Why can't God create a creature who has free will but nevertheless will never sin? If he is all powerful, he should be able to do it, even if its logically contradictory. There should be nothing that is unfortunate but necessary since God is all-powerful and doesn't have to obey logical necessity.

>>19113762
This supposed dilemma has been answered by Christians for millennia. The word good is a description of God himself. It is not divorced from him nor does it exist outside of him. It IS him, an intrinsic property of divinity.

>>19113767
It doesn't follow from what I said.

>>19113789
>the universe is perfect you only see it as imperfect
aka "evil is just a point of view dude lmao"

>>19113779
My issue is that perfection cannot be considered outside of God's will. If God values freewilling creatures above the consequence of their freewill, then that is perfect. To divorce the word perfection from the will of God is to make it impotent.
>>19113785
This is a problem with the word "all-powerful". Can God make a square circle? No, that is not possible because of the definition of those words. No Christian uses the word all-powerful like this, the better word is omnipotent, because it is God's potency we are referring to. God does all he wishes, but he does not, for example, wish to do sin. Choice by definition means more than one possible outcome. Therefore, because love requires the ability of creatures to choose, freewill is a necessity.

>>19113787
But doesn’t God decide what is good? I guess Christians do assert that God decides himself in a way.

>>19113820
Nice all powerful God that has to obey the arbitrary laws of logic and principle of non-contradiction lmaoooooo

>>19113824
Can you rephrase the last part? I don't quite understand.
>>19113840
They are not arbitrary, they are God's will. It would be a contradiction for him to not obey them because he made them. How can God not obey his own will?

>>19113840
God has his own nature that doesn't allow him to do some things, for example lie, it was a long chapter in the summa of Aquinas but I don't remember much I'm not a Christian even

>>19113820
>If God values freewilling creatures above the consequence of their freewill, then that is perfect.
If God required freewilling creatures to be perfect then he is not perfect in himself. Indeed we could then imagine a being that is more perfect than God, one that doesn't require freewilling created agents.

>>19113845
So he CAN make a square circle or a person with free will but no capacity to sin then? Because he made the laws of logic and should therefore be able to change them, no?

>>19113820
>>19113848
Also, if God values my free will as perfect in its entirety then he considers it perfect when I choose to sin.

>>19113803
I've never said evil is just a point of view and I even replied to you that it doesn't follow from what I said. Same thing has to be repeated to you twice so that you can understand it?
Whenever encountering any study materials there are always two modes in which you can approach them:
1)You're only looking for errors(not that you actually find them). You don't care about the essence, nor you understand anything. Your goal was never to get the point, you simply want to tickle your ego.
2)You humble yourself down and go through it trying to actually understand what author wanted to convey. You're not doing any mental gymnastics if you encounter something you don't like, but you genuinely meditate on that.
Your problem is that you stick to the first approach. Imagine if you were trying to solve a math problem in this manner, would you ever succeed? That is why you are so ignorant of theology.
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Damaskin/an-exact-exposition-of-the-orthodox-faith
https://www.academia.edu/20335749/Utpaladevas_Proof_of_God_on_the_Purpose_of_the_%C4%AA%C5%9Bvarasiddhi

>>19113845
>Can you rephrase the last part?
Doesn’t God contemplate himself? If God is goodness itself and also decides what is good, he would have to be self-referential, kind of like how Plato viewed the Forms.

>>19113848
I don't see how it follows that requiring free creatures to be perfect makes God imperfect.
>>19113855
No he follows the laws of logic because they are his will. Making a square circle would contradict his own will, which is why he cannot do it. The same is true with sin, and with love, and with choice. Without their definition, they are meaningless. Without their definition, they don't exist. There is no such thing as choice without decision, because that is intristic to the nature of choice. To definition as something different is to destroy choice.
>>19113860
This does not follow. The ability to love God is perfect, the imperfection is the sin. Freedom is a requirement of love.

>>19113659
>He allowed them not too
And then sends them to hell if they don't. Wow, what a great deal.

>>19113878
>This does not follow. The ability to love God is perfect, the imperfection is the sin. Freedom is a requirement of love.
Why does God require love if he is perfect and entirely self-sustaining? How could a perfect being have chosen to create and allow imperfection? You've still been dancing around the actual problem.

>>19113860
Your another problem is that you make so many judgements about God while you yourself acknowledge that you do not understand His nature at all, nor you ever tried. Unless you work on yourself and pray to God sincerely, there's little chance he will reveal Himself to you. Not because he is hiding, but because it is your own will to shit itt instead of picking up a book, God respects your will like nobody else.

>>19113891
>Why does God require love
He doesn't require anything. We require it. You have shown a lot of ignorance itt. This board is 18+.

>>19113898
>He doesn't require anything.
So why did God create the universe then? A perfect being could not have chosen to create something that wasn't required and is imperfect.

>>19113874
In Trinity does God contemplate himself. That is the basis for love to begin with.
>>19113884
They send themselves to hell. They hate love, they are divorced from its source, which is what hell is. No one who truly wants to be in heaven will be left out. Many, however, will refuse to choose this.
>>19113891
He doesn't require love. He choose out of his own will to create the universe, to share his power with creatures who could love him. My answer to your second question is that perfection cannot be divorced from God's will, and that will is to allow creatures the ability to love, which entails the choice of imperfection. That does not mean that the ability to love is imperfect.

>>19113903
You are confusing Being with beings. Typical platonist cuck.

>>19113903
>My answer to your second question is that perfection cannot be divorced from God's will, and that will is to allow creatures the ability to love, which entails the choice of imperfection
So God's will, which is perfect, willed imperfection. This is just a logical contradiction. Can God make 1+1=3 too?

>>19113560
>If God is perfect, then he couldn't have chosen to create an imperfect universe.
who said the universe is imperfect?

>>19113560
Both of your points seem nonsensical to me. Am I really stupid, are you not expressing yourself clearly, or are you really stupid?
>If God is perfect, then he couldn't have chosen to create an imperfect universe.
Perfection in the sense of God contains omnipotence - the ability to do anything. If God is perfect, He can choose to do anything He wants. How can you limit His choices?
>If God is imperfect, then he isn't sufficiently great enough to be the Creator as there is something more perfect than God.
How does that follow? I’m not saying God is imperfect, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the Creator is imperfect. You say if God is imperfect then He is not the Creator, I simply do not understand the if-then logical progression there
I really can’t wrap my head around either of your statements. Am I misunderstanding them? It seems you are saying
>If God is perfect He can’t make an imperfect universe
And I kinda get thaw thought process even though I don’t think it makes a ton of sense
And you’re saying
>If God isn’t perfect He didn’t create us
And I truly do not understand that at all. Why can’t an imperfect being create us

>>19113920
God willed for humans to be able to choice perfection or imperfection. The perfection is in the ability of men to love, not in the imperfection of them to choose not to. The implication of your argument is that God wills for men to not love, which is not at all what I'm arguing for.

>>19113945
You're still dancing around the crux of the argument. I'll make it as clear as I can for others also.

God, at the point of creation, knew what he was about to create would contain imperfection, through free will or whatever else you want to say is not important.

God had two choices: he could create or not create. Since God is perfect, lacks nothing and is self-sustaining, not creating would be eternally perfect.

God, being a perfect being, would always choose the more perfect action over the less perfect action. And not creating the universe would be more perfect.

Therefore either God is not perfect, or God did not create the universe.

Saying "but free will/wanted loving created agents" is besides the point. A million units of perfection plus one unit of imperfection is less perfect than one unit of perfection by itself. The definition of the perfect is that which is totally flawless, without anything that could improve it (e.g. eliminating one unit of imperfection).

>>19113902
You've already been pointed at books and authors who address this very question. If you expect some short answer, it is as dumb as expecting a short answer to "Why is Poincare theorem true?"
Nevertheless it is addressed shortly at 35th page here for example
http://www.gianfrancobertagni.it/materiali/tantra/joo3.pdf
I have also referred to a paper here>>19113867
https://www.academia.edu/20335749/Utpaladevas_Proof_of_God_on_the_Purpose_of_the_%C4%AA%C5%9Bvarasiddhi
But you're not going to read anything, you don't care about understanding, you care about repeating your bullshut 1000 times thinking it will become true by that
>A perfect being could not have chosen to create something that wasn't required and is imperfect.
Stop projecting your misunderstanding on God. You limit him by choosing what he should and should not do. Nobody believes in God you disbelief in.Your presuppositions are retarted and self-contradictory.

>>19113560
You’re confusing creating with begetting
God begat Christ, and Christ is perfect like him. Christ is one in essence with God
God created the universe, the universe is a separate entity. The universe is not God, so the universe is imperfect

>>19113787
And the polytheists answered it long before the Christians by positing The Good. And this is superior since they do not prescribe personhood to it with all its scheming, plotting, choosing, and decreeing attributes which comes with that.

But yes, it was very cute and truly profound by the Christians to point toward this Good and say its YHWH.

>>19113755
t. Pangloss

>>19113764
No, utilitarianism transcends God

>>19113560
God isn't perfect. We live in a simulation of a simulation of a simulation etc. The lower the level the further we are from the godhead. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, so is Emanationism.

>>19114081
>God isn't perfect.
than is not God.

>>19113973
I don't think you quite understand my point. The creation of the universe was perfect. The presence of imperfection is caused by a foundational aspect of that original perfection, freewill. To eliminate that perfection is to make it imperfect. If your argument is then that God should not have made freewill so that the original universe would never be imperfect, then you are proposing that God make the universe imperfect in order to make it perfect. Freewill is a requirement of perfection.
>>19114041
Personhood is required because without it there is no connection to the divine. These attributes are imbued in the universe through its incarnation through the person of Jesus Christ, which no other religion has an explanation for. "Polythiests", whichever gods you choose, do not have an explanation for the existence of these virtues in the universe. The Christian explanation is revolutionary.

>>19114041
>by positing The Good
didnt they also correlate the God with an omnipotent God singular too though? thus giving it personhood? you see God singular crop up quite a bit in the Timeaus and a little in the republic too. As well as other literate writers like Cicero. Correlating the good with an ultimate being/personhood isnt strictly a christian thing.

>>19113560
Neither of your assertions are even cursorily true. Fuck off retard 90IQ subhuman

>>19114098
>If your argument is then that God should not have made freewill so that the original universe would never be imperfect
No, I am arguing that a perfect God would not have created the universe. If the most perfect universe possible required the imperfection allowed by free will, then a perfect being would have chosen not to create it.

>>19114092
Untrue. No deities were depicted as perfect until the Christcucks came along.

>>19114130
Why should I worship an imperfect being? How do I not know I'm better than him?

>>19113560
I do not understand how so many people literally blow it less than 4 pages in. The Fall of man is crucial to Christian cosmology.

>>19114135
Well I mean how do you know you're not better than other people?

>>19114165
I don't, so I don't worship them.

>>19114041
Oh man, imagine building your ontology on axiological premisses. Love is far superior to the good, friend. I hope one day you understand this, for by understanding it, you'll understand good and evil.

>>19114170
But you deal with them in a way that respects the power relationship between you.

>>19114184
If I have incontrovertible proof of their existence. But why would I choose to believe in imperfect gods I only have a transactional relationship with? At least I can justify faith in the Christcuck God out of divine love and goodness.

Late antique Romans rejected the pagan gods for a reason, anon.

>>19114098
>Personhood is required because without it there is no connection to the divine
There is. In worship and communion with the gods you connect with divine persons. In apophatic philosophy and disobjectification you connect with the Good/One. There is a reason why none of the pre-Christians argued for devotional and pious acts toward the first principle whether it be fire/undefined/eleatic Being, or the One, and no it wasn't because they just didn't have the illuminating epic maymay basedboy revelation of Christianity. It is simply just bad philosophy.
>"Polythiests", whichever gods you choose, do not have an explanation for the existence of these virtues in the universe
Virtues do not depend on the first principle having personhood.
>>19114102
Whenever you see monotheism in Plato or Cicero you're reading that into it. Also you should probably do comparison with the various translations.

I've seen daimon being translated as capital "G" god.

>>19113732
>Pride
The downfall.
At any rate your still confusing your opinion and the truth, even if you cant humble yourself or think clearly enough to see the Truth of revelation. I say this out of love bro. By judging creation your making God in your image instead of the inverse which is the natural order.
>Judge not least ye be judged.
By holding out a judgement, any judgement, but especially one as grand as: all creation is imperfect, your condemning yourself. I'll pray for you. I don't think I cant put it any simpler than this.

>>19113560
God created men and angels with a free will, and, if a being has a free will, there is at least the potential that he will choose badly. The potential for sin was a risk God took. He created human beings in His image, and, since He is free, humans were created free, too (Genesis 1:27). Free will involves the ability to choose, and, after God communicated the moral standard, He gave the man a true choice (Genesis 2:16-17). Adam chose disobedience. God did not tempt, coerce, or lure Adam into disobedience. James 1:13 says, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.” God allowed Adam the dignity of free choice and honored that choice with appropriate consequences (Romans 5:12).

God provided the opportunity to sin, but He did not create or instigate sin. Having the opportunity was good; without it, human beings would be little more than robots. God commands, pleads, and encourages us to follow Him (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:28; 1 Samuel 15:22). He promises blessings, fellowship, and protection when we obey (Jeremiah 7:23; Psalm 115:11; Luke 11:28). But He does not chain us. God did not put a fence around the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had freedom to choose obedience or disobedience. When they chose sin, they also chose the consequences that went with it (Genesis 3:16–24).

The same has been true for every human being since. The opportunity to sin is inherent in our freedom of choice. We can choose to seek God, which leads to righteous living (Jeremiah 29:13; 2 Timothy 2:19). Or we can choose to follow our own inclinations, which lead away from God (Proverbs 16:5). The Bible is clear that, whatever path we choose, consequences follow. We reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7). Some consequences are eternal. Matthew 25:46 says that those who do not follow Jesus “will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

God judges people (Ecclesiastes 12:14) and nations (Micah 5:15) who use their free will to rebel against Him. God did not and does not create sin, nor does He delight in punishing those who choose to sin (Ezekiel 33:11).

>>19114222
If you cannot judge God from your fallen position, who is to say that you even have access to "revelation" or a state that would allow you to "think clearly?" Once you accept fallenness and imperfection, which is evident without even a Christian worldview, you pull out the proverbial rug from under your feet. You can't make any universal or lofty knowledge claims. You cannot judge God, either as evil, either as good. You cannot have any evidence for Him, it's all possible delusion.

>If God is perfect, then he couldn't have chosen to create an imperfect universe.

You trip at the very first step. This isn't a logical or even reasonable assumption.

>>19114250
>Once you accept fallenness and imperfection, which is evident without even a Christian worldview, you pull out the proverbial rug from under your feet. You can't make any universal or lofty knowledge claims. You cannot judge God, either as evil, either as good. You cannot have any evidence for Him, it's all possible delusion.
I struggle with this not in a theological sense, but in relationship to my own life and person. I have no base to stand on. Is it a matter of weakness of will? Who will proudly lead, and elevate, the weak majority? I see no worthy masters to submit myself to, only these "captains of industry".

Retards in this thread complaining about imperfection are just complaining about evil, which in the end is just a hatred against freedom. This reveals so much about them, but I will not extend much here, after all this is obvious to anyone with enough accurate reasonable sensitivity. Perfection for them would be nothingness, no life as we know, not even in its more subtle ontological transformation for it still conserves this life of ours, or better saying, the fruits of freedom. In the end I believe that Hell is just one's own conception of Heaven: a true imperfection demanded as perfection—thus eternal.

>>19114271

>>19114269
It's weakness of will, fear of ostracization, etcetera. If you burn with passion, work seriously and are secure in your effort and what you do, the only thing left to do is to make sure you survive to "carry" (like a midwife) whatever it is that quickens inside of you. I don't like fatalism, so perhaps there is a way to cultivate your will; but it takes many years, and you have to leap into every challenge, and be prepared to suffer immensely and without anyone to blame but yourself.

>>19114271
Thus, every man will be given an perfected form of his "imperfect" (not an evil thing, but rather ideated by an imperfect being) dream as his heaven.

>>19114304
I would have preferred to have been born into a tribal fishing village.

>>19114250
>>19114269
We have abundant evident access to the ultimate final revelation of God made manifest in the Divine person of Jesus Christ in the oldest institution on earth that has been witnessing to His resurrection and ascension for 2000+ years. Its true that this is not a matter of knowledge, it transcends knowledge, rises above it and is a matter of faith. You are asked to choose: faith or rejection of God.
>Is it a matter of weakness of will? Who will proudly lead, and elevate, the weak majority? I see no worthy masters to submit myself to
As I see it, its a matter of choice and continuously choosing: faith over rejection, hope over despair, love over hate etc. Christ is the head of the Church which is His body. Faith gives us the grace to trust in things unseen.

>>19113593
They just rehash the sane shit but get further and further from the source material. These questions have been answered a thousand times over and could be again with the barest amount of research, but they would rather just complain to feel better about themselves.

>>19113767
>posting a non sequitur
That explains it: you have to be 18 to post here.

>>19114287
Missing the point of my post and Nietzsche's, it seems. The fortuitous determination of one's life is exactly this oxymoron: chance and necessity, freedom and conditioning. I believe your misinterpretation lies in my attack against precisely a necessitarianism in the ''superlative metaphysical sense'' conditioning every aspect of life (every aspect of life, including one's own, as result and means of an agency outside this very life).

>>19113776
with what?

>>19113597
>CS Lewis makes arguments for kindergarteners

Huh. You think Mere Christianity is a let down?
Have you read the Screwtape letters and the Abolition of Man? If not, read those lest you fall to the /lit/ doesn’t read meme

>>19114098
>Personhood is required because without it there is no connection to the divine
What an arbitrary premise. Infact, this entire thread is contrived and capricious. This is what happens when a person sees the world through a book, and molds everything they see in the world according to a book.

>>19114287
>And life itself confided this secret to me: ''Behold, I am that which must always overcome itself'''... ''Whatever I create and however much I love it—soon I must oppose it and my love; thus my will wills it.''

>>19113560
>If God is perfect, then he couldn't
There it is. That didn't take long.

>>19113560
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

>>19114769
>hey have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
Idk, I think that point is going beyond the bonds of human supposition and is essentially moot. The creation or noncreation of the universe seems completely beyond what a mortal could assume a priori from a universe.

>>19114777
That's out of bounds, but we can talk about everything else. Of course.

>>19114250

Does this argument not make the intellectual feat that it claims to condemn?

>>19113820
>>19113845
>>19113878

The intra-Divine determination of square or circle is more, not less, absurd than the potential of God making a square circle in that the God-square or God-circle relation is a greater contradiction than the square-circle one: any two of the parts constituting the definition of square or circle are already in a relation as, if not more, absurd than that of square and circle in that each part's relation to God is analogous to that of square or circle to God and each part's relation to the parts with which it constitutes the definition of square or circle is as absurd as the absurd relation between the potential square and circle coincidence.

An imperfect creation can result in the most glorious creature(due to virtue). Problem solved.

>>19116421

All the more reason to reject it.

>>19113626
>Creating an imperfect universe is an imperfect action because..... it just is ok???

>>19113560
>If God is imperfect, then he isn't sufficiently great enough to be the Creator as there is something more perfect than God.
based on the ontological argument, right?

>>19113560
God is perfectly self-sufficient and in need of nothing. He created freely out of an act of love, and so that his creations could enter into a relationship with him and experience that love.

>>19113762
>atheists still posting this shit in 2021
Wew

>>19114271
>Retards in this thread complaining about imperfection are just complaining about evil, which in the end is just a hatred against freedom.
You do not understand the argument. I enjoy freedom and am willing to accept evil in exchange for good, if that is necessary. But a perfect Creator by definition could not, as their nature is to always choose the more perfect action.

If the most perfect universe possible required the imperfection allowed by free will, then a perfect being would have chosen not to create.

People bringing up free will are spectacularly missing the point.