[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 30 KB, 220x342, 1511808468858.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10326238 No.10326238 [Reply] [Original]

>the problem of evil
Why is this even a thing? Didn't Aquinas deal with this completely?

>> No.10326241

The Holocaust imho

>> No.10326249

>>10326241
This, its the only evil event that happened in our history and we should be reminded of it as much as possible as to not forget.

>> No.10326284

>>10326238
It's an emotional problem, within the context of Christianity it isn't a rational one.

>> No.10326342
File: 133 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10326342

>>10326238
>Why is this even a thing?
Its one thing to resolve it through abstraction its another to hold firm when you have to look at it in the flesh.

Aquinas does answer but in a way that is only usable for the extremely devout (who dont need it anyway) or the autistic. Gets a even iffier when you consider angels

>> No.10326357

>>10326238
fuck aquinas and his little lego house too

>> No.10326454
File: 23 KB, 486x486, SwiRi_Web_Still.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10326454

What's the most brainlet answer to the problem of evil? I nominate Swinburne

>It's good that genocide happens because it means I can react to it and become a better person

>> No.10326492

>>10326454
That cant be his answer, I thought he was meant to be one of the top living religious philosophers

>> No.10326518

>>10326492
Listen to this debate, that's literally his argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrrcb1WcfzM

>> No.10327947

>>10326238
You have to understand that Aquinas lived when, for the most part, people didn't know jack shit. Hell, even formal logic or Bayes' theorem which modern snake oil merchants like Swinburne and Lane Craig love so much weren't invented.

So no, Aquinas didn't deal with the POE, nor anything for that matter, "completely".

>> No.10327972

>>10327947
>implying
Aquinas LITERALLY PROVED GOD.

Cease this heresy at once and BECOME CATHOLIC.

>> No.10327986

>>10326249
>>10326241

>Getting memed this hard by recent history

>> No.10328015

>>10327972
>Aquinas LITERALLY PROVED GOD.
He proved it logically at best, plus proving god and proving the god that wants you to eat fish on Friday are different accomplishments.

>> No.10328035

>>10328015
In His defense, the Friday fish fry at my local supper club is literally God tier and I have to assume that He does, in fact, want me to enjoy it.

>> No.10328069

>>10328035
Thank you for the chuckle

>> No.10328087
File: 196 KB, 800x800, 1502416877089.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10328087

>tfw I don't know if >>10327986 post is ironic
>tfw I don't know if my post is ironic

>> No.10328319

>>10326238
What is his solution?

>> No.10328391

>>10328319
I mean the power of evil fails in it's first claim because it assumes that the omnipotent nature of God implies that he can accomplish things which are logically impossible (e.g. make a square circle, make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it).

>> No.10328521

>>10327986
damn

>> No.10328546

>>10327972
Not sure if this is a joke

But he certainly didnt prove anything nor was that ever his aim.

>> No.10328571

>>10326238
Basically bad theologians created it: "best of all possible worlds" and other nonsense like God being separate from creation

>> No.10328586

>>10328546
His cosmological arguments are pretty solid desu, as is his critique of the ontological argument

>> No.10328607

Obi-Wan doesn't need to be on the high ground, the high ground just needs to exist within the battle; Obi-Wan knows that when he has the low ground, he really has the high ground, from a certain point of view; Look at his battle record: Maul: Has low ground, wins Dooku: No high ground, loses Dooku rematch: No high ground, loses Grevious: Has low ground, wins Vader: Has high ground, wins Vader rematch: No high ground, loses Obi-Wan with the high/low ground is canonically the most powerful Jedi. This is fact. Had Yoda not denied his request to battle The Senate with typical Jedi arrogance, Obi-Wan could have defeated Palpatine in the Senate building, which housed a variety of different altitudes; this was designed so that the Chancellor could always have the moral high ground in political debates. But Obi-wan didn't fight The Senate, and Yoda soon learned that you can't cleave the Sheev in a normal 1v1. Yoda is shorter than virtually every other fighter, which gives him a permanent low-ground disadvantage; however, his saber-fighting style utilizes a flipping-heavy technique in order to negate this weakness for a temporary window. You'll notice that, as he falls from the central podium in The Senate's building, he immediately retreats, knowing that he can never hold the high ground in this duel. You'll also notice that, while training Luke, he rides on him like a mount, to gain the intellectual high ground and accelerate Luke's training. Obi-Wan's defensive Form III lightsaber style synergizes with his careful military maneuvers; as he only strikes when prepared, he can always hold the strategic high ground. You'll come to realize that Commander Cody's artillery strike failed against Obi-Wan, when hundreds of Jedi were killed in similar attacks. Cody failed to grasp the strategic situation, as the Jedi Master's elevation was superior to his by hundreds of meters, making him virtually unkillable. Had Cody taken his time and engaged the Jedi on even terrain, he could have possibly succeeded. Obi-Wan then retreated under the surface of the lake, so that he could maintain the topographical low/high ground. In RotS, you'll notice that all the Jedi killed were on level ground with the clones, thereby assuring their demise.

>> No.10328613

>>10328607
As we all know, spinning is a good trick. However, only the Chosen one can spin outside of a starfighter. Palpatine tried spinning, but he lost due to this technique (but this was intentional, as losing gave him the emotional high ground when Anakin arrived). The reason for this is that spinning provides a yin-yang approach to combat (based in Eastern philosophy on balance), giving the spinner the high ground from above and below. Only the Chosen One can master the spin, as it is their destiny to maintain balance in the universe. This is why Obi-Wan was so emotional after defeating Vader on Mustafar; he expected to lose the high ground to the spin, but Anakin fell to the dark side and could no longer use his signature trick, becoming the very thing he swore to destroy. Anakin doesn't hate sand for the reasons he told Padme; all Jedi hate sand, as the battlefield can rapidly change between low and high ground on multiple vectors, so your perspective must be from a certain three-dimensional point of view in order to comprehend who holds the high ground. This is the only reason why Obi-Wan killed Maul in Rebels. This is also why Obi-Wan hates flying; there is no gravity in space, therefore there is no high or low ground from any frame of reference (This also negates the spinning trick). It took the Tusken Raiders years of conflict against Old Ben Kenobi to grasp his superiority in terrain advantage, as you see them visibly flee in ANH when they realize he holds the low (inverse-high) ground. Additionally, Obi-Wan's victory in the cantina against the drunkard was assured, as he held the temperamental high ground, his actions more calculated and well-thought than the alcoholic, who was so uncivilized. In ANH, Vader proves his newfound mastery by engaging Obi on perfectly even ground. However, Obi-Wan intentionally sacrifices himself on the Death Star, so that he could train Luke from a higher plane of existence, thereby giving him the metaphysical high ground.

>> No.10328619

>>10328613
Why was Vader so invested in the construction and maintenance of the Death Star? Because he knows Obi-wan can't have the high ground if there's no ground left. As seen through the events of the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan was known to be on friendly terms with Senator Organa, whose homeworld held large quantities of mountainous terrain, the perfect habitat for a Jedi Master. Grand Moff Tarkin was already in position to destroy Alderaan as a first target, as the distance from Scarif to Alderaan was too vast to reach between the escape and recapture of the Tantive IV, even at 1.0 lightspeed. Alderaan had been the initial target all along, as Obi-Wan with the high ground was the primary threat to the Death Star. How? Because a moon-sized space station would have some form of gravitational pull, thereby negating Obi-Wan's zero-gravity weakness; Obi-Wan with the perpetual high-ground in a low-orbit starfighter would easily be able to fire proton torpedoes through a ventilation shaft, although the Empire was uncertain of the specific weakness of the Death Star planned by Galen Erso (who was a good friend). In Return of the Jedi, you can see that the Throne Room contains a variety of different altitudes; Palpatine placed these there to ensure Vader's defeat. However, Sheev failed to realize that his weakness was no ground, and should have covered that useless gaping pit which does nothing. A common misconception is the idea of a 'prostrate position' version of the high ground, wherein Obi-Wan lies flat on his back, giving him tactical superiority from his point of view. However, this strategy is futile, as for the high ground to come into effect, there must be a differential between parties on both the x-axis and y-axis to a moderately significant variation from both absolutes (Angles only a Sith would deal in.). For Obi-Wan's high ground powers to have full effect, he must stand between 15 and 75 degrees (π/12 to 5π/12 radians) diagonal from his opponent(s) on any quadrant of the trigonometric circle. In conclusion, Obi-wan abuses spatial relativity and Taoist doctrine in order to always invoke his high-ground powers.

>> No.10328668
File: 9 KB, 555x388, where is your high ground now.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10328668

>>10328619

But isn't high and low ground just relative?

>> No.10328703

>>10328015
>He proved it logically at best,
Whats wrong with this?

>> No.10328725

>>10328703

Because all it takes is a deity that fulfills the conditions of a first cause, and virtually every religion has someone or something that could be construed as this. The physical sciences define it mathematically. He might as well have proven the existence of the demiurge. Recursive logic also leads to infinite loops, as in the chicken and the egg. He certainly hasn't proven christianity, despite his arguments most commonly being used for that purpose. You could just as well argue for Islam based on the same method. I dare you to prove that it cannot be used to argue for Islam.

>> No.10328733

I was reading Summa Thologiae and he basically said that fetuses aren't humans.
Wtf

>> No.10328765

>>10328733
He's right

>> No.10328771
File: 33 KB, 255x216, 1490493513388.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10328771

>>10328619

>> No.10328817

>>10328391
Why can't an all powerful God break logically impossible things?

>> No.10328830

>>10328607
>Obi-Wan then retreated under the surface of the lake, so that he could maintain the topographical low/high ground.
Woah

>> No.10330647

bumpos

>> No.10330673

St.Augustus of Hippo's argument against the problem of evil was much more convincing and beautiful.

>> No.10330683

>>10328521
I agree with the remembering and learning from it bit but not the PURE EVIL UNFORGIVEABLE stuff. Not that I even wholeheartedly disagree, but life and conflict is rarely that simple.

>> No.10330692

>>10328319
Only good reply in this thread
>>10328391
And the response was completely unhelpful.

>> No.10330699
File: 430 KB, 694x487, wazowski.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10330699

>>10326241
>>10326249
>Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks
>Atom bombs being dropped on cities
>Fire bombs being dropped on cities
The Holocaust is only the largest evil event of WWII, but it's not the only one. Nearly all modern warfare is designed to attack civilian infrastructure and civilians

>> No.10330847

>>10328725
Isnt it still huge though that it effectively eliminates atheism as an answer/possibility even if it doesnt identify a specific one?

>> No.10330869

>>10328725
I don't understand these hur dur he didn't prove Christianity comments made by all the atheist philistines. Out of the 30 or so arguments for the existence of God none are even attempting to do that, it's done in other sections. It's book 4 of the SCG, he doesn't start from Christianity as the premise, he reaches it via extensive argumentation and doing a step by step system.

>> No.10330910

Alvin Plantinga’s free will Defense is imho the best answer to the question of evil in the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

>> No.10330918

>>10326238
It is an emotional issue for a lot of people and the common refutations of it as a problem rest on ideas that modernist would find debatable.

>>10326357
Fuck you I laughed.

>> No.10330922

>>10328015
>plus proving god and proving the god that wants you to eat fish on Friday are different accomplishments.
Jumping from God existing to God's relation to nature to our relation to God is and has been done, m8.

>> No.10330949

>>10330922
Visit discord more often senpai

>> No.10330997

>>10330869
so when is God going to get around to destroying that bustling city of Tyre?

>> No.10331003

>>10330910
too bad free will
9not that compatilist shit) is negated by God's omniscience

>> No.10331046

>>10330910
Yeah except that
a) it's not uncontested whether free will is something we have or even possible and whether free will *in itself* is a good thing (would you like having to manually adjust your bloodstream?)
b) it says nothing about natural evils or animal suffering

Plantinga is an apologist mong who hides behind formalisms to not come across as stupid as Ray Comfort and co

>> No.10331104

>>10326492

That's the extent of Christian Theodicy, believe it or not.

>> No.10331108

>>10328571

Tthe "best of all possible words" argument is the most self-damning one. It makes rejection of all Creation a Moral imperative.

>> No.10331110

>>10331046
But anon isn't love that is given freely better than love that is coerced?

>proceeds to coerce love anyway through infinite carrot and stick

>> No.10331112

>>10330922
Hey are you going to respond to the evidence you requested regarding the shroud in the other Christian thread?

>> No.10331157

>>10328733
He didn't know about modern science, zygotes/DNA/etc. Had an entirely different understand of how reproduction worked that has been long since disproven. Apply his metaphysics to modern science and its clear he would support the modern Catholic view of abortion.

>> No.10331169

>>10331046
Animal suffering isn't evil because animals lack rational souls and free will. Hurricanes during the Jurassic period weren't evil because they only caused dinosaurs to suffer. These "natural evils" only became evil after the Fall. So even natural evils are the result of the Fall and rational human's exercising free will.

>> No.10331194

>>10328015
kill yourself filthy nominalist

>> No.10331200

>>10330949
link?

>> No.10331213

>>10326342
They is a difference between a devoted man sacrificing his personal emotions vs a devoted man sacrificing his reasoning.

>> No.10331219

>>10331110
To me it seems like the knowledge itself of Heaven is searching for it is inherently greater because it goes beyond this world.

>> No.10331293

>>10331213
yes rationalists love to claim that reasoning has nothing to do with emotions

>> No.10331628

>>10331200
Wolfsheim is already in lad

>> No.10331681

>>10327947
just like Socrates lived when people didn't know jack shit

>> No.10331686

>>10331681
Yes, and?

>> No.10331709

>>10330699
Not to mention the genocide of falun gong practitioners and of the Tibetans

>> No.10331738

>>10330847


>what is the mathematical singularity

>> No.10331899

>>10330699
You are completely forgetting the Yugoslav wars. What happened there was just as brutal and that happened in the mid 90s.

>> No.10332441

>>10326238
It isn't. Boethius put to bed the problem of evil 700 years before Aquinas. Evil is merely a privation or perversion of the Good.

>> No.10332448

>>10331293
Just because they influence one another doesn't mean they're the same.

>> No.10332471

>>10331628
yeah but i want in too

>> No.10332540

>>10331219
is this a sentence?

>> No.10332609

>>10332471
Do you actually read and are you a retarded shitposter?

>> No.10332933

>>10332609
yes to both

>> No.10333044

>>10331738
What is it?

>> No.10333046

>>10332441
> Evil is merely a privation or perversion of the Good.
Thats wrong, Good is merely the privation or perversion of Evil

>> No.10333362
File: 16 KB, 360x240, 1499793179715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10333362

>>10332441
so god doesn't know how to run the freakin' thermostat?

>> No.10333475

>>10333362
>freakin
WATCH OUT MOMMY IS COMING

>> No.10333491

>>10326238
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrcrDXK620kopfSffPxrdTA

https://www.youtube.com/user/AominOrg

https://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689

>> No.10333498
File: 61 KB, 600x563, plebeian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10333498

>>10333475
>has never watched ATHF

>> No.10333530

>>10333498
I don't watch cartoons faggot

>> No.10333537

>>10333530
Sorry, based on your childish behavior it was a natural assumption

>> No.10333570
File: 54 KB, 500x229, Ww.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10333570

>>10333537
There's no need to be rude.

>> No.10333591
File: 9 KB, 190x309, awful.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10333591

>>10333570
>calls me a faggot
>"There's no need to be rude."

Commit suicide

>> No.10333609
File: 199 KB, 513x297, sorr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10333609

>>10333591

>> No.10333707

>>10326238
thomists get off my fucking board reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>> No.10334358
File: 51 KB, 633x362, img_8483.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10334358

>>10326241
How can something be truly evil, If it didn't happen?

>> No.10334443

>>10331213
Its a shame that most mistake the former for the latter

>> No.10335395

>>10327972
Aquinas also believed that a certain document proves the political/ecclesiastical authority of Rome. It turns out that document was a pseudo-isidorian decretal.
The man was a genius, but limited with the material he was given.

>> No.10335494

Here's a solution for the problem if evil:

Good.

>> No.10335498

>>10335494
Close enough

>> No.10335499

>>10334358
It's like money. If you believe in it, it happened enough to affect reality.

>> No.10335528

>>10330699
dumb antisemite

>> No.10335538
File: 154 KB, 1008x1024, 1497995397989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10335538

>>10334358
It was real in my mind

>> No.10335545

An aphorism I wish you all to contemplate on: Satan is pure evil. Infinite evil. Can he act any way besides evil? This is unknown. So what other option is there but to forgive him?

>> No.10335565
File: 46 KB, 480x566, 1489863672156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10335565

Aquinas falls apart when he says that evil can only be caused "by accident." The whole bit about God doling about "penalty evil" makes sense, but "accident evil" for everything else just seems silly.

Then again, the cult of personality surrounding Aquinas is dangerously autistic.

>> No.10335585

>>10335565

Also, I am always blown away by anyone who reads Aquinas before first reading every single iota written by Saint Augustine.

Augustine is just infinitely better.

>> No.10336280

>>10335565
I hope you understand that accident for aquinas is something other than it is for you (and I know you can't tell the difference).

>> No.10337281
File: 33 KB, 525x384, 30 shoes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10337281

>>10333046

>> No.10337305

>>10326238
no christfaggot, and aquinas and his ilk were evil

>> No.10337311

>>10335545
See to it that he doesn't succeed on us.

>> No.10337390

>>10328817
Because impossible things are, by definition, not able to be done by anything. They're effectively paradoxes. It'd be like asking "Can God make a two sided triangle?" you're effectively speaking nonsense at best and dishonestly obfuscating definitions at worst to try and shill for an argument.

>> No.10337415

>>10337311
Impossible. There are many ways about this argument, but to stick to this one alone... Why should Good lose if they need not to be forgiven?

>> No.10338010

>>10333044

The number one.

>> No.10338514
File: 30 KB, 318x475, helping-the-retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10338514

>>10326238
Why are the supposedly irrefutable and immortal arguments of figures like Aquinas and Augustine touted constantly as proving a Faith which, by definition, does not need to be proved, and which is supposed to be accessible to even retards?

>> No.10338603

>>10328607
>>10328613
>>10328619

Go to bed george.
We all know you read Joseph campbell

>> No.10338616

>>10328668
>
He explains this in one of the posts

>> No.10339404

>>10338514
They are never used to prove or even argue for faith in their proofs of God. Please, read a book, nigger.

>> No.10339488

>>10335545

Another aphorism:

The Christian God is pure evil. How would Christians know?

>> No.10339496

I have another solution to the problem of evil.
If God is Good and Omnipotent how can there be evil?
I don't think God is COMPLETELY good. I think he corrupted his own will to allow for the creation of free will. Being the author of evil makes him responsible for evil. If you are responsible for evil, to make reparations you must fulfill the ideal of justice and pay for what you've done. God is indestructible so he can't pay, so he sends his Son to pay for him instead.
This idea is even backed up in a cryptic manner in scripture.

>> No.10340668

>>10339404
>He asserted something literally other Christians in the thread were asserting:
>>10327972
>>10328015

Why aren't you going out of the way to call these fellows "nigger" with that magically stupid level of contempt used around these parts when one wishes to ignore arguments or questions and simply imply someone else is subhuman because of a race you have never confirmed they are a member of.

Could it be that you're a dumb piece of shit who's opinion can be easily discarded? Possibly.

>> No.10340752

>>10340668
Because they are shitposting and you are just a philistine nigger. It's the standard Aquinas shitpost on their side, but standard stupidity on yours.

>> No.10340919

>>10326238
The evidential problem of evil didn't exist at the time of Aquinas.
Also, look at it like this. Let's start from an agnostic position: given what we see, should we expect a omnibenevolent omnipotent being to be behind the world? Probably not. Imagine we went to a theme park and we noticed that some rides are broken, in some the queue is absurdly long, others are very underwhelming and so on. Would you expect that theme park to be built by a team of the greatest engineers and planners the world has ever seen? Probably not. Sure, there might be some kind of extremely long winded explanation as to why it was indeed built by them and yet it's pretty shitty, but that's not the hypothesis we should prefer.
The same is with the world and God.

>> No.10341704

>>10340919
This is probably the dumbest post in this already awful thread, good job.

>> No.10343060
File: 694 KB, 1124x895, AD50EBDA-30B7-4F26-905A-61FCECBAF6A9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10343060

The suffering of this world is just preparation for the goodness of the age to come, the next world, the new heavens and the new earth, where, we're told, there will be no sorrow and no sadness and no pain anymore, but God will wipe away every tear.
So what is the point in this world? Why not just make that other world first?
Because this world was necessary in order for us to know God as redeemer, as the one who saves us from evil and from our own sin.
It's creating a "weight of glory" as Paul says.
And elsewhere, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." It doesn't say God shows his love for us in that he made a perfect world of happiness. He shows his love for us by creating a world, letting it fall into sin, and saving us from it.
Someone might say, well that's stupid, and not worth it.
But you're in no position to make that call until you've seen the glory of the age to come, the glory which specifically depends on us having gone through this world first.

>> No.10343086

>>10326238
Fuck Aquinas right in the asshole. Plato solved it long before. The person that suffers is more fortunate than the person that prospers because the former is given the means to improve himself. Everyone does what he sees as good so where is the evil? Evil has no being, so evil isn’t a problem: better than problem solved, never a problem at all. Plato was beyond good and evil long before that other guy

>> No.10343647

>>10341704
Nice argument there buddy.

>> No.10343651

>>10343086
>The person that suffers is more fortunate than the person that prospers because the former is given the means to improve himself
Let's say I chain you to a table and torture you until you die. What kind of self-improvement are you capable of doing in that situation?

>> No.10345053

>>10326238
Because it's a question of passion and (correct) autism will never do anything about it. In the end you are confronted to "why are there things I don't like?" and there is no answer to that.
Hell, the mere fact of talking about it as a "problem" should tell you enough.

>> No.10345137

>>10326454
A friend of mine once tried to argue that every single person that ever died, had already "accomplished its duty". This included newborns and such.

>> No.10346233

>>10343651
Boy, I guess you’re right. That is good thinking. Practical argument. I guess Plato is an idiot.