/lit/ - Literature

>>23636564
>I can fathom what reasons, if you could even call them that, an omnipotent being could have for allowing "evil" (which I still can't actually even define)

>>23636564
God could not have created a universe with free-will without the potential for evil.

Saying this is paradoxical is like saying God should be able to create a boulder he cannot create. It's just a misunderstanding of God.

>>23636842
I meant to say God should be able to create a boulder he cannot life.

My bad

>>23636843
*Lift

My brain isn't working today for some reason lol

>>23636564
Funny, you atheistlets have been posting these "btfo" threads for years, yet I'm still a Christian. I'm still waiting for that btfo moment—hasn't happened yet.

>>23636564
the god YHWH is real but he is not all powerfull (well maybe now he is but he wasn't 2000 years ago)
YHWH is the god of war, conquest, blood, meat
he conquered almost the entire world, he destroyed his enemies in middle east
he said "my name is jelousy", there are other deities but none of them conquered as much as he did (except the skyfather)

>>23636842
This.

>>23636564
Fedoralards still spamming this retarded nonsense, huh?

I bet this will hit bump limit despite OP not discussing any literature at all. Meanwhile, pro-Christ threads like this are ALWAYS deleted (and that's not getting into bible threads being regularly deleted by pederast mods a while back). MODS = FAGS.

>>23636842
They just chimp out and bitch and moan that God doesn't create contradictions or lie.

They think the verses like "God ... cannot lie" means he's not omnipotent. The thing is, if God says something it simply becomes truth, but God is not the author of confusion so he won't choose to make logical contradictions or an absurd universe.

>>23636842

You have a very mediocre/average depth of understanding of Christianity if you do not think that evil was purposely made by God for His glory.
You speak of "potential for evil" as if it has engendered itself out of nothing as a result of "free will"(debatable, btw) and beyond the divinity of God.
An easy theodicy that is sound with the Christian doctrine is to dismiss the Epicurean paradox by simply saying that God created evil and does not necessarily negate his qualities, faith is to accept this seemingly contradictory concept and trust the Christian God with no shadow of doubt, you can also say that we have a narrow understanding of evil and why it should exist is justified with the reasoning able to be comprehended by a mind that is unblemished by sin.(There I just solved the problem of evil for you)

Surely the Christians in this board could be more theologically educated.

>>23636564
Rent free

>>23636734
I can define evil as suffering but of course theists won't accept it.

>>23636564
Seneca refuted this Epicurean nonsense 2000 years ago, yet reddit atheists can never stop seething about life and God. Read "De Providentia" and you will see how suffering is a honor for the soul. The soldier who gets sent on the most dangerous and hard mission is not angry at the general for ordering him so but is proud that he judged him worthy for it. We have to adopt the same mentality in the whole and life and thank God that he thought so highly of us as to give us such hardships.

>>23636564
>Evil exists
no, it doesn't. God also doesn't exist. You're basically discussing relation between two imaginary things

>>23637128
There are more then enough wars going on at the moment Why don't you join for all the honour you might earn?

>>23637128
>invent a being out of your ass
>give him some qualities out of your ass
>those qualities don't compute with the world you observe
>invent explanations out of your ass to cope
how can you not see this multilevel retardness? You're building more and more stores on non existing foundations

>>23637142
Because fate gave me roots in a specific place with specific responsibilities. You have to play your assigned role in the theatre of life, making your life harder for no reason at all, is going against the orders of the great general.

>>23637147
sauce for all those statements you say with such certainty? How do you know all this?

>>23637058
you are spewing literal bullshit and the origin of evil is explained crystal clear right away in Genesis, so if you're trying to blame Christians for lack of knowing in theology you're really making a pretty pathetic figure.
God created free beings, beings gifted with free will. Free will must also contemplate the rejection of God, otherwise it would be not be free will to begin with.
Evil is its essence is a non-entity: it's the rejection of God, the choice to act like God is absent.
Just with this elementary notion every point of the epicurean paradox is a moot point.
Satan was the first being that chose to reject God. Then the material world was created for humanity, Adam and Eve let Satan ruin their relationship with God and death and suffering entered into the entire creation.
God doesn't destroy his creatures, not even Satan, but he prepared a place for him where there will be eternal separation from God (eternal torment).
There is also a very basic bullshit point about omnipotence, that is that it should also contemplate "being able to stop to be omnipotent". That is basically negating the concept of omnipotence.
And also omnipotence doesn't mean the entity is without will, it can chose to act or not act. And omnipotence is not the only attribute of God.

>>23636564
Epicurus was a laughingstock among other Greek philosophers. A buffoon.
As one of my philosophy professors told me 'if you've taken Logic 106 and don't burst out laughing when you see the Problem of Evil you failed that class"

>>23637146
The Greek logisticians considered anyone that could not logically deduce the existence of a monotheistic god by pure reason effectively unable to think.

>>23637165
*105

>>23637146
>those qualities don't compute with the world you observe
In fact, Christianity is the most fitting explanation for our existential predicament and the world we find ourselves in. Pascal teaches us in the Pensées how being human means being perfectly mediocre. We are torn between being masters and slaves of nature, between suffering and ecstasy, between animal and godhood. Only the dialectics of embodying the image of God, as well as the sinful fall of men, can account for that. Your reddit atheist position, on the other hand, does not explain a thing and just states nature is the cause of nature.

>>23637149
>sauce for all those statements you say with such certainty? How do you know all this?
The Bible.

>>23637165
The Greeks also thought all numbers are rational. Looks like they weren't very good at logic.

>>23637165
>The Greek logisticians considered anyone that could not logically deduce the existence of a monotheistic god by pure reason effectively unable to think.
checkmate atheists
>>23637177
>how do you know christian theology is true?
>christian theologists said so

>>23637192
>how do you know christian theology is true?
>christian theologists said so
Then come up with a better story that is tried and true to human nature. But you can not and all that you have is nature just did its thing and our unique position in the cosmos is just a coincidence. Have you never wondered about the Fermi paradox, for example? How come we are the only conscious part of the cosmos? You just start pulling at the threads a little and end up with Christianity all over again.

>>23637202
I find every other monotheism more plausible for instance.

>>23636842
Why not? He's all powerful no?

>>23637202
>Then come up with a better story that is tried and true to human nature.
literally what the fuck are you smoking, mate?
>and our unique position in the cosmos is just a coincidence.
huh?
>Have you never wondered about the Fermi paradox
there's no paradox. It's a meme thing with zero value

>>23636842
>It's just a misunderstanding of God.
how come you have such a good understanding of God? What's your sauce? How do you know all of this?

>>23637216
They are for the most part and especially in the context of this discussion variations on a theme. But the basic story is shared and solves perfectly the problem of theodicy:
Nature does not suffer because it is not concious.
God does not suffer because our Lord is perfect.
We suffer because we are in the middle of these poles and need to move closer to God to finally end our suffering.

>>23637226
So you do not believe we have a special position in the cosmos?

>>23637228
inb4 the bible

>>23637230
>So you do not believe we have a special position in the cosmos?
why would i believe that?

>>23636564
Nothing can defeat the absolute pride disguised as humbleness of the priestly class. It was never about any arguments, that's not what faith is nor what atheism is. Apatheism is the only true atheism, everything else is mental sport at the best of times and decadent repetition at the worst.

>>23636842
>will we have free will in heaven?
>if no, then what was the point of free will to begin with?
>if yes, then can we use our free will to commit evil in heaven?
>absolutely not! our perfected will freely chooses good for eternity
evil is not a prerequisite for free will

>>23637086
Eating meat causes suffering. Are we to believe that everyone who has ever eaten meat is evil?

>>23637242
Because we are the only conscious part of the universe. This is what makes us suffer in the first place but it is also why we are destined for something greater than nature itself.

>>23637230
>problem of theodicy
it's this shit >>23637146
again

>>23637246
>if yes, then can we use our free will to commit evil in heaven?
>absolutely not! our perfected will freely chooses good for eternity
You could do evil in heaven but you would never want to. So your argument falls flat.

>>23637249
>Because we are the only conscious part of the universe
sauce?
>but it is also why we are destined for something greater than nature itself.
again, sauce?

>>23637253
>Because we are the only conscious part of the universe
>sauce?
Look around + Fermi paradox

>but it is also why we are destined for something greater than nature itself.
>again, sauce?
The best story we have about our existential predicament: The Bible.

>>23637252
>You could do evil in heaven but you would never want to.
again, sauce? For the heaven and for not wanting to do evil in there, and for free will

>>23637247
I don't believe that. Maybe the problem of evil is just a bad name, every time it's discussed it's really just about suffering, not moral evil. I still wonder why there is so much pointless suffering.

>>23637257
Your argument assumed the existence for the sake of argument. I can not prove to you the existence of heaven but merely point out that you have no better story and no better argument than "sauce?".

>>23637255
>Look around + Fermi paradox
so no sauce?
>Look around
i looked around my room. There's no one there. It means i'm the only person in the world.
>Fermi paradox
there's no such thing. Literally doesn't exist. There's no paradox
>The best story we have about our existential predicament: The Bible.
fucking lol. You're in a circle, mate and you have neither a will nor capability to get out

>>23637185
The proof that irrational numbers exist was invented by a Greek and it's still the most common proof we use to show that some numbers are irrational.

>>23637268
>merely point out that you have no better story and no better argument than "sauce?".
when someone says something ridiculous with nothing to back it up, why would i need something more than "sauce?" lmao

>>23637270
>fucking lol. You're in a circle, mate and you have neither a will nor capability to get out
There is no circle. You come from our non-biblical existential position analysis to the Bible. You are the on in a circular moder of thinking: nature because of nature.

>>23637271
And until then the Pythagoreans not only believed that all numbers were rational and not just that this was an objective truth but that it was a divine truth.

>>23637252
>You could do evil in heaven
you literally cannot
plus there is still no necessity of evil for freedom's sake, given it is possible to choose good freely for eternity

>>23637279
>Knowledge progresses
>This is a bad thing

>>23637128
Based

>>23637277
>nature because of nature.
what does this even mean?

>>23637285
This obviously wasn't my point. I can consider the Greek view on monotheism but I see no reason to blindly accept it, even if some of them were extremely convinced of it, since they were clearly not infallible.

>>23636564
It seems to apply to variants of Gnosticism in which a good god created an evil god but possibly not variants in which the good god and the evil god have co-existed forever with power parity.

>>23636564
Look, I’m an atheist but the problem of evil is cringe. If you’re going to accept the existence of an eternal superbeing who is the sole arbiter of morality in the universe then you’re also liable to accept the his conception of good and evil far outstrips rational human attempts to define these categories. It’s a non-starter.

These questions are handled pretty elegantly in Job, when God shows him Leviathan and Behemoth. Further questions of God’s incomprehensibility to man are wrapped up neatly in the mystery of God’s condescension to man through the figure of Christ. Making himself human is simultaneously the most powerful evidence Christians have of both the utter inaccessibility of God’s mind and how he nonetheless tries to make his mind accessible to human agents who are fundamentally incapable of grasping it. If you’ve accepted the proposition, you also surrender any claim that the moral system can be made fully legible.

>>23637331
What does a common statement like "God is good" actually mean then?

>>23637354
Not much of anything, it’s a feeble human attempt to grapple with notions of the divine that just happens to take the form of a proposition. Or else, it’s a social marker of faith.

>>23637165
I suppose the greek logicians were pretty retarded then, because let's say there is a "source" to reality, like the vedantin brahman, or the platonic One, it cannot be a being, or have any attributes that would make it a personality, conscious, or even a "thing" at all. Using apophaticism, retroduction, or neti neti, the notion of a substrate to reality is shown to be a contradiction. "It" cannot "be" any-"thing". For "it" to "be" a "thing" it has to exist, be objective (an object), be composite, contingent, phenomenal, measurable, observable. So if you say "there is" a God (substrate), you imply it exists, is an object, is contingent, is phenomenal, is measurable, is observable, which by it's own very definition it can't be, hence, a contradiction. Therefore to say there isn't a substrate is logically coherent, because a substrate defined apophatically simply doesn't exist, literally, anything that exists can't be "it" by it's own definition. It's synonymous with nothing or non-existence but there is no such thing as nothing and non-existence doesn't exist.

>>23637525
>because let's say there is a "source" to reality, like the vedantin brahman, or the platonic One, it cannot be a being
This is only qualifiedly true imo. In the Parmenides he explicitly defines being as "being in time", so when he says the One "is not" I don't think that means the One literally is not more that it is in a higher way than things here are. The stock Platonic example might be how numbers exist in a "higher" way (eternal, immutable) than the things that are numerable.
>have any attributes that would make it a personality, conscious, or even a "thing" at all.
The point is that it transcends all these things because it causes all of them, not that it doesn't have them. The One of Plato, or the God of Aristotle, isn't impersonal it's suprapersonal.
>Using apophaticism, retroduction, or neti neti, the notion of a substrate to reality is shown to be a contradiction
Hopefully what I wrote above shows how this is a misunderstanding. I can't speak for Hindus, not at all interested in the East, but in the case of Platonism/Neoplatonism this is simply a misunderstanding.
>For "it" to "be" a "thing" it has to exist, be objective (an object), be composite, contingent, phenomenal, measurable, observable.
The whole point of their arguments is that for things like what you describe to exist there logically has to be a thing that isn't at all like those things.
> So if you say "there is" a God (substrate), you imply it exists, is an object, is contingent, is phenomenal, is measurable, is observable, which by it's own very definition it can't be, hence, a contradiction.
But that isn't what they say. You're accusing them of saying something they explicitly deny.

I'm not even really committed to this school of thought, understand, I just think it's interesting philosophy, and you don't know what you're talking about. It's as silly as if I attacked naturalism by saying "this is retarded, they talk about flavors of quarks, but flavors can only exist in food, so are quarks food? Do they eat quarks? Lol retards I'm so much smarter than scientists."

>>23637543
>The whole point of their arguments is that for things like what you describe to exist there logically has to be a thing that isn't at all like those things.
And this "thing" does not exist, to say it does is to induce what is not there instead of staying empirical and retroductive. Taking the One for example, the One is non-composite, irreducible, in itself as Kant would put it. That is by definition and in reality not a "thing". The One breaks the rule of noncontradiction and this is explicit, the One is described as ineffable but that's really just a justification for being incoherent, if you justify contradictions there isn't even any point to logic. The whole house of cards fall if it's whole foundation is a contradiction, and that would go for any similar arguments like the unmoved mover and first cause.

>>23637600
>And this "thing" does not exist, to say it does is to induce what is not there instead of staying empirical and retroductive. Taking the One for example, the One is non-composite, irreducible, in itself as Kant would put it. That is by definition and in reality not a "thing". The One breaks the rule of noncontradiction and this is explicit, the One is described as ineffable but that's really just a justification for being incoherent, if you justify contradictions there isn't even any point to logic. The whole house of cards fall if it's whole foundation is a contradiction, and that would go for any similar arguments like the unmoved mover and first cause.
How is the One's being non-composite "incoherent" or "irrational"? In the tradition you're trying to attack all of our basic ideas are non-composite - the composite depends on the incomposite, that's basic logic. To insist that the composite is always composed of composites is absurd, by that reasoning nothing can be known because everything can be explained by something prior (explanations being composites). Again, by that reasoning a length contains actually an infinite number of segments, which is impossible. You just don't understand what you're attacking, you clearly haven't read much Greek philosophy, and I don't understand how someone in your position can be so confident in himself.

Just wait, his next move will be to insist that a length DOES contain an infinite number of segments because he doesn't understand the point I'm making. Believe whatever you want, but you are ignorant.

>>23637620
You induce what is not there, you say
"There must be a ground otherwise contingents couldn't exist", why?. The only thing that matters is to not contradict, and to be empirical. I say contingents exist, this is self-evident, empirical, you create a logical abstraction which contradicts itself. You'll never find this substrate except in logical induction which ends up in a contradiction. Never in direct experience, nor measurably, will this substrate ever be found.

>>23636564
>Evil exists
>Only option is yes
??

>>23637704
>"There must be a ground otherwise contingents couldn't exist", why?
That was hardly meant to be a full statement of all their arguments, although it is the most important idea.
>The only thing that matters is to not contradict, and to be empirical. I say contingents exist, this is self-evident, empirical, you create a logical abstraction which contradicts itself.
Let's break this down. You say that the only thing that matters is
1) Not to contradict
and
2) To be empirical
There are two ways in which a statement can be contradictory:
1) A state of affairs is thought to exist which does not actually exist - like if I think you're ignorant of Greek philosophy but you're actually a Classics professor trolling me on /lit/.
2) You predicate something of a thing's nature (not a particular instance) which is not actually part of that nature nor follows from it, like if I said triangles have angles summing to 300 degrees.
But forget about contradictions and think about truths - statements like class 2) aren't actually separable from statements like 1). This is pretty obvious if you even look at how natural science is done. Newton theorized about gravity, not particular instances of gravity. Chemists study hydrogen in general, the nature of hydrogen, not particular hydrogen atoms. We infer from empirical states of affairs to general laws about how things are. Now realize that it's the ideas that explain the particulars and not the other way around, even if as a matter of our learning these ideas we begin from empirical observation. It's because gravity is what it is that a body behaves as it does, rather than gravity existing because the body falls or orbits or whatever. The things we observe empirically are caused by ideas. And what's the nature of these ideas? They're not material, they're not in any particular thing, you can insist until you're red in the face that the particulars cause the laws and natures but that doesn't make much sense. The next move for you would be to say "fine, things are caused by abstract natures, but the abstract natures themselves suffice to explain everything. There's no need for a God." The problem with this line is that the abstract natures do not exist in themselves in the world, but only IN particulars. We know there's such a thing as gravity, we see it working, but there's no abstraction "Gravity" in the world, but only instances of it, and an idea in our mind. So the instances are contingent - every individual thing and state of affairs in the world is contingent. But the world itself is not contingent but exists necessarily. And a sum of contingent beings cannot explain something that's necessary - this again is basic logic, contingent premises do not yield a necessary conclusion. Keep following this line of thought and you reach a supreme intelligence that explains the world and which has all the divine attributes.

(cont'd)
>You'll never find this substrate except in logical induction which ends up in a contradiction.
You're confusing dianoetic being with real being. The statement "God is real" is composite, this does not mean that God is composite.
>Never in direct experience, nor measurably, will this substrate ever be found.
No it won't. But you want to insist that there is nothing but contingent states of affairs and I've shown that this is not so. If you want a logic that only deals with particulars, you're making a logic for insects. You can't arbitrarily say "logic can go SO far but NO FURTHER because God is a PHONY" is childish.

(cont'd)
>You'll never find this substrate except in logical induction which ends up in a contradiction.
You're confusing dianoetic being with real being. The statement "God is real" is composite, this does not mean that God is composite.
>Never in direct experience, nor measurably, will this substrate ever be found.
No it won't. But you want to insist that there is nothing but contingent states of affairs and I've shown that this is not so. If you want a logic that only deals with particulars, you're making a logic for insects. It's childish and illogical to insist "logic can go SO far but NO FURTHER because God is a PHONY" .

>>23636564
Define evil.

>>23637873
You can't define evil because it's a privation just like the negative term in any pair of contraries. You can't define blindness without reference to sight; can't define black without reference to light/color; can't define rest without reference to movement; etc. So evil is the privation of good, the real question is what is "good"?

bump

>>23636734
If you can't understand the will of an omnipotent being then you can't create or practice religion, since you can't by deffinition know how to worship a being you yourself recognize as unknowable, thus this god is so out of your reach thst is equivalent to being non-existent

>>23638511
An ant can't fathom my thoughts that doesn't make me not real when I piss in their colony

>>23636842
Then god is a slave of reason, he also has to obey certain rules of logic, nevessity and geometry, like the one that dictates the qualities of a rock, your god is a rationalist god, at that point i can just ignore god alltogether and just follow rationality (the same rationility that is higher than god and enslave god)
So your point is just crypto-materialism and atheism

>>23637165
If it's so essy to refute, why don't you do it?

>>23638536
That's a false equivalence,Ants don't create cults around humans and what they want and how to worship them

>>23638552
nta but it's not a false equivalency, you're the one who has created a false equivalency. He was only speaking analogically and the analogy is sound.
>>23638538
>Then god is a slave of reason, he also has to obey certain rules of logic, nevessity and geometry, like the one that dictates the qualities of a rock, your god is a rationalist god
God doesn't "obey" the rules of logic he is truth itself. He's the ground of everything else. I find it rather ironic that it's the atheists who can't let go of a primitive, anthropomorphic conception of God.

>>23638566
Most atheists don't know what an axiom is and can rarely conceptualize the idea of true knowledge of anything being impossible. Otherwise they'd all just be agnostic or just vaguely spiritual

>>23638566
No is not because the problem is how a human can understand a unknowable god to creare a relugion, ants don't have religions around humans
>God doesn't "obey" the rules of logic he is truth itself
Yeah that's the deistic paradigm, and thus god is no different than rayionality, at that point you don't need to worship him, pray to him or seei g him as nothing different that the laws of the universe, thus crypto-materialism
European deist believed that and that's what started contemporary nihilism

>>23636564
Begs the question as to why evil exists.

>>23638566
>God doesn't "obey" the rules of logic he is truth itself. He's the ground of everything else.

May I see your evidence for this claim?

>>23638566
>God doesn't "obey" the rules of logic he is truth itself
That's not what the other anon was saying, he clearly said that god can't change the essence of a rock, thus there's logical qualities in a rock god must respect
And yes if god is just logic and truth, then you're no different than a rationalist worshiping the logos or a buddhist worshiping the dhamma (rules)

>>23638587

Must you search every inch of Nigeria before you may conclude that there's no prince living there who emails American boomers with generous offers to share in his fortune, in exchange for a comparatively paltry transfer fee?

>>23638627
You don't even know Nigeria exists

>>23638635

>t. question dodger

Do you understand what heuristic analysis is and how it relates to identifying common types of fraud

>>23638592
>No is not because the problem is how a human can understand a unknowable god to creare a relugion
It's called revelation. God is unknowable in himself but he communicates such of his essence as can be understood through images. Christianity is especially profound in this regard because of the incarnation which "squares the circle".
>Yeah that's the deistic paradigm
No, it isn't, it's the classical paradigm. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus were not deists friendo. God isn't the inaccessible monad that sets things going and leaves it alone, what is this the 18th century? Again that's a mechanistic, anthropomorphic, five year old's understanding of God.
>>23638612
See:
>>23637784
>>23637806

>>23638671

I asked for evidence, not reasoning. Reasoning is not, itself, evidence. Nor is it sufficient reason for belief, absent supporting evidence.

>>23638678
I explained clearly how the existence of contingent facts depends on reasoning and how natural science depends on this relation. If you don't accept that, I don't have anything to say to you, you're willfully blind - you'll suffer for it too.

>>23638694

>>23638536
But then ants can't know human thoughs exist, just like you can't know god exist, the difference here is that there's no material evidence of the existence of god, religion is all about what god think, what he wants but as you said it, we can't know that, so religios practice is useless, any spiritual path is useless since all presupose the will of god, things be must do to worship, resonate, get closer to him,so god is irrelevant to us since we can't know what we want or how to get closer to him, in irder to save god from the problem of evil you turn him into something useless and irrelevant, he maybe exist nominally but his existence is irrelevant, functionally he doesn't exist, and the problem of evil is thus still a problem

What did god mean by this?

>>23638701
You don't know there isn't any material evidence of God. It could be that we're limited in scope to the 3 spacial dimensions and he is above us in a 4th, imperceivable. And like us looking down at a square, him looking at our 3 dimensional universe from "above" would let him see all sides of it at once

>>23638706
those wasps materialized out of thin air because someone ate an apple, no, I won't explain further

>>23638671
>It's called revelation. God is unknowable in himself but he communicates such of his essence as can be understood through images
That's an appeal to authority, you can't prove that the revelation is true, specially since most revelations contradict each other at some point, and you have no way to prove it, since as accepted before, you can't know the will of god, you can't contrast the revelation with his will, you'll end up in circular reasoning(i know his will is truth because it was revelald, i know the revelation is truth because i know his will and i know his will because it was revealed in the revelation and so on and so on),so you can't confirm its his revelation and not a psychotic ideation of your mind or the revelation of some lesser spirit
And yes Plato was the first rationalist, which is obvious since all philosophers in some way or another follow his footsteps

>>23638699
You basically said "Prove to me that God is real without using any logic, you have to POINT HIM OUT with your FINGER". It's retarded, I explained in that post why it's retarded quite cogently, you don't like it, fuck off.

>>23638714
If the evidence exist in a pla e that can't be know, then by deffinition is not evidence

>>23638732
>That's an appeal to authority, you can't prove that the revelation is true
You're right and I'm not arguing that Christianity or Islam is true but that God is real and that He is basically just like how Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism conceive of Him to be.

>>23638736
Who says it can't be known? Well moreso than anything else can't be known, like the ground you're on being real

>>23638739
All those religions have different revelations and all of them contradict each other at some point, muslims and jews believe Christ is not the son of god, which is christian herecy

>>23638745
It's the standar answer to the problem of evil, i'm just showing how that answer makes the problem even worst

>>23638733
I didn't say that. I asked for tangible evidence. If you say you can't because God is intangible, that is a problem for your position.

>>23638745
If the evidence is in a 4th dimention then it can't be know

>>23638714
evidence outside of our scope is a contradiction in terms, evidence is by definition something that let you know something, if it's outside the scope of our knowledge then is just can't be evidence, it's lime saying "this knowledge is unknowable"

>>23636564
This is based on the assumption that God leaving evil in the world is evil and not merciful by his standards
>>23636842
But it’s not like we have complete free will in this world either. Genetics and luck and such

>>23638890
>evil and not merciful by his standards
By that logic then pedophiles are good if in their standars fucking children is loving them, if all depend of subjective standars we fall into absolute moral relativism

>>23638772
My evidence you're wrong is in the 5th dimension

>>23638594
Free Will

>>23638890
>man committing sin is bad, but God committing siun is actually wholesome and merciful
Based trad moral relativist

>>23637005
>>23636564

>>23637185
>thinks "irrational numbers" are not logical
lol
lmao, even

>>23638549
>I don't know why there's nothing to refute
YNGMI
Pal, the fact you can't just see that it is a bad joke is funny AF.

>>23637525
>it cannot be a being, or have any attributes that would make it a personality, conscious, or even a "thing" at all.
unsupported and unsupportable.
>word salad of terms you don't understand
FTFY
> the notion of a substrate to reality
No one is discussing such a thing.
>"It" cannot "be" any-"thing". For "it" to "be" a "thing" it has to exist, be objective (an object), be composite, contingent, phenomenal, measurable, observable
Your Modernist Materialism is showing.
And FFS look up what "substrate" actually means, its painful to read you trying to pretend to be educated.

>>23638678
>Reasoning is not, itself, evidence
So much for theoretical physics and so on, I suppose.
And congratulations! You just rejected Logic!

>>23637884
>"You can't define evil"
>defines evil
This anon has a repeating pattern of being about 1/5th as intelligent as he thinks he is.
>So evil is the privation of good
And, without knowing it, Retarded Anon "solves" the "Problem" of Evil.

>>23640909
>defines evil
Not him but you must be a brainlet to not get the point.
Evil itself doesn't exist, it's only defined by the absence of Good (if you believe, God).
The analogy of light is fully fitting.
We define "Light" as an experience of having photos in the visible spectrum bouncing around, we also define "Dark" as an experience but darkness is just the absence of said photons, there are not "particles of darkness" bouncing around. So one describes an entity (photons, as science validated) while the other describes the absence of the entity and fundamentally it's not an entity itself.

>>23637247
It's not the first word I'd reach for and there are exceptions but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider it an evil act.

>>23636564
Epicurean memers will always tell you evil exists, but never WHY it exists.

>>23636564
God(s) exist because people worship them. If there are no people, there are no gods, since no one would be able even come up with this concept.