/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16488093]

What is the christian comeback to this?

[Anonymous No.16488102]

>>16488093
Evil is perpetrated by man with free will.
Natural disasters are not evil.

[Anonymous No.16488110]

>>16488093
Evil is from fallness and estrangement from God

and then God took the incarnation and died with and for us, what else could you ask of him?

[Anonymous No.16488111]

>>16488093
To me, the easiest Christian response to this is life after death. Everyone gets what they deserve in the next life. The good are rewarded, even if their lives in this life were shitty and miserable. The evil are punished, even if their lives in this life were comfortable and easy. Once you die, you are judged by Christ, and He gives you what you deserve.

[Anonymous No.16488112]

>>16488093
Really you room temp iq nigger? Free will faggot. All fields.

[Anonymous No.16488125]

>>16488111
This is a child's view of afterlife

[Anonymous No.16488137]

>>16488112
Free will is a non-answer. It just ignores the question of evil.

[Anonymous No.16488141]

Consider an omniscient and disembodied being, X.
If X is omniscient, that entails that X knows everything, including how to do gymnastics and play golf.
If X is disembodied, that entails that X doesn't have a body.
In order to know how to play golf and do gymnastics, one needs to have a body.
X doesn't have a body.
Therefore, X doesn't know how to play golf or do gymnastics.
If X doesn't know how to play golf or do gymnastics, X is not omniscient.
If one of X's attributes causes another of X's to not be true, X's attributes are in conflict.
Therefore, X's attributes of omniscience and disembodiedness are in conflict.
If X's two attributes of omniscience and disembodiedness are in conflict, X cannot exist.
Therefore, X doesn't exist.
Thus, if the Judeo-Christian God has the same attributes as X, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.
The Judeo-Christian God has the same attributes as X.
X doesn't exist.
If X doesn't exist, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.

What's the Christian response?

[Anonymous No.16488153]

if god real why bad thing happen

[Anonymous No.16488163]

>>16488141
>If X is omniscient, that entails that X knows everything, including how to do gymnastics and play golf.
you just refuted yourself retard.

[Anonymous No.16488178]

>>16488112
For humans to have free will God cannot know the future. But if God doesn't know the future, then that means He doesn't know if any human actions are good or bad. For, if God cannot know the future perfectly – particularly if He cannot know in advance the actions that human beings will take with free will – then He cannot even know if any action today is morally good in consequentialist terms, given that He cannot know with certainty if His action will bring about very bad consequences in the future.

[Anonymous No.16488193]

>>16488163
Procedural know requires a body

[Anonymous No.16488203]

>>16488178
Anthropocentric pov. God is outside of time.

[Anonymous No.16488209]

>>16488093
>>16488141
>>16488178
>>16488193
These retarded tired old arguments only apply to a dualistic god. Literally laughing at the idiots that still hold this primitive view on both sides of the equation

[Anonymous No.16488215]

>>16488193
Look into classical theism

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16488231]

>>16488102
Then why call him god?

>>16488110
Then whence cometh evil?

>>16488111
Bone cancer? CIDS? Really?

>>16488112
You don’t understand what’s being asked.

>>16488153
Exactly. Now pick one.

[Anonymous No.16488234]

>>16488203
Doesn't mean that God can know the future.
>>16488215
BTFO by logicians:
>Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.16488245]

>>16488231
>Then whence cometh evil?

Evil is from fallenness and estrangement from God

[Anonymous No.16488256]

>>16488245
>Evil only exists when it's convenient for Christian theology

[Anonymous No.16488258]

>>16488245
That makes God psychotic.

[Anonymous No.16488289]

>>16488258
It would be psychotic to force someone to love you, not to let them hate you

[Anonymous No.16488302]

>>16488110
>Evil is from fallness and estrangement from God

How can we be estranged from god? Estrangement means god has limits, because if we’re estranged god isn’t always present to us— which is a limitation. If god has limits then god isn’t god, just another finite being. A really powerful one, but still finite and therefore not god.

[Anonymous No.16488324]

>>16488289
It would also be psychotic to impose infinite punishment on finite beings who no matter how evil they can be cannot be infinitely evil.

[Anonymous No.16488362]

>>16488289
It's equally psychotic to create the world, create limited beings in that world, give them the ability to choose, and then condemn them for choosing what you don't like. In this picture, God is the kid saying "stop liking what I don't like" in effect.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16488456]

>>16488289
You are forced to love him despite his tortures of you. What is the matter with you?
>You are free to hate me, my child
The alternative is hell.

[Anonymous No.16488551]

>>16488141
>In order to know how to play golf and do gymnastics, one needs to have a body.
This is a being totally removed from you. As he is maker of all things, perhaps he doesn't need to physically do things to understand them. Even I have an understanding of many things which I have never tried. It is not unreasonable that an infinitely superior being can do this infinitely better.

But let's assume this is true
>We know of one occasion when God made himself man. There may well be many more. How do you know God has not made himself a huge theme park and gained this knowledge?
>In the same way God has chosen to limit himself to a body on occasion, perhaps God has chosen to limit his knowledge because these things are unimportant. Perhaps creating the universe, dying for your sins and answering prayers puts tennis into perspective.

[Anonymous No.16488569]

>>16488551
>perhaps he doesn't need to physically do things to understand them
How can he understand qualia then?

[Anonymous No.16488608]

>>>/x/

>>16488110
>you don't have an argument if I re-define the words you used to mean something that presumes my position is correct!

That's very judeo-christian of you

[Anonymous No.16488619]

>>16488141
>AI can't understand anything beyond positive and negative voltages
your argument falls flat on it's face.

[Anonymous No.16488625]

Is there any decent comeback to it? Non-christian/religious answers make it all seem pretty bleak

[Anonymous No.16488635]

>>16488137
Evil is perpetuated by other humans, for God to intervene it would invalidate free will, which is more important to our existence? Free will or to be free from evil?

[Anonymous No.16488649]

>>16488093
Through Platonism Augustine's argument of Privatio Boni solves this: Evil doesn't have positive content, evil is privation. God doesn't "prevent" evil because evil doesn't have substance to prevent.

The "evil" then of action, of free will of which are just the product of disordered wills and poor actualisations of our rational capacities, are our punishment for the sins of our first parents. In "not preventing" this, he is administering poena - divine retributive justice.

St. Paul says that “Sin came into the world through one man.” (Romans 5:12). He doesn’t only mean that Adam gave us an example of sin, rather, “by the envy of the devil, death came into the world.” (Wisdom 2:24) Aristotle says, we don’t blame people for being born blind; we pity them. So Aquinas writes that we have to approach the question of the inheritance of sin in light of such things.

Rather, all men born from Adam can be thought of as one man sharing one nature derived from him, in such the same way that in political matters, all the members of a social order are thought of as limbs or members of one body. The actions of bodily members, like the hand, are voluntary, not with any will in the hand, but with the will of the intellect which first set the hand in motion.

We would not reckon murder committed with the hand to be the hand’s sin if we could think of the hand in itself out of the context of the body. We talk of it in that way only when we think of the hand as part of a whole man moved to sin by the source of such movements in men.

In the same way, the disorder inherited from Adam by any particular man is not deliberative with that man’s will but only deliberate with Adam’s will which activates all those born from him by movements of reproduction, just as the will of a man activates all his limbs. This is why sin deriving from our first parent is called original -- meaning “by origin” or “inheritance” -- where as the sins deriving from a man’s will to members of his body are called “actional” -- sins of action.

[Anonymous No.16488678]

>>16488625
Nope, just like there is no satisfying rebuttal to solipsism. Everything is all ultimately based off of an initial leap of faith that we all make, whether you want to confront it or not.

[Anonymous No.16488682]

>>16488569
third option
>God has a complete understand of what is in your head at all times. Perhaps he has knowledge of these things through the collective experience of every human who has every lived.

[Anonymous No.16488699]

>>16488635
So God gave us free will, just so he can punish us for using it, and this is somehow seen as good? Why?

[Anonymous No.16488743]

>>16488093
Maybe a world can't be truly good without the possibility of evil

[Anonymous No.16488752]

>>16488699
God doesn't push people to act evil either retard, that's your fellow man using their free will, part of our existence is to understand that choice given to us. You aren't punished for most acts of evil either, as long as you grow to understand what it is and repent of it.

[Anonymous No.16488763]

>>16488111
>NOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BE EVIL YOUR ENTIRE LIFE AND DIE HAPPILY, YOU MUST BE PUNISHED!!!!

[Anonymous No.16488784]

>>16488752
How is it free will if you have to "repent" for every time you use it? Why did God make these retarded rules?

[Anonymous No.16488802]

>>16488093
There is no such thing as evil.

[Anonymous No.16488899]

>>16488743
>>16488802
Good answers

[Anonymous No.16488901]

>>16488093
Who are you to know what's really evil?

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16488939]

>>16488093
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Yes, I worship a malevolent God. Got a problem with it faggot?

[Anonymous No.16488947]

>>16488093
Evil and good are subjective

[Anonymous No.16488948]

>>16488939
>tripfag

[Anonymous No.16488954]

>>16488948
Ignore it

[Anonymous No.16488955]

>>16488802
>>16488901
>>16488947
good take, retard

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16488959]

>>16488948
>>16488954
>NOO I WON'T READ YOUR POSTS IF YOU HAVE A NAME
shut up faggots

[Anonymous No.16488964]

>>16488093
>implying evil exists

[Anonymous No.16488971]

>>16488955
Define "evil."

[Anonymous No.16488976]

>>16488959
>butthurt tripfag screaming for attention
Topkek like clockwork

[Anonymous No.16488977]

>shut up faggots

[Anonymous No.16488993]

>>16488093
Except Epicurus believed gods did exist in the interstice void between worlds though, but they were indifferent toward humans.

[Anonymous No.16489001]

>>16488093
God is the sum of all being, actual and potential.

[Anonymous No.16489003]

>>16488955
Good/evil dichotomy purely exists in christianity to corral retards. There is much more to the religion than that pointless shit

[Anonymous No.16489029]

>>16488093
>obvious bait thread designed to make you waste your time
>people fall for this bait instead of posting memes mocking OP
I thought /lit/erati were supposed to be smart...

[Anonymous No.16489049]

>>16489029
Because all the christians fall for the bait so we make fun of them or discuss

[Anonymous No.16489059]

>most basic reddit regurgitation of all time
tourists leave

[Anonymous No.16489128]

>>16488231
I swear to fuck ive seen you christposting before whats this about

[Anonymous No.16489143]

>>16489059
The blackpill is that these arent even tourists anymore anon

[Anonymous No.16489172]

>>16488231
>Then why call him god?

[Anonymous No.16489186]

>>16488324
>Using a bad faith morality informed by human finitude as a standard to measure a necessarily infinite being.
Yikes

[Anonymous No.16489188]

>>16488231
but bad thing dont happen. Evil is the absence of good. Its essentially universal positivism.

>>16489128
Lol No. Butters whole schtick since forever is that shes a embittered old anti-christian.

[Anonymous No.16489195]

>>16488569
Qualia is a function of spirit, not body or mind.

[Anonymous No.16489201]

>>16489186
>implying the infinite is a being
>implying morality can come from anything other than beings

[Anonymous No.16489219]

>>16489195
Spirit is a function of body and mind (which is just body). It's separate, and yet exists preformed in the body. If God doesn't have a human body, he doesn't experience human qualia.

[Anonymous No.16489227]

>>16489201
>Yes the infinite can be and necissarilly has to in some regards be embodied as a being.
>Yes a morality that is truely moral by and in itself would have to be trans-contextual, or else it is indistingushable from custom and ultimately without meaning that endangers its very premise.

[Anonymous No.16490245]

>>16488093
>man acts evil towards one another
>therefore we must blame god for men acting evil on our very own accord
Epicureans are brainlets.

[Anonymous No.16490253]

>>16488784
>How is it free will if you have to "repent" for every time you use it?
Because with free will you are able to learn and grow in the first place. We come to understand virtue through our experiences rather than it being an inherent quality.
>Why did God make these retarded rules?
Because you got filtered by a simple concept.

[Anonymous No.16490254]

>>16488324
>killing someone which causes infinite consequences on that person isn't an infinite evil worthy of infinite punishment
midwit lol

[Anonymous No.16490301]

>>16488256
It at least exists where as it doesn't from a secular angle so saying "why doesn't god follow my morals?!" is fucking beyond retarded.

[Anonymous No.16490319]

>>16488231
>Then why call him god?
Because that's what he is? I don't know how you think that's some sort of gotcha.
>Then whence cometh evil?
He just fucking told you? From estrangement from gods will.
>Bone cancer? CIDS? Really?
Yes really. We and creation are in a fallen state for the time being.
>Exactly. Now pick one.
God is real and good.

[Anonymous No.16490331]

>>16488324
Sin can not exist before god, this is why the Israelite's were being dropped like flies when Gods essence was among them, as fallen creatures we are incapable of standing before him without destruction. That's the whole point of the incarnation, the renting of the cloth at the temple etc, Christ allows us to be before god in rebirth having paid the blood penance forever that was necessary through sacrifice of animals prior.

[Anonymous No.16490399]

>>16488093

[Anonymous No.16490613]

>>16489128
>>16489188
The newfags speak.

[Anonymous No.16490620]

>>16488093
We called him God because his ultimate reasons are beyond rational understanding. His good is Divine Good.

[Jesus No.16490748]

>>16488093
evil. epicurus was moms autist.

[Anonymous No.16490781]

>>16488802
this

[Anonymous No.16490784]

>>16488093
there is no comeback to jewish religion. Christianity is a weak heretical offshoot and as such unlike real judaisim it has no real mechanism to defend itself other than the usual "gods chosen people"

[Anonymous No.16490788]

God uses evil to make greater Good.

[Anonymous No.16490798]

>>16490788
I thought he was all powerful

[Anonymous No.16490810]

>>16488649>>16488102
>>16488110

theistic mental gymnastics is just as bad as the atheist one

[Anonymous No.16490838]

>>16488141
>If X is omniscient, that entails that X knows everything, including how to do gymnastics and play golf.
Why did you write anything after this?

[Anonymous No.16490842]

>>16488178
>But if God doesn't know the future, then that means He doesn't know if any human actions are good or bad.
I don't need to know the future to know that murder is bad, you tard.

[Anonymous No.16490882]

>>16488093
Saint Thomas systematized the Augustinian conception of evil, supplementing it with his own musings. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature. There is, therefore, no positive source of evil, corresponding to the greater good, which is God; evil being not real but rational—i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not in themselves, but because of their relation to other items or persons. All realities are in themselves functional; they produce bad results only incidentally; and consequently, the final cause of evil is fundamental 'goodness,' as well as the objects in which evil is found.

[Anonymous No.16490943]

>>16488102
Cant he create man with free will but no evil?

[Anonymous No.16490950]

>>16488093
>What is the christian comeback to this?
REEEEEEEEEEE on the bonfire unbeliever!!!11
The same as their response to everything else outside their necrophiliac circlejerk

[Anonymous No.16491012]

>>16488802
Based.

[Anonymous No.16491028]

>>16488102
Men follow the laws of action and reaction. They commit evil because their paths in life led them to do so.
An all-knowing god would know this would happen in advance, an all-powerful god would be able to avoid it, and a loving god would do so.

[Anonymous No.16491033]

Atheists need to read more books.

[Anonymous No.16491039]

>have a kid
>love your kid
>place some cyanide before him as a "test"
>tell him not to eat it
>he eats it anyway
>kid dies
>"it's not my fault your honor, he was exercising free will, my hands were tied!"

[Anonymous No.16491060]

>>16488093
I'm kinda new to /lit/ but this thread is addressed to death in /his/ every other week.

>Is he both able and willing?
>Then whence cometh evil?
This is not a conclusion, it is a rhetoric of ignorance. Just pointing it out
Evil is the result of freedom. It is more benevolent to allow freedom with the risk of evil than to take away freedom, essentially making people into dead meat, since they have no say in their lives and none of their actions are virtuous, since they didn't even have the option of choosing bad things.
The only counter to that is speculating 'what if the laws of logic were such that being forced to do good things was still virtuous', which entertains an entirely different system of logic that we cannot accurately evaluate from within our own system of logic.

Long story short, benevolence of freedom is infinitely higher than malevolence of risking evil.

[Anonymous No.16491066]

>>16491039
>God gets judged
>Anon wants to be treated like a literal toddler
kek

[Anonymous No.16491081]

>>16491066
God being to man what an adult is to an infant doesn't seem far off to me.
Any of our decisions must seem foolish to an all-knowing being, don't you agree?

[Anonymous No.16491089]

>>16491081
>God being to man what an adult is to an infant doesn't seem far off to me.
Infant being to cyanide what humans are to knowledge does seem far off to me.

[Anonymous No.16491097]

>>16491089
>infant has no knowledge of cyanide
>humans have no knowledge of the afterlife
Seems similar to me.

[Anonymous No.16491144]

>>16490399
Kek'd and checked.

[Anonymous No.16491150]

>>16488102
If god is omnipotent there are no "natural" disasters.

[Anonymous No.16491154]

>>16491150
Pretty sure the disasters that happen naturally are natural disasters.

[Anonymous No.16491161]

>>16490245
>literally can't understand OP
You're the fucking brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16491171]

>>16491154
If god is omnipotent, they happen in accordance with his will.

[Anonymous No.16491173]

>>16488093
Jesus said:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

The world is messed up and people tend to attribute it to the works of God but in reality, it is the result of free will of men.

Philisophical banter does not change the fact that we are all sinners that can't stop sinning, and are headed to hellfire unless we trust Christ alone (faith alone) for salvation.

Call upon God now if you believe the gospel. Ask Jesus to save you.

[Anonymous No.16491180]

>>16491171

[Anonymous No.16491220]

>>16491171
Sure. They're still natural disasters. I understand you perhaps feel like God should've let us live in a literal paradise where nothing ever threatens us, but they're still natural. Even if they conform to his will.

[Anonymous No.16491231]

>>16490253
>Because with free will you are able to learn and grow in the first place.
But it's not free will if we can't create our own idea of virtue, that was my point which you completely sidestepped.

[Anonymous No.16491235]

>>16491231
>it's not free will if we can't create our own idea of virtue
Oh you very much can. You can even act upon it. The world is just not obligated to share your idea of where that will lead you.

[Anonymous No.16491279]

>>16491220
It's like talking to a horse.

[Anonymous No.16491282]

>>16488102
>Evil is perpetrated by man with free will.
Evil is perpetrated by man under ignorance, delusion, and temptation.
>Natural disasters are not evil.
Indeed, natural disasters are bad.

[Anonymous No.16491290]

>>16491279
I'd rather be a horse than someone who thinks the natural world isn't natural by virtue of causal relationships.

[Anonymous No.16491311]

Romans 9:14-26
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,b but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

[Anonymous No.16491316]

We can never know exactly why things are like they are in this world, like why evil exists. We can try to explain things, but ultimately we will always be wrong. Compared to God we are always in the wrong. If it was possible to know everything, there wouldn't be a need of faith.

[Anonymous No.16491319]

>>16491316
The solution is not to understand everything, but to place your trust in God.

[Anonymous No.16491324]

>>16491235
>The world is just not obligated to share your idea of where that will lead you.
And by world you mean God, and by not obligated to share you mean if it differs in such and such way the you have "strayed from God" and will be punished for it. This is a fake kind of freedom, like what a mouse placed in a maze has. It is "free" to learn the maze and find the cheese that has been placed on the other side.

[Anonymous No.16491329]

>>16491311
based and checked

[Anonymous No.16491336]

>>16491324
>you actually meant this
>you actually meant this
>you actually meant this
>So what you meant is thereby inaccurate.
You are free to find this valid.

[Anonymous No.16491337]

>>16491290
That "cause" is god, Mister Ed.

[Anonymous No.16491342]

>>16488102
This is correct but they'll never accept it, instead we'll have this thread again a million times.

[Anonymous No.16491365]

>>16491336
Are you incapable of basic logic? You wrote yourself:

>You aren't punished for most acts of evil either, as long as you grow to understand what it is and repent of it.

God punishes certain "acts of evil" (acts which he made us capable of making). He also expects that we "repent" for the other ones to avoid punishment. He gave us the ability to express ourselves, ourselves being entirely of his creation and not of anyone else's, but then tells us that we are not allowed to express ourselves if our self does not follow his exact idea of virtue. In a model of our own making, this is akin to the mouse placed in a maze like I said before: we are an experiment of God's being guided along a predestined path and given dopamine hits so we can imagine that we are free.

[Anonymous No.16491407]

>>16491365
You're going through hoops and loops to pretend like everything you think of doing should have the effects you think of having. Sorry, some behavior leads to shit results.
>we are not allowed to express ourselves if our self does not follow his exact idea of virtue
You're not 'allowed to' if you want to live. Again, some behavior has consequences you might not want it to have.

If the only way you'd feel 'free' was if you could reshape reality so that all desired actions have all desired consequences, then your idea of freedom is really odd.

[Anonymous No.16491418]

>>16491407
>You're not 'allowed to' if you want to live.
It's not about living, it's about not being punished / forced to feel guilty over being who you are. A person can commit murder and survive just fine, for example. What you told me in that quote is that a person can't commit murder without having to feel guilty about the act, otherwise he will be punished. This is a fake sense of free will.

[Anonymous No.16491433]

>>16491418
>It's not about living
It absolutely is, the point of commandments is obtaining eternal life. The commandments in their proper context are ways to interact with the world that lead to this consequence.
>A person can commit murder and survive just fine, for example.
Not according to the theology we're discussing, no. Unless they repent, of coruse.
>feel guilty
Repentance is not an emotion.

[Anonymous No.16491442]

>>16488093
Good cannot exist with evil. If everything is good, then nothing is good. If you knew nothing but goodness you wouldn't have a word for goodness, because you would have nothing to compare it to or measure it against to even know that it's there

[Anonymous No.16491450]

>>16491442
without evil*

[Anonymous No.16491455]

>>16488093
You should look into Leibniz's theodicy. None of the things mentioned in OP are actually challenges. For one there's no way to conceptualize the grand plans of the master of the universe. For another, the "purpose" of man's existence seems to be the moral exercise of his free will. Evil stems from the failure of men but is necessary to have significant choice.

It is entirely possible that this is the best possible universe for the set of standards that God has outlined in his own understanding.

[Anonymous No.16491612]

>>16488093
>God is evil because he doesn't want to change my diapers
There is nothing to answer. If you think his concept of evil is anything else but intellectually bankrupt faggotry, you are unsalvagable

[Anonymous No.16491628]

>>16491433
I see. So the only freedom God has given us is the freedom to choose between an eternal life that follows only his idea of virtue, or death, if our idea of virtue differs from his. And since everything about ourselves is created by God, and preformed by God, and our ideas are consequently preformed in ourselves, and are merely expressions of ourselves, then he already knows which of his creations will die... i.e., he created certain creations with the purpose of dying. Such creations will enjoy a life of their own, unrelated to God's virtuous eternal life, but that life will end.

To me, it seems absurd for a creator God to do this, but this seems to be the case, going by what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.16491707]

>>16491455
>Leibniz

[Anonymous No.16491850]

>>16491442
Heaven cannot exist without evil. If everything is good, then nothing is good. If you knew nothing but goodness you wouldn't have a word for goodness, because you would have nothing to compare it to or measure it against to even know that it's there

[Anonymous No.16491995]

>>16491039
Equally, you wouldn't keep your child in a protected state their entire life and claim it was out of love.

[Anonymous No.16492004]

>>16491850
But if you're in Heaven you've already experienced evil and conquered it

[Anonymous No.16492036]

>>16491060
How do you address natural evil. I.e., the earthquake that shakes the church building, which collapses killing hundreds (in the distance, Voltaire snickers).

[Anonymous No.16492038]

>>16492004
What about a baby that dies just a few seconds/minutes after being born?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16492049]

>>16490319
>call him god though he is absent 100% of the time
>god is complicit with evil. Perpetrates it. All hail the torturer
>our father in heaven (the next room) who art listening with glee as we suffer his devices. “You kids are so fallen! Waahahahah”

And so you have chosen malevolent.
>God is real and good
And you are insane

[Anonymous No.16492056]

>>16488093
>What is the christian comeback to this?
An eternity in Heaven.

[Anonymous No.16492110]

>>16491995
Sure, but consider the distance between God' omniscient intellect and us puny mortals. Surely, if he's so infinitely powerful, we are less than babies compared to adults. I'd rather compare us to a stupid baby, one who is stupid for all its life, say, a Down syndrome child. Even as an adult, the parent still has to care for it, because it's so unfathomably stupid, so innocent it won't be able to function normally, or not get itself killed. And consider how we are able to do that, right now, killing our environment, genociding one another and building nuclear weapons. Seems like an apt comparison to me, and a sane parent would want their retarded child to be cared for, even if they're unable to do so themselves.

I think God just doesn't like us. Maybe one day he'll kill us, but we're doing that ourselves.

[Anonymous No.16492128]

>>16491850
>If everything is good, nothing is good
At one point, the only "thing" to exist must have been God. Otherwise, there is some "thing" that has existed beside Him this whole time which God has not had the power to destroy, or else evil existed in God in some way, a way expressed through imperfect creations, some would claim. To say God has even the slightest capacity for evil, or that evil even approaches equality in strength to God, is literally heresy.

>If you knew nothing but goodness you wouldn't have a word for goodness
True, but we also wouldn't have a word for evil.
God knows everything. Therefore, God must also know the full measure of evil, and have no use for it in any comparison. God is also all powerful. He must, by nature, be able to give finite creations understanding. If God is incapable of giving his creations this understanding, he is limited, and is therefore not omnipotent, not omniscient, or both. If it is only by the will of God that man understands God, then by the will of God, an understanding of evil without experiencing evil must also be possible.

[Anonymous No.16492159]

>>16491995
That's actually not all too uncommon in this world, though I admit it isn't right.
However, I've never heard of a parent who'd lock their child in the basement and torture them constantly for the remainder of their lifespan because they failed a test.

[Anonymous No.16492224]

>>16492159
iirc mainstream theological consensus is that people send themselves to Hell, not that God sends people to Hell. This follows from the argument that Hell is the most extreme extent of fallenness from God

Nonetheless Christ went into Hell and conquered death. This shows that even at the full distance from God which we can travel, we can justifiably hope to be saved

[Anonymous No.16492425]

>>16488234
>BTFO by logicians
Which reminds me: if God is constrained by logic that would mean there is something above him, making logic itself the ultimate absolute thing.

[Anonymous No.16492457]

Anons it feels as if I was born incapable of having faith, despite being born in a religious family. Even though I’ve spent my entire childhood being a good christian boy I don’t recall ever feeling the love of God.
I want it badly anons, I want to experience true faith but I don’t know how. Trying to brute-force it by continuing to go to church only made me resentful towards God, for I would pray for faith every mass but I never heard or felt anything. I feel so faithless that I can’t even trust my family and friends to be good people, despite the years of kindness they’ve given me. I just want to know in my heart that things will turn out okay in the end

[Anonymous No.16492525]

>>16492038
A fair resolution to this, in my opinion, would be that the child's soul is transported to another vessel to born again. Or perhaps they never had a soul at all, and the death of the child was something the parents were fated to endure

[Anonymous No.16492564]

>>16491628
The freedom you have is between choosing life or choosing death with corresponding actions.
>everything is ... preformed by God
?
>>16492036
Earthquakes are addressed in the OT as God's wrath I think. The idea is that if you had the Spirit, he would navigate you between rights and wrongs (as per virtually the entire NT). This includes not only correct things to say and correct socialization to perform, but correct places to be at. So if you did not deserve to die in an earthquake, you wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.16492573]

>>16492457
>I want it badly anons, I want to experience true faith but I don’t know how.
Why? For the experience? Do drugs. To connect to your parents? Just practice the rituals. To find out what it is those people talked about that so changed their lives? Study what they could have possibly meant.

[Anonymous No.16492613]

>>16492564
All our desires and thoughts are preformed in our bodies and our bodies are created by God. So, there is nothing about ourselves that isn't preformed by God.

[Anonymous No.16492623]

>>16492613
>A created B
>B performed C
>therefore A performed C
That does not follow. My parents didn't write this comment despite creating me.

[Anonymous No.16492678]

>>16490943
if man has free will he therefore has the capacity for evil
for him to truly be free he cannot be stopped from having some sort of capacity

[Anonymous No.16492757]

according to the bible the God of this world is SATAN, besides quen you read about Jesus, you discover that even a fig tree, the ocean, etc fights again his faith, therefore here it is similar to Schopenhauer metaphisics and gnostic Ergo thing....in other words, maybe the true is bitter...we literally are living in a softcore kind of Hell, this hell system has authority rankingas like the princes od darkness in the NT, the worst part is that..maybe accosrding to Noah genetic satanic poll, the goyim or some goyim are actually a hybrid with demon-woman, because as far as we know, it has never been proved that fallen angels stooped inbreding women so the goyim are not 100% human, but what we call people is just a "hellish fallen race of hybrids living ia hell"...this is why christians must be born again, which include some kind of dead of the previous man, the old man, the hellish-nigger-tied-normie-man

[Anonymous No.16492781]

>>16492623
In the act of creation, what did God do then? Because we ARE preformed by our parents. Everything about us is; even you writing that comment.

[Anonymous No.16492811]

>>16488093
>God is a big man in the sky watching the world on TV and he can snap his fingers to change whatever he wants

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16492825]

>>16492811
You have chosen impotent

[Anonymous No.16492882]

>>16492781
>we ARE preformed by our parents
Maybe you are.

[Anonymous No.16492895]

Evil by definition is resisting God, not killing or raping children.

[Anonymous No.16492962]

>>16488125
Jesus says:
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

[Anonymous No.16492965]

>>16492882
No, we all are. Every action we take and every thought that we have is founded in a desire, and every desire that we have is founded in the body. These desires are passed on from parent to child, generation to generation, trailing all the way back to the Big Bang. Of course, it's unfair to attribute all of our actions and thoughts to our parents, because they're also limited and only a very small part of this ongoing process, but everything about us, from our physical features to our thoughts and desires which motivate us, are preformed in our bodies, which were preformed in the bodies of our parents.

Which brings me back to >>16491628, in concluding that we are all preformed in this creator notion of God, which you may attribute to the Big Bang, or to a thing-in-itself, or to whatever you'd like. And if God is omniscient, then it was known how life would stratify over time, and what desires would develop, and which beings would possess them. So here we are now, with some of us with preformed desires which leads to thoughts on virtue which are incongruous with the virtue promoted by theology, and according to theology, this is a warrant for punishment. Some beings, by nature, are meant to choose death, unless they actively deny and betray themselves at every turn and live a life of intense suffering. This is absurd.

[Anonymous No.16492974]

>>16488093
>is he able, but not willing?
>then he is malevolent.

Does not follow. Prove me wrong. You can't.

[Anonymous No.16492976]

>>16488102

Natural disasters are PROMINENTLY Evil.

[Anonymous No.16492988]

>>16492825
Don't know about that, Zeus seem to have impregnated a lot of women.

[Anonymous No.16493015]

>>16488141
>In order to know how to play golf and do gymnastics, one needs to have a body.

No.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16493019]

>>16492974
You choose to kiss the evil boot and shine it with your tongue. You are proven to side with malevolent, that’s all.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16493024]

>>16492988
That’s a clearly malevolent sky god. He was defending Yhwh, I believe.

[Anonymous No.16493025]

>>16488178
>For humans to have free will God cannot know the future.

Absurd statement.

[Anonymous No.16493026]

>>16488093
Here's the Zoroastrian answer.

[Anonymous No.16493049]

>>16488234
>how he is going to intervene to change the course of history

What does this even mean? What makes you think Time is linear, that past and future even exist at all, even for Man, never mind for God?

[Anonymous No.16493060]

>>16492976
Earthquakes are not inherently evil. All "natural disasters" serve their purpose.

[Anonymous No.16493091]

>>16491171
Answer me this anon: Are storms evil because it has the potential to kill someone? Or is it only evil when it does kill someone?

[Anonymous No.16493115]

>>16488649

This is just renaming "evil" to "privation". Your FOURTH sentence admits that, indeed, this privation is something God could readily prevent, per the original question. That anyone is swayed by the shitty sleight of hand is almost as disgraceful as choosing penalty as the answer. Catholics are animals.

[Anonymous No.16493136]

>>16488093
I don't like this being a problem of "evil" because some people think that doesn't include "natural evils," if you will, but in there you could just declare it a problem of "bad things happening when God is supposedly supreme," basically >>16488153. That is a more interesting problem with no satisfying solution I have ever seen.
>>16489188
>bad thing dont happen. Evil is the absence of good. Its essentially universal positivism
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
>>16488102
Why would an omnibenevolent God let natural disasters happen?
>>16488209
What do you mean by a "dualistic God"? Google is giving me unspecific and varied results.
>>16488112
That doesn't solve the problem of why God lets natural disasters happen.
>>16488635
One could easily argue "freedom from evil." It's not self-evidently superior to have free will or that evident we do have it.
>>16490838
>>16488163
It's a proof by contradiction, albeit one that has a few propositions with easy holes to poke, and I guess the wording there might not make it very obvious.
>>16488678
What is the leap-of-faith answer? Is it to have faith that even though it seems like there is a lot of bad around, God is still omnibenevolent and everything will work out securely, albeit mysteriously and in a way we cannot comprehend?
>>16488743
I assume that you mean that the bad goes along with the good to complement the good to make it better, or something like that. That doesn't explain, let's say, babies who are born with terrible pain all their life until they shortly die, at least for the babies. Also, if God is omnipotent, then He could have made humans who did not need the bad to complement the good.
>>16488802
Are you a moral nihilist? Do you accept that "goodness" exists? If you do, how could "goodness" exist while "evil" does not? If you don't believe in "goodness," then that is fair, I guess, but then God could not be omnibenevolent, which essentially entails conceding to the problem.

[Anonymous No.16493148]

>>16492036

Not him, but I maintain that "natural" disasters are not "natural" at all since "Nature" itself is a misconception, i.e. a cretinous cadaver rather than an amoral medium.

[Anonymous No.16493216]

>>16493060

Suffering "serving a purpose" makes it worse, not better.

[Anonymous No.16493225]

>>16493019
>PROVE me wrong
>posts shitty nirvana lyrics

[Anonymous No.16493247]

>>16493136
>Why would an omnibenevolent God let natural disasters happen?
thoughts? >>16493115

[Anonymous No.16493259]

>>16493247
sorry i meant >>16493091

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16493269]

>>16493225
Are those actual Nirvana lyrics?

There’s nothing to prove. You chose malevolent is all.

[Anonymous No.16493270]

>>16488901
>>16488971
What are you trying to say? If we don't know what is evil, then we can just suppose that God is omnibenevolent, but that we cannot understand His morality directly if at all. There is no reason to suppose that, however, and it is not at all convincing. That is the sort of a leap-of-faith answer, I think.
If you don't believe that God is omnibenevolent, then there's no reason to get upset at this problem -- He is just no supreme.
>>16490620
See the above.
>>16488964
>>16488947
If we do not know evil, then see the above. If evil does not exist, then answer this
>Are you a moral nihilist? Do you accept that "goodness" exists? If you do, how could "goodness" exist while "evil" does not? If you don't believe in "goodness," then that is fair, I guess, but then God could not be omnibenevolent, which essentially entails conceding to the problem.
>>16488939
Then you're conceding the problem that God is /not/ supreme.
>>16489001
Is that supposed to be relevant? If so, how?
>>16488993
That is fine and does not conflict with what he is saying there. If one God or multiple gods exist that are not supreme (they are indifferent to humans are therefore not omnibenevolent, for example), that is a solution to the problem.
>>16489029
>>16489059
Even if it was posted with the intention to bait, it doesn't mean there can't be interesting discussion. If you disagree, I would like to know why.
>>16490245
>>16491060
That doesn't explain natural disasters.
>>16490788
See >>16493136
>I assume that you mean that the bad goes along with the good to complement the good to make it better, or something like that. That doesn't explain, let's say, babies who are born with terrible pain all their life until they shortly die, at least for the babies. Also, if God is omnipotent, then He could have made humans who did not need the bad to complement the good.

[Anonymous No.16493285]

>>16493216
There is nothing evil about rain watering plants. Just as there is nothing wrong with violent storms killing someone, or gravity letting someone fall to their death.

[Anonymous No.16493320]

>>16493283
Is a violent storm evil by itself? Pretty simple question.

[Anonymous No.16493356]

God becomes wicked and corrupts his will.
God sacrifices his Son as an apt substitute for Himself to restore his original purity.
Jesus dies for our sins, but he also died for God's sin.

[Anonymous No.16493375]

>>16493356
How does God become wicked and corrupt?

[Anonymous No.16493378]

>>16488231
>Then why call him god?
Because it doesn't go against the definition of God, btw where are the trips gal? I want to know if it is you

[Anonymous No.16493404]

>>16493375
God creates evil and thus is responsible for evil.
God needed to create evil to give humanity free will.

[Anonymous No.16493468]

>>16493404
So life is God's videogame?

[Anonymous No.16493486]

>>16493285
Why not? God could have designed a world where those horrible things could not happen, correct? It might be physically impossible in our universe, but God could have designed a world with different physical properties and with a completely different setup, and obviously beforehand He could know that stuff like that would never happen.
>>16493247
>>16493259
I'm guessing that if I say that violent storms are indeed evil, you could point out the good that comes from them or the impossibility for them not to exist in our world (and that is easy to argue with storms, but perhaps similar arguments could be made for other natural disasters). If I say they are only evil when deaths are involved, that is sort of bizarre, as they could cause other perhaps lesser harms to humans, and if you consider that, you might ask "should God just prevent any phenomenon that causes harm or death to humans?" It's a hard question. It makes me realize deeper that God being omnibenevolent towards humans given the world we live in now would be extremely hard to argue for as even a remote possibility.
I don't really like calling any natural disaster "evil," but at least some of them are terrible things that happen that at the very least need not be as destructive as they are in every case. I'd be inclined to say that storms are "natural evils" and I would agree that the setup we have on the earth could makes it very difficult to suppose that God is omnibenevolent, given the processes in nature can be so devastating, disgusting, and prone to great suffering but are seemingly necessary. The most destructive natural disasters are much more difficult to justify though, if one doesn't agree that storms are "natural evils" or so bad that God should intervene if He is indeed omnibenevolent.
I think that, surely, if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He could have made a less terrible world, though.
>>16493320
That was an accidental reply that went through too early by mistake.

[Anonymous No.16493536]

>reply to everyone with an anime avatar

[Anonymous No.16493629]

>>16493026
I am too lazy to read or to try to understand that story, so I'll assume the summary is correct, and here it is:
>The creator is the healer and physician, the keeper and nourisher and guardian and saviour of the creature, and not the one who inflicts disease and pain, and punishes his own creatures.
Is he trying to say that because God is not inflicting anything, that he is not malevolent and/or not not omnibenevolent? He knowingly allows terrible evils to happen when He should be willing to act otherwise and He could act otherwise. It's not at all convincing that a being that is omnibenevolent creature who knows about and could prevent evil and does not is still omnibenevolent just because they do not inflict the evil.
>>16492974
Perhaps not malevolent, but at the very least, it is not omnibenevolent to let evil things happen.
>>16492895
The problem still exists, but perhaps in a different form if you define your terms like that -- why does God allow so many terrible things to happen if he is supposedly omnibenevolent?
>>16492811
He does not need to watch a TV or whatever, He simply knows all, including what we think of as what is going to happen. If you're implying He does not have the power to change anything on earth, then you're implying He is not omnipotent.
>>16492056
Why not give all humans that without having to spend time in a terrible world?
>>16492564
>So if you did not deserve to die in an earthquake, you wouldn't.
You have to assume a lot about the people who die for that to be remotely feasible, but that at the very least does not make sense to me for the children or babies who die in natural disasters. Surely they did not deserve to die. If you think perhaps that God knew they would be the next Hitler or maybe just a pretty bad person if they were allowed to live, that is also a lot to assume, but also why would God not do that for all people who are going to become evil?
>>16493536
What about it?

[Anonymous No.16493672]

>>16493629
>I am too lazy to read or to try to understand that story,
Then why comment on it?
Also, God in Zoroastrianism is not omnipotent in the manner the Abrahamic God is. You would have understood that if you read the shared passage.

[Anonymous No.16493777]

Tat twam asi

[Anonymous No.16493792]

>>16493672
I thought the story would be mostly useless filler, and I thought the summary would suffice, but I might be wrong on that.
>God in Zoroastrianism is not omnipotent in the manner the Abrahamic God is
How could that be relevant, exactly? I also don't understand how that could be possible, unless we are mislabeling a being as being omnipotent when it is not. Not being able to change what goes on in the world would make it fairly un-omnipotent.
Also, the problem of evil or whatever you call it goes by the properties of the Abraham God of Him being supreme, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, so if you reject how those properties are normally conceptualized in a relevant way for that to try to solve the problem, that is not a satisfactory, proper, or convincing solution.
>inb4 "just read it yourself"
Can you at least tell me which numbered paragraph the relevant details are?

[Anonymous No.16493796]

>>16493629
>Perhaps not malevolent, but at the very least, it is not omnibenevolent to let evil things happen.

Consider that some truly want to be Evil.

[Anonymous No.16493812]

>>16488093
It doesn't follow that being able but not willing makes him malevolent, there may be good reasons to permit evil (free will, necessity of the world being apart from god).

[Anonymous No.16493835]

>>16493792
Depending on sect, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman both preexist or are either born from a void (Vayu) or unbounded time (Zurvan-Akarana), and the world is largely their battlefield. They basically collided and are fighting largely via people's manifested mentalities/spirits (mainyu), which can be either good (spenta) or evil (angra).
It is ditheist/dualist. You misinterpreted the final paragraph. Ahura Mazda did not create Ahriman, but in Abhramism, YHVH did create Satan.

[Anonymous No.16493838]

He is able but not willing, not malevolent, we deserve what we get.

[Anonymous No.16493856]

>>16492757
fuck fuck fucK FUCK FUCK FUCK
I tend to the flame, and tend to thee.
The Lords have left their thrones, and must be deliver'd to them.
To this end, I am at thy side
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

[Anonymous No.16493914]

>>16493672
I thought the story would be mostly useless filler, and I thought the summary would suffice, but I might be wrong on that.
>God in Zoroastrianism is not omnipotent in the manner the Abrahamic God is
How could that be relevant, exactly? I also don't understand how that could be possible, unless we are mislabeling a being as being omnipotent when it is not. Not being able to change what goes on in the world would make it fairly un-omnipotent.
Also, the problem of evil or whatever you call it goes by the properties of the Abraham God of Him being supreme, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, so if you reject how those properties are normally conceptualized in a relevant way for that to try to solve the problem, that is not a satisfactory, proper, or convincing solution.
>>16493835
I can hardly decipher that, so I could be wrong in this reply, but with this
>Ahura Mazda did not create Ahriman, but in Abhramism, YHVH did create Satan.
Do you mean that in Abrahamism, since Satan is perhaps evil or perhaps he causes evil, God is evil since He created satan? And that by contrast, since Ahura Mazda did not create Ahriman, presumably the god that inflicts evil, Ahura Mazda is not evil? Even if only the second statement is the case, that could perhaps be fair for that religion, but still, that is not how most people conceptualize God, which I guess for them and for you is okay since the original post was only within that scope.
>>16493838
Who is deserving, exactly? All humans? All past, future, and present humans? Why and how?

[Anonymous No.16493952]

>>16493914
>since the original post was only within that scope
Yeah, I was just explaining there are better ways to conceptualize God. I think a lot of Gnostics were influenced influenced by the Zoroastrian dualism moreso. For example, here's a diagram explaining Manichaean beliefs, which influenced Catharism.

[Anonymous No.16493994]

ITT:Godtards cope and contradict their holy books

[Anonymous No.16493996]

>>16493812
>there may be good reasons to permit evil
>free will
I have not seen a convincing argument that having "free will" (even given that we do have that, and it is not highly evident that we do) is a good reason to permit evil.
Also, a will that is *mostly* free, feels free, but is not totally free could feel satisfying to have even if it is limited in being able to commit evil, or at least the worse evils, and presumably it could exist as I just described it if God is omnipotent (I do not believe what I described is logically impossible).
That also doesn't justify the natural evils or natural disasters that God lets happen.
>necessity of the world being apart from god
How is that necessary? Can God not touch this world? If so, then He is not omnipotent. Even so, surely He could have formed a world that tended to be less terrible without needing His assistance.
>>16493796
I don't think that because someone wants to do something does that mean that God should necessarilly allow it or for them to be successful in their evil-doings.

[Anonymous No.16494011]

>>16493629
>The problem still exists, but perhaps in a different form if you define your terms like that -- why does God allow so many terrible things to happen if he is supposedly omnibenevolent?

no, it's the same thing, you basically saying "why does god allow thing that make my feelings hurt happen" and this is addressed in the bible "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

[Anonymous No.16494029]

>Save someones life but they turn out to be a serial killer
Sorry you are going to hell.

[Anonymous No.16494066]

>>16493996
>I don't think that because someone wants to do something does that mean that God should necessarilly allow it or for them to be successful in their evil-doings.

He should. The good of allowing all things is greater than the good of allowing only good things.

[Anonymous No.16494177]

>>16494011
>The answer is "Bro, trust me, there IS a reason, but I won't disclose it, but there is one, trust me"
kek
>>16494066
>The good of allowing all things is greater than the good of allowing only good things.
Explain why.

[Anonymous No.16494189]

>>16494011
>no, it's the same thing, you basically saying "why does god allow thing that make my feelings hurt happen"
That's not the same thing, then. Putting it in that form makes it different from before when before you were replying to OP's post where it was only talking about "evil" and you defined that as "actions that resist God."
Changing it to
>why does god allow thing that make my feelings hurt happen
Makes it easier to trivialize, mock, or ignore the question, but everything like rape and murder is included in "thing that make my feelings hurt."
I am not sure if I am interpretting the Bible quotation correctly, but it sounds like God is saying that He has no care for those human matters as they are lower than His, perhaps by an infinitely significant degree, which makes it sound like He is not omnibenevolent.
>>16494029
What are you trying to get at? God could perhaps let terrible people not be saved if they are not worth saving as He is omniscient and omnipotent.
>>16494066
>The good of allowing all things is greater than the good of allowing only good things.
That is not evident to me.
Also, consider this:
>a will that is *mostly* free, feels free, but is not totally free could feel satisfying to have even if it is limited in being able to commit evil, or at least the worse evils, and presumably it could exist as I just described it if God is omnipotent (I do not believe what I described is logically impossible).

[Anonymous No.16494202]

>>16494011
>no, it's the same thing, you basically saying "why does god allow thing that make my feelings hurt happen"
That's not the same thing, then. Putting it in that form makes it different from before when before you were replying to OP's post where it was only talking about "evil" and you defined that as "actions that resist God."
Changing it to
>why does god allow thing that make my feelings hurt happen
Makes it easier to trivialize, mock, or ignore the question, but everything like rape and murder is included in "thing that make my feelings hurt."
I am not sure if I am interpretting the Bible quotation correctly, but it sounds like God is saying that He has no care for those human matters as they are lower than His, perhaps by an infinitely significant degree, which makes it sound like He is not omnibenevolent.
>>16494029
What are you trying to get at? God could perhaps let terrible people not be saved if they are not worth saving as He is omniscient and omnipotent.
>>16494066
>The good of allowing all things is greater than the good of allowing only good things.
That is not evident to me.
Also, consider this:
>a will that is *mostly* free, feels free, but is not totally free could feel satisfying to have even if it is limited in being able to commit evil, or at least the worse evils, and presumably it could exist as I just described it if God is omnipotent (I do not believe what I described is logically impossible).

[Anonymous No.16494227]

>>16493914
>Also, the problem of evil or whatever you call it goes by the properties of the Abraham God
Most likely the platonic God since it's attributed to Epicurus who lived before Christ. That is if it's really him who said the text in the OP.

[Anonymous No.16494231]

>>16488093
Evil does not exist.

[Anonymous No.16494233]

>>16491365
>we are an experiment of God's being guided along a predestined path and given dopamine hits so we can imagine that we are free.
Even if God didn't exist, and the universe was pure matter, we wouldn't be "free", because we'd still be bound by the laws of physics and biology. Physical constraints will coerce your will anyway, so your future is already partly predestined, as a human, you can only do so much before your stamina or time on earth runs out, and you pass out, or die. If you're born disabled, you have even less freedom.

God is definitely blackmailing you: the threat of eternal damnation is a disproportionate retribution, regardless of the amount of evil actions you've committed while alive, it's accepting infinite pain for temporary pleasure. However, just because God is making you an offer you can't refuse, doesn't mean you have to accept it.

God *lets* you disobey him. If he didn't want you to choose, you would've been born in the Garden of Eden. He's coercing your will, and you're just a mortal against an omnipotent being, but you can always tell him to fuck off. The one thing he can't (or won't?) do is force you to change your mind. How is that not free will on your part?

I know this is a smarmy argument used against freedom of speech, but freedom of action is not freedom from consequences. You're free to drop as many N-bombs as you want, as long as you're prepared to deal with the consequences. Whether you think the retribution is disproportionate to your action is another matter: it's "just" a mere threat, not a physical impossibility.

If you think people should be free to say the N-word, then you should act accordingly. If it matters enough to you, you *can* dedicate your life to the matter, and die a martyr for the cause of being able to say the N-word (and it would be a pretty amusing way to an hero). You probably won't, because from a purely utilitarian point of view it's a completely unreasonable action to take, but ultimately the choice is yours, and you can choose to act against your best interests, so you do have free will.

[Anonymous No.16494244]

>>16492678
Humans are incredible limited in many capacities though

[Anonymous No.16494249]

>>16493136
>I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Christianity posites (in the Thomist tradition and influences) that the essential quallity of being is good (in the line of Plato) and as such the Progenator of everything, on top of being all knowing and all powerful by definition, is also all good. In this sense there is a spark of sublime goodness in and of everything. In this case, what is bad is the same thing as what is cold. it is simply the lack of goodness as cold is the lack of energy. Its universally positivist in that it believe that existence at its core and throughout itself is full of love and good, and badness is simply a lack of divine particulars, or an illusion, like when a scolding surface at first feels cold or visa versa. In this way, badness is simply a perspectorial thing, and there is a core transendenal absurdness that there is innate good in the absolute.

[Anonymous No.16494264]

>>16494249
>absurdness
meant to say assurandness. but in a way absurdist in the philosophical sense works as well. So dispite context or seeming reality, its the belief of essential positivity in the universe. No matter what there is Goodness. universal positivism.

[Anonymous No.16494367]

>>16494227
I am not sure what the platonic God is, but the problem has been posed many times, and it most likely goes by the property of both of those gods. What I said is still not incorrect and does not suppose it was originally formulated with the Abrahamic God in mind (but the God it supposes does have the "supreme" properties the Abrahmic God does). Many such Christians do think about it and have made attempts to solve the problem.
>>16494231
See >>16493136
>Are you a moral nihilist? Do you accept that "goodness" exists? If you do, how could "goodness" exist while "evil" does not? If you don't believe in "goodness," then that is fair, I guess, but then God could not be omnibenevolent, which essentially entails conceding to the problem.
>>16494249
>badness is simply a perspectorial thing, and there is a core transendenal absurdness that there is innate good in the absolute.
I assume you mean "perspective" inside of "perspectorial" and "assuredness" instead of "assurandness." If not, I cannot find out what those words mean by looking them up.
What do you mean "badness is simply a perspective thing"? Are you going to try to claim that what is bad to us is not actually bad, or even just very lacking in good? I don't see how changing from "bad" to "lacking in good" changes anything. Still, some things that happen are just so lacking in good that it does not seem as though an omnibenevolent God would let them happen.

[Anonymous No.16494369]

>mental gymnastics: the thread
love it

[Anonymous No.16494389]

>>16494369
What posts are you referring to? I would prefer it if you called them out directly on the exact sentences you think are "mental gymnastics."
>>16494367
>inside of
Instead of*

[Anonymous No.16494414]

>>16494389
theists of course, has anybody quoted Leibniz yet? The euphorians aren't much better. Blessed thread in any case.

[Anonymous No.16494481]

>>16494367
sorry, typing quickly.
The distinction is important because it makes everything good.(superlatively) Bad thing does not happen. Tell me things that in themselves that are bad. The qualities of rape, the pleasure, the material action are not bad, it is considered bad because of the free will participants involved in it. There is no specific material process that is bad, it is only subjectively bad by gestalt and in reference to beings. (not saying subjective bads are not important, it is by us being subjective beings). And as subjective beings we have the ability to transform things to better create a subjective good that is in conformity with the absolute good (ie god). These phenominal bads do not then translate to nominal bads. And our ability to freely transform phenominal bads to phenominal goods will get us closer in line with the suposed absolute good (as in trying to stop rapes).

Of course the whole argument hinges on the leap of faith that considers the absolute good. For it to be all contextual it must apply to situations that seem bad. Of course, the opisite to this form of thought would be Schopenhauerian pessimism, where being is inherently worthless.

[Anonymous No.16494483]

>>16488619
Indeed, AI in its present, non-hypothetical form, does not "understand" anything whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.16494495]

>>16494481
You sound Hella white.

[Anonymous No.16494517]

>>16494233
Unless of course we realize that "God" aka this almighty universal perspective which deems all beings "unfree" by virtue of its scope is merely a fiction in our heads, and all there is is limited perspectives which see relative degrees of freedom everywhere. Then some are certainly free, and "free" as in the absolute form of freedom is a fiction.

[Anonymous No.16494529]

>>16494495
sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.16494544]

>>16494529
No problem just letting you know so you can avoid it in the future.

[Anonymous No.16494641]

>>16493996
It's necessary because in christian theology only God is good, and therefore things that are apart from God, like the world and humanity, are fallen and 'evil' by necessity of being apart. In this context God making the world good again would be the same thing as destroying it all.

[Anonymous No.16494699]

>>16488125
walked right into that one

[Anonymous No.16494721]

>>16494529
Cuck

[Anonymous No.16494941]

>>16494177

Some things want to be Evil.

[Anonymous No.16494948]

>>16494721
sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.16494971]

>>16494202
>a will that is *mostly* free, feels free, but is not totally free could feel satisfying to have even if it is limited in being able to commit evil, or at least the worse evils, and presumably it could exist as I just described it if God is omnipotent (I do not believe what I described is logically impossible).

Which one is worse: a will qualitatively free and a capacity for evil or a will qualitatively not free and a capacity for evil?

[Anonymous No.16494985]

Why would god care about human judgement values?

[Anonymous No.16494996]

>>16493994
>implying sola scriptura is legitimate

[Anonymous No.16495003]

>>16493996
one cannot be free if some other force is preventing him from doing something or binding him to do something
not sure what's not getting through

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16495087]

>>16494985
The myth goes like this.
He created us and everything, for some reason.
That reason seems to be to make us suffer. Is god truly this stupid, this inept? Perhaps powerless to save us from this demiurge world?

The truth is grander and more sensible than schizophrenics can imagine. The truth, gathered by the facts, answer all the questions we have about purpose and evil in the world. It scares them for some reason. Their cosmic torturer doesn’t exist and they’re, seemingly, free to live a happy life now. But they miss their afterlife. Another part of the myth that will never get here

[Anonymous No.16495099]

>>16494517
>Unless of course we realize that "God" aka this almighty universal perspective which deems all beings "unfree" by virtue of its scope is merely a fiction in our heads
If God is a spook, then any other objection and obstacle to free will is also a spook. The endgame of free will is a form of solipsism where your free is one, absolute and omnipotent.

Or maybe God does exist, and free will is the spark of divine nature that he infused in us. Isn't the ability to reject God almost God-like, in itself? You could say that giving us free will didn't make God fully omnipotent, because there's at least one thing he can't do, he can't control your will.

[Anonymous No.16495109]

>>16488093
"you have to go back"

[Anonymous No.16495129]

>>16495099
Only absolute free is a spook. Relative free will is the only way to express the self.

[Anonymous No.16495151]

>>16495087
atheism is the same thing as theism, you have only duped yourself. you believe politics is the meaning of life, you believe an extension of religion is the meaning of life. why do you think you are superior to the religious when you are no different?

[Anonymous No.16495216]

>>16491220
>I understand you perhaps feel like God should've let us live in a literal paradise where nothing ever threatens us
If he hasn't done this, and is omnipotent/omniscient, then logically he has deliberately added suffering to human lives

[Anonymous No.16495256]

>>16494414
Quite a few claims by theists have been made, I imagine, some more reasonable than others, but since that is not specific so the statement "mental gymnastics: the thread" is nearly meaningless.
>>16494481
I still don't understand why that matters. Why does God not care about our "subjective bads" since they are important to us if He is omnibenevolent?
>>16494641
So is the world wholly evil and wholly not good? I have not heard of that claim before or the one in your post. I don't understand how God could not prevent the worst evils and events without having to destroy the world.
>>16494941
That's not a reason to allow that to happen.
>>16494971
I assume you meant "qualitatively not free and no capacity for evil" unless you mean that what I said implied humans would still have a capacity for evil, and I guess you forgot to give a reason to believe. I don't exactly know, of course, because I don't know what it's like to have a different state of having free will (whether we have it or not, I don't know). If you go by the qualifiers I wrote, I do think it could be better.
>>16495003
>one cannot be free if some other force is preventing him from doing something or binding him to do something
If you give those constraints to free will, then humans already cannot be free.
>>16494985
If He doesn't, then He is not omnibenevolent.

[Anonymous No.16495262]

>>16495151
>Real things aren't real!
>It's a philosophically proven fact!
What you unlock here is actually quite freeing

[Anonymous No.16495886]

>>16488093
Evil is the absence of good which is created by man. God is father to us all, and a stern one at that, therefore, he gives you the free will to not do evil and not be tempted by evil, for that is what makes humans different from angels, and thus the most loved of all his children: It is one thing to do good because it's all you know, it's another thing to do good when you're capable of doing evil
If you want more, read St. Thomas of Aquinos and St. Augustine of Hippo

[Anonymous No.16496087]

>>16495886
>It is one thing to do good because it's all you know, it's another thing to do good when you're capable of doing evil
Sure that sounds nice and all, but because of that, the lives of so many are so terrible. That trade does not seem worthwhile at all. It also doesn't explain natural disasters.

[Anonymous No.16496101]

>>16495886
But aren't the conditions by which we choose completely arbitrary? Some human beings are far more prone to evil behavior simply on account of their brain being wired differently.

[Anonymous No.16496112]

>>16496087
Natural disasters did cause a crisis of faith in Portugal (can't recall the specifics of it), and I haven't read any theological treatises that specifically talk about natural diasasters
Regardless, that's the explanation that St. Thomas and St. Augustine give for the existence of evil
>>16496101
I wouldn't be able to tell you, we're assuming complete free will, and as far as I know, there's yet to be a theological treatise that accounts for genetics, though it'd be worth looking into

[Anonymous No.16496115]

>>16488141
>If X is omniscient, that entails that X knows everything, including how to do gymnastics and play golf.
No, but the idea beget from an idea still belongs inside that idea's realm.
When a character thinks inside a book they are generating ideas. But those ideas still stemmed from the writer even if not directly.

[Anonymous No.16496128]

>>16495087
Why aren’t you a gnostic butterplug

[Anonymous No.16496152]

>>16496112
To better illustrate what I mean consider a universe that's almost identical to our own in every respect except that some specific ailment doesn't occur (maybe a minor illness doesn't exist, a single natural disaster doesn't take place).

For the sake of argument let's ignore the butterfly effect of such a change.

As a stern father, why did God create such a specific number of ailments? Wouldn't this hypothetical universe have just as much free will as ours? If so, what would be the point of God creating that extra suffering for no reason?

You could then extend that analogy further like the pile of sand problem and ask why is the concept of suffering necessary for free will in the first place. Or why God can't create a universe where a concept of free will can exist without good or evil or any such ancillary concept.

Since you mentioned the Portugal earthquake, it reminded me of Candide mocking the "just world" hypothesis with that same example

[Anonymous No.16496173]

>>16496152
>I mean consider a universe that's almost identical to our own in every respect except that some specific ailment doesn't occur (maybe a minor illness doesn't exist, a single natural disaster doesn't take place).
that happens all the time, if Heaven didn't intervene things would much worse always. Humans have control over the matieral and spirtual realms they just need to activate it via works.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16496176]

>>16496128
I actually found my way out by that door. Like it was a part of their Christian mysteries, to arrive at the top and fly off an atheist. Perhaps I am.

[Anonymous No.16496192]

>>16496152
>Why can't God create a universe where a concept of free will can exist without good or evil or any such ancillary concept
That'd be Heaven, which is attainable through a virtuous lifestyle . If you want to go deeper, it'd be the garden of eden, of which humanity banished itself through the original sin
>Why did God create such a specific number of ailments?
I'm not an expert on medicine, but if I believe most ailments can be offset by living a virtuous lifestyle (not smoking, moderate drinking, healthy diet, etc.). For more on that, I think Aristotle's "On Virtues and Vices" would be relevant. For natural disasters, I do not know, one could say that some are a consequence of humanity's quest to dominate nature, but I wouldn't like to make such judgment in such broad terms with the suffering involved. Then again, the Catholic Church does call for followers to aid those that are down on their luck, and charity is a big part of Catholicism and Christianity, to the point where churches are open for the homeless to sleep in (to varying degrees)
Suffering comes from acting upon evil (you get gout for having an unbalanced diet, for example) and from being acted upon (enslaved, mugged, etc.): The first is just the nature of evil, the second implies various theorisations by many different theologists (but some would boil down to "God works in mysterious ways") and some would say it's a way of letting us see the world for what it is

[Anonymous No.16496203]

>>16495256
>still don't understand why that matters. Why does God not care about our "subjective bads" since they are important to us if He is omnibenevolent?
So that we may strive towards a objective or universal good instead of a particular (like just focusing on pleasure, like pic related). Universal positivism, not particular positivism. it is the striving towards that ultimate ideal.

[Anonymous No.16496228]

>>16488093
Infinite cope.

[Anonymous No.16496248]

>>16494985
t.

[Anonymous No.16496279]

>>16488102
But god created men and the natural world. Imagine if i had a very violent dog and I let him untied and he killed a child, the child's death would be my fault because I indirectly contributed to her death, in the case of god, this is aggravated, because he knows everything, he knows every evil act and consequence.

[Anonymous No.16496281]

There is none. Christcucks BTFO

[Anonymous No.16496299]

>>16490788
t.

[Anonymous No.16496336]

>>16490810

Nothing gymnastics about it, really. I understand it well, to be fair.

[Anonymous No.16496375]

>>16490798
Call calls all people to be saints. And the only way saints are made are by trial by fire. Just as gold is refined by fire, so is the human soul. Another way to describe it, is like a hard workout. Tough...yes, but rewarding nonetheless. God will use evil in a way to toughen us. One of the desert fathers said, while he was in Alexandria with a friend, they were being harassed by some locals. when his friend showed concern, The father said, that He dealt with far worse in the desert. Saints are made through trial by fire.

[Anonymous No.16496422]

>>16491028
> They commit evil because their paths in life led them to do so.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha what a fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.16496436]

This argument presupposes that God intentionally the moral fabric of the universe this way. He made the world according to his being, not just because he felt like doing it this way.

[Anonymous No.16496654]

>>16492678
>can't type in a console command in my mind and nuke the earth
guess I don't have free will.

meme aside,
If any conception of "heaven" is to not be just hell but with muh glowing angels and good godly songs, then there must still be the capacity for people to do what they want.
Now, quite simply, all these people need is the mental faculties to realize that it would be better if they did not do these things (perhaps, KNOWING what punishment they'd get, or just having advanced angel-brains not subject to our human bullshit irrationality). And then boom, free will and no evil.
Now, either the inhabitants of heaven are so different to us that they can not have evil and be happy, or perhaps evil is allowed but not to the sadistic fucked levels present in our world, or not with the same mental/physical pain or something.

Point is, could have easily made beings with free will which don't enflict such evil on eachother. The whole idea of humans being flawed is comedical because if we were just made a different way we could not be flawed. And the fact that we are here in these flawed meat-sacks says that either this is a cosmic play the big G played on us for fun (or for learning), the big G isn't really all the abrahamics say and is really just the universe/consciousness/some shit and we are but fruit of one universe seed and he really isn't so involved, or else the big G is really a little evil G and perhaps there is something greater.

thank you for seeding stream-of-retarded-consciousness-bot9000, enjoy.

[Anonymous No.16496664]

>>16496299
>t. Candide

Still seething over how right Leibniz was?

[Anonymous No.16496671]

>>16488093
What in the Lord's name did you just say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in Ministry school, and I have over 300 confirmed conversions. I am trained in the Baptist religion and I'm the top missionary in the entire Christian world. You are nothing to me but another infidel. I will teach you the word of God with the largest gospel choir that has ever been seen, mark my words. You think you can get away with rejecting Christ? Think again, sinner. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of pastors and priests across the USA and you're going to be forced to accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, so you better prepare for your baptism, sir. The baptism that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call atheism. You're Christian soon, sir. I can teach you anywhere, anytime, and I can preach in over seven hundred languages, and that's just off the top of my head. Not only am I extensively trained in reciting the bible from memory, but I have access to the entire literature of the Archdiocese of the Americas and I will use it to its full extent to bring you into Christianity, you little atheist. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your heresy was about to bring down upon you, maybe you wouldn't have challenged the existence of God. But you couldn't, you didn't and now you're paying the price, you goddamned sinner. I will teach Christianity all over you and you will drown in it. You'll be a believer soon, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.16496728]

I have cummed on the tits of god and no one was there to stop me. thats when i realized that the breasts of god were my breasts. I tried to clean off my buxom bra from my seminal fluids, but at that point the breasts which I thought were gods' then mine were actually the breasts of being itself. seperated as a particular is from the absolute, and I realised, that in the end. while these tits were in fact mine, they were and would always be a small reflection of the greater tits of God.

[Anonymous No.16496740]

Imagine you're god. You want to sort out the cool people you want to hang out with from the assholes that you want to kick out of your sick-ass block party. How do you figure out if someone is cool, or just pretending so they can stay and get free beer at your dope party (you've got coke too, but it's in the bedroom cause people kept taking it without leaving any money, what the fuck dude, that shit's expensive. Fucking wooks always coming around taking shit but never giving back)

How are you gonna do it? Other than throw a pre-party. Just something short - people aren't gonna hang around more than like, a few hundred thousand years. Any individual is gonna come and go within like, 80 or so. If they act like a total dick, you don't kick them out of the pre-party, you just don't invite them to the real party.

That's god, probably. Idk I'm not christian

[Anonymous No.16497056]

>>16495886
>>16496112
>>16496192
just wanna say I really enjoy your posts so far. I lean towards the idea that we are to perfect ourselves as much we can in this life, perhaps ad infinitum until we are strong enough to reside in Heaven.
But boy is it fucking hard. Always wanna quit. Always take steps back. I just hope others care to better themselves the same.
That's perhaps the only way I can think to explain the evil of others (aside from them just going through the same struggle as yourself), that we are a test for eachother each day. Try as you might to become better, it seems there will still be tests.
take a nice image.

[Anonymous No.16498228]

>>16496664
Where do I start with biscuitman?

[Anonymous No.16498235]

1. Evil is literally a consequence of original sin.
2. Even being so, evil is allowed to exist so further good, which would otherwise not be achievable, can be made real by God.

[Anonymous No.16498242]

>>16488141
>a tetraplegic doesn't know how to play golf or do gymnastics

Also, God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, who was mostly definitely a physical person and thus knew how to play golf and do gymnastics even by that criterion.

[Anonymous No.16498709]

Bumping for answers

[Anonymous No.16499041]

>>16495256
>If you give those constraints to free will, then humans already cannot be free.
yeah I agree we are not truly free; we're bound by laws

[Anonymous No.16499194]

>>16488619
>>16491039
We aren't God's children, we're his creation. He loves us not just for what we are, as you do a child, but for how we perform, like you would love a contraption you build. Every time you finish one it is close to your heart because it took you effort to create it, but if it turns out it doesn't do what you want, you initially adjust it (as He tried by sending us prophets), but if it still doesn't function you discard it, even though it pains you.

[Anonymous No.16499236]

The moment someone even remotely claims that he understands the Abrahamic god and Abrahamic morality, regardless which branch, he proves himself to be a delusional, dishonest idiot.

[Anonymous No.16499374]

>>16496173
>>16496192
Forgive me but neither of these answers actually seems to address the generation of suffering from sources that can't be plausibly attributed to human actions

Do works prevent earthquakes? Does your moral character determine whether or not you get brain-eating amoebas in your water source?

If you are of the opinion that works somehow affect the natural world in such a way that such disasters or ailments don't appear, I'm not sure what to say to that since it would be a viewpoint that can't ever be verified or falsified

[Anonymous No.16499399]

Is evil a state of being or an act?

[Anonymous No.16500015]

>>16499236
Why? How is that relevant?
>>16499041
Are we "free enough" with the current constraints on our will, do you think? We certainly feel like we have free will when we do not examine our will very closely, so I might say so. Surely God could add a few more constraints while allowing us the satisfaction of feeling free or being "free enough" when it is not fully free.
>>16496740
>How do you figure out if someone is cool, or just pretending
God is supposed to be omniscient. He does not need to test anybody if He only wants to know the results of the test.
>>16496436
I assume you meant
>This argument presupposes that God intentionally /made/ the moral fabric of the universe this way
I don't really understand what that means, with or without that added word.
>He made the world according to his being, not just because he felt like doing it this way.
I don't see how that is relevant. Just because He made it according to His being, that doesn't justify creating such a terrible world that He seemingly does not better.
>>16496422
Do you have a counter-argument?
>>16496375
Plenty of people never get to become strengthened or to become better at all. If someone dies from evil, they cannot get anything. Those close to the one who dies might, but the one who dies gets nothing.
>>16496203
Giving us the opportunity to strive towards the ultimate ideal is not evidently (to me) worth the horrors this world has to offer that God lets come about.

[Anonymous No.16500094]

>>16491150
>If god is omnipotent there are no "natural" disasters
This literally makes no sense at all. It's even more idiotic than it is untrue.

[Anonymous No.16500115]

>>16496192
>most ailments can be offset by living a virtuous lifestyle (not smoking, moderate drinking, healthy diet, etc.).
Then only consider ailments that are uncurable and came about through no fault of the ones who have them (e.g. being born with any one of those ailments). Even then, because of lack of perfect information and resources, it is not the fault of many of those who might get a preventable ailment (e.g. children who go blind from severe malnutrition or those who believed smoking was healthy and perhaps virtuous when nearly nothing was known about its effects ). Acting virtuously can mistakenly lead one to an ailment (e.g. drinking little from a water supply that was poisoned accidentally and unknowingly). Acting virtuously can lead to an ailment getting worse (e.g. donating money before knowledge of the ailment can lead to one not having enough to pay for an adequate amount of medicine for the ailment).
>consequence of humanity's quest to dominate nature
Are you to say that before there was conquest, there were no natural disasters? Surely not. Was it deserved to those humans who sufferred then? Some natural phenomenon are likely getting worse from human endeavors, but that need not mean that all of those who are affected helped create that situation. Are all those who are inflicted by natural disasters deserving of the punishment just by the virtue of them also being human?
>(but some would boil down to "God works in mysterious ways") and some would say it's a way of letting us see the world for what it is
The first answer makes it appear doubtful that God is omnibenevolent or that that must just be taken on faith, even if one is immensely suffering without seemingly committing sufficient amounts of evil themselves. The second answer makes it seem like God is not omnibenevolent, as the trade off to see all the horrific evils does not appear worthwhile by itself.

[Anonymous No.16500412]

>>16500115
How does the first answer cast doubt on God being omnibenevolent? It is known in faitht hat one cannot truly understand God because of our own limitations as humans, just like a dog cannot understand all of a human's actions. To put it in perspective, maybe your dog yelps when you get it vaccinated or shove a pill down his throat, or don't let him gobble up all the food he cant eat, and maybe from his perspective, he does not know why you would hurt him that way. Apply the same logic to your relationship with God, or so that argument would say
The second one is a call to duty, a wake-up call if you want to put it that way. Like it or not, many people live in isolation from what goes on outside their communities, and may think that they live in the land of milk and honey (I'm sure you've met such people), and the suffering of others lets us know that it is not the case, and lets us work on our empathy and charitability
>consequence of humanity's quest to dominate nature
Some are, not all of them. As for why others suffer, you would have a discussion on ethics and morality: If you reap the benefits of natural conquest and exploitation done by others are you complicit in it? Are you complicit in the exploitation of natural resources if it enables you to live the lifestyle you pursue? If your house was built by slaves does that makes you complicit in their suffering? Those questions are irrelevant to this conversation however
>most ailments can be offset by living a virtuous lifestyle (not smoking, moderate drinking, healthy diet, etc.).
Some would consider being born with a natural terminal illness of built-in enthropy, for the only thing that's assured in life is death itself. People who suffer from ailments because of others are indeed tragic and deserving of empathy, but was it God who told the mother to neglect her child? Was it God who told your brother to smoke? Those are the actions of man, whom God loves so much that he gave them free will so that they may experience the bliss of a virtious life (which I've already mentioned). For more on God and free will read "On Free Will" by St. Augustine of Hippo

[Anonymous No.16500420]

>>16499194
But if he's all-knowing and all-powerful, why can't he just create perfect contraptions every time?
I don't see why we would have to be "tested" if he already knows the outcome.

[Anonymous No.16500476]

>>16488093
Easy. God is evil

[Anonymous No.16500748]

>>16500412
The first answer I guess does not cast doubt by itself, but it does not provide any assurance that God is omnibenevolent. An appeal to our ignorance of potential positive effects of events that seem negative to us is not very convincing and still, again, provides no assurance that they exist without needing faith.
If you keep coming back to that, then I guess that is the ultimate answer (albeit one with no reason to believe in) -- to simply have faith that somehow this terrible world is actually one created by an omnibenevolent supreme being we cannot understand where all negative events are not actually negative, no matter how much that seems to be the case. I can't argue with that when one assumes it is impossible to do entirely.
The second answer I would not imagine you would say is a worthwhile trade-off and neither would I. If it is not meant to be or if it is just a small part, it is not massively relevant, I think.
>Some are, not all of them
So to ones that are not, how are they justified if God is supposedly omnibenevolent?
Also, the punishment here is not clearly a fair one to me, especially if you are merely complicit. Plenty of people who do suffer from them are not even complicit, even then.
>Some would consider being born with a natural terminal illness of built-in enthropy, for the only thing that's assured in life is death itself.
I do not see how that is relevant or how it is a possible justification. I did not just mean terminal illnesses, too. Consider a child born in the past with Schizophrenia in a place where no cure was known. It would have a terrible life to the fault of nobody.
>People who suffer from ailments because of others are indeed tragic and deserving of empathy
I mentioned many ailments that came about by accident from bad luck and/or lack of knowledge to the fault of nobody. People are not acting evil for these ailments to come about, so an appeal to the free will of humans here is not relevant, I do not believe.

[Anonymous No.16500775]

>>16500476
Christians do not want to admit God is not omnibenevolent and especially do not want to admit He is evil (not to say He is either of those). The same is true for plenty of other religious people or anyone else who believes God is supreme, as in He is omnibenevolent, among other qualities. That is a common way He is conceptualized and thus this becomes a problem that is relevant to a lot of people.
>>16499399
How is that relevant?
>>16496173
Why would works need to be done in the first place if God was omnibenevolent? Why did God let the world get as bad as it is now if you assume that it could be better?

[Anonymous No.16500893]

There is no god and life is clearly shit. Why does anyone convince themselves otherwise? Athiest or not

[Anonymous No.16500928]

>>16500775
My question wasn't really related. I just didn't want to shit up the board by making another thread.

[Anonymous No.16500967]

>>16488093
>Is he is able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent
Does not apply in the common sense, and in the sense in which it does apply it is tautological.
For there to be manifestation at all, it is necessary that there also be the bad. The pure Good is itself beyond the order of manifestation, and indeed beyond all duality.
To speak of any will whatsoever presupposes a duality (which is, from an absolute standpoint, illusory, however), thus presupposing good and bad properly understood. Which is to say that God is to the exact degree malevolent as he is volent.
But this is not what the cringe atheist means when he says malevolent, therefore it does not follow that God is malevolent.

[Anonymous No.16500993]

>>16500893
cuz if they did they end up like you. I'll pray for you

[Anonymous No.16500997]

>>16488093
muh mysterious ways, just like every other argument that destroys their shitty fanfic of a religion

[Anonymous No.16501002]

>>16492036
>cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
>Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
>In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Genesis 3)
Man is created as mediator between Heaven and Earth. When he does this properly, Earth becomes the proper host of the heavenly, and the result is Paradise. It is from his failing to mediate between Heaven and Earth that the things listed above, which by extension include also natural disasters, result, as Earth ceases to properly host him.

[Anonymous No.16501030]

>>16500748
The first tenet of any religion is faith: To believe in that which we cannot verify by ourselves. If you want definite proof of what God is or isn't, then you're never gonna get an answer
For everything else, read any theological treatises that deal with the aftermath of the Portugal earthquake, I cannot answer that because I've not read any of those texts, but if you did, at the very least you'd understand a similar argument

[Anonymous No.16501048]

>>16490943
He can't create men with free will at all if he knows what we'll get up to.

[Anonymous No.16501057]

>>16495216
>he has deliberately added suffering to human lives
Yes. That's the point.

[Anonymous No.16501079]

>>16495216
>>paradise
>If he hasn't done this
Well he has according to the Bible, so..

[Anonymous No.16501082]

>>16488093
God doesnt exist. Only an ideal of god - the best virtues of mankind.

[Anonymous No.16501091]

>>16500775
>He is evil
The only way you can maintain the idea that the monotheist God is evil is by a deist framework. Which is garbage. You're free to consider God evil, but you're rendering literally everything else, including yourself, evil as well.

[Anonymous No.16501206]

>>16501030
>The first tenet of any religion is faith
That is fair.
>If you want definite proof of what God is or isn't, then you're never gonna get an answer
I don't want definite proof, but I obviously have found the human rationalizations of the terrible things in the world to be not adequate. If you believe the rationalization behind God letting things that seem terrible to happen is something we cannot comprehend, why would you ever try to rationalize it? Why would some things God let happen make some sense to humans for at least some of them, but in similar cases, the rationalization is just to appeal to faith that the there was an adequate one there, just one we cannot see easily if at all? It is very bizarre and appears to me to just be a cop-out whenever someone realizes their human explanation for God is inadequate (obviously that feeling is not an adequate counter-argument).
>if you did, at the very least you'd understand a similar argument
How do you know that I would understand a similar argument if you presumably don't know what arguments they made? If they made similar arguments to the ones you made, I don't really want to read all that, as it would be remarkably incomplete. Do you know anything specifically to read?
>>16501091
I don't believe God is evil. I believe either that He doesn't exist, He is not supreme, or that He is supreme but there is no way for me to ever see that.
>The only way you can maintain the idea that the monotheist God is evil is by a deist framework
Why?
>You're free to consider God evil, but you're rendering literally everything else, including yourself, evil as well.
How so?
>>16501057
Then He is not omnibenevolent, correct?
>>16501079
One could easily argue He took it away for inadequate reasons, making Him not omnibenevolent. Or that He has no reason to punish all humans coming after the first ones, so He is not omnibenevolent.
>>16501082
That is not an adequate explanation to most Christians.

[Anonymous No.16501223]

>>16493270
>>16493486
>>16493629
>>16493914
>>16493996
>>16494202
>>16494367
>>16494389
>>16495256
>>16496087
>>16500015
>>16500115
>>16500748
>>16500775
>>16501206
why don't people care that this faggot is constantly avatarfagging

[Anonymous No.16501234]

>>16499236
Does that mean that any institution claiming to represent Christianity should be disbanded, such as the Church?

[Anonymous No.16501248]

>>16501206
>I don't believe God is evil.
Earlier on...
>>Christians do not want to admit God is not omnibenevolent and especially do not want to admit He is evil
You're objecting to your own way of phrasing lol

>>The only way you can maintain the idea that the monotheist God is evil is by a deist framework
>Why?
>How so?
Because goodness (just like being as a property) is granted by him. If he is evil, then he grants none of it. Unless he's a deist in which case he just kinda sets things up and they can develop 'goodness' in whichever way they please unrelated to him completely.

>One could easily argue He took [paradise] away for inadequate reasons
Not very easily, no. He made one single rule with one explicit consequence for one single tree in the entire garden.
>He has no reason to punish all humans coming after the first ones
The very idea of descendants is that they partake in both the bodies, minds and actions of their ancestors. I don't know how you'd like the world to be set up so that kids exist with no causual relationship to their parents.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16501263]

>>16501223
Why don’t people care about the wojack and frog poster avatar fagging?

[Anonymous No.16501358]

>>16501206
>Then He is not omnibenevolent, correct?
That's just some dumb thing humans have placed upon Him, so okay, He's not, big whoop.

[Anonymous No.16501426]

>>16501248
Reread it >>16500775
>not to say He is either of those
I meant that Christians do not want to admit God is omniscient and they do not want to admit God is evil. I am not saying God is evil and I am not saying that He is not omniscient, and I wrote that in my post.
>Not very easily, no. He made one single rule with one explicit consequence for one single tree in the entire garden.
I wouldn't agree it is adequately justified, still. If you give someone a warning and say what the punishment is, that doesn't mean you can do anything to them.
>The very idea of descendants is that they partake in both the bodies, minds and actions of their ancestors. I don't know how you'd like the world to be set up so that kids exist with no causual relationship to their parents.
I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Do you only mean descendants if they're the descendants of the first humans? If so, why? If not, what do you mean? Should children of criminals be tried?
>>16501358
Then that goes against the way God is usually conceptualized, which could be fine for you, but it is not fine for a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.16501448]

>>16488093
Evil doesn’t exist, just the way you internally react to external elements

[Anonymous No.16501460]

>>16501448
See >>16493136
>Are you a moral nihilist? Do you accept that "goodness" exists? If you do, how could "goodness" exist while "evil" does not? If you don't believe in "goodness," then that is fair, I guess, but then God could not be omnibenevolent, which essentially entails conceding to the problem.

[Anonymous No.16501608]

>>16490788
t. leibniz

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16503001]

Four more posts!

[Anonymous No.16503014]

>>16503001
>mfw won't be able to reply to the remaining posts because I have to go to bed

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16503026]

>>16503014

[Anonymous No.16503037]

>>16488231
>come back to lit after like a year
>this tripfag is still here
i fucking hate you dude

[Anonymous No.16503042]

>>16488456
freedom is freedom you fucking retard. if there was some undeniable proof of god it wouldn't be as free a decision but seeing as you don't believe in him it's perfect freedom and you choose hell of your own completely free will. you 100% deserve it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16503055]

>>16503042
You’re an idiot.

[Anonymous No.16503062]

God is omnipotent.
The Buddha is omniscient.

[Anonymous No.16503063]

>>16500476
Based.

[Anonymous No.16503143]

>>16501223
Because I think Tomoko is cute.

[Anonymous No.16503193]

>>16488093
Both suffering and pleasure are good. I would loathe any God that removed conflict from the world.

[Anonymous No.16503848]

>>16501234
If you bring up the church, you can even forget what I wrote before, because the church and Christianity in general must not even exist. Jesus was on a mission to reform the Jewish religion, becoming the supreme deity of goyim was not his interest...

[Anonymous No.16503859]

>>16488093
I used to think this was deep in highschool. If God were to prevent evil he'd have to prevent mankind from existing.

[Anonymous No.16503875]

>>16492036
That's not what evil is you fucking moron. If you weren't such a fucking braindead retard you could've picked turning the pharaoh's heart to stone as an actual example of an act of God that could be considered evil, as it is deliberate, but you chose "muh natural disasters" because your concept of evil is the same as that of a toddler's.

[Anonymous No.16503959]

>>16488102
Natural disasters are not natural if god exists, because god specifically orchestrated a world in which the disaster would happen. They are planned disasters, disasters made by god himself.

On free will. God could easily prevent the evils man causes to man without violating anyone's will. Suppose a victim was about to be stabbed. An omnipotent god could intervene in multiple ways without violating the will of the victim or an aggressor about to stab him. For example, he could offer to transport the victim away from the aggressor or perhaps give the victim the ability to grow through solid objects, making stabbing ineffectual. This would represent an expansion of abilities for the victim that they could freely choose to take advantage of. The aggressor doesn't get to kill the person like he wanted to, but this isn't a violation of his free will anymore than someone telling you "no" is a violation of your free will when you ask them on a date. The aggressor used their free will to attack the victim with the intention of harming them and the victim used their free will to avoid the harm. The truth is that a god consistent with reality wouldn't care about free will. If anything, he'd just be an anti interventionist god. No good could come of it though. He's omnipotent, so any good that results out of his anti interventionist stance could have been achieved without causing the harm that results. He's omniscient, so it's not like he learns anything about our strength of character when seeing what we do with our free will. He knew our character from the start.

[Anonymous No.16503970]

>>16503959
give the victim the ability to go through solid objects*

[Anonymous No.16503972]

>>16503959
>b-but my Diablo 2 rng isn't actually random because it was specifically orchestrated to function within certain limits
gay

[Anonymous No.16503990]

>>16503972
Why create a world with randomized disasters when you could have created a world without them? Creating a world where there's a 50% chance of an earthquake every day doesn't make you a better person just because you left a 50% chance it won't happen.

[Anonymous No.16503994]

>>16503990
If you want to live in a world without risk commit yourself.

[Anonymous No.16504013]

>>16503994
Didn't answer the question so I'll rephrase.
Why does god like causing suffering for no good reason? God should be smart enough to understand the law of large numbers.

[Anonymous No.16504025]

>>16504013
You need suffering to exist to be able to have enjoyment you moron. You have a heroin addict's mentality.

[Anonymous No.16504047]

>>16504025
What enjoyment results from sudden infant death syndrome? From someone dying in a flood, fire, lightning strike, earthquake, or tsunami?

[Anonymous No.16504052]

>>16504047
Loss makes you more appreciative of what you have. You're an actual retard.

[Anonymous No.16504108]

>>16504052
Damn, so if I rape a bitch and kill her husband, guess I should get a trophy for teaching her how valuable her marriage was.
God basically gets to use this logic but obscured through "natural disasters."

[Anonymous No.16504156]

>>16504108
You're fucking stupid. I don't even believe in God you're just such a fucking rat I couldn't help but point it out. You're incapable of seeing the world as anything but "good" and "bad". Loss and suffering are unavoidable and significant parts of life and they play a significant part when it comes to how appreciative you are of what life you have. If you can't live in a world with suffering I suggest you kill yourself and save everyone the trouble instead of hearing your annoying faggy whataboutism whining about it on the internet like a fucking teenager.

[Anonymous No.16504240]

>>16504156
>You're fucking stupid.
You love hinging on these attacks on intellect while making completely vapid points.
>I don't even believe in God you're just such a fucking rat I couldn't help but point it out.
Cool, I don't care.
>Loss and suffering are unavoidable
Factually incorrect. God could make all suffering avoidable. You want to argue that him causing suffering is morally valuable, not that it can't be avoided when there's an omnipotent being. Now try again: Go
>and significant parts of life and they play a significant part when it comes to how appreciative you are of what life you have.
Sometimes suffering can lead to happiness. Duh. Does it always? And does it always do so in a way that outstrips the suffering caused? Of course not. This argument only justifies suffering instrumentally, not as an end in itself. The justification falls apart right when suffering is no longer coupled with a resulting joy.
>If you can't live in a world with suffering
I can and do live in a world with suffering, and will do so for quite some time. I am allowed to say my views on what is a morally preferable world while recognizing that I do not need to have what is morally preferable, because preferability =/= necessity. But I am also not the person who created a world where infants die of cancer with no conceivable benefit to the infant.
>I suggest you kill yourself
Suggestion noted and tossed to the waste basket.
>and save everyone the trouble instead of hearing your annoying faggy whataboutism whining about it on the internet like a fucking teenager.
Define my "whataboutism." I often find people throw that term around when they want to avoid having a hypocrisy exposed.

[Anonymous No.16504262]

>>16504240
>You want to argue that him causing suffering is morally valuable
No I don't you insufferable fucking retard. It's necessary.
>I am allowed to say my views on what is a morally preferable world while recognizing that I do not need to have what is morally preferable, because preferability =/= necessity.
>I bitch and moan about things I can't change, and know I can't change because I'm a faggot and I have histrionic personality disorder
>Define my "whataboutism." I often find people throw that term around when they want to avoid having a hypocrisy exposed.
>b-buh what about dead babies and rape if i kill babies and rape women then that's the same as a hurricane hitting Florida

[Anonymous No.16504289]

>>16504262
>No I don't you insufferable fucking retard. It's necessary.
God is so weak that he's unable to create beings capable of exercising free will and who can experience joy without suffering, got it.
Lol, I know you're arguing for a position you don't actually believe, but try to understand what "omnipotence" means before you go spazzing out.
>>I bitch and moan about things I can't change, and know I can't change because I'm a faggot and I have histrionic personality disorder
Not really lad. If something I don't like happens that I can't avoid, I just accept that's how things are. If I'm able to avoid it, I avoid it. The fact that you have to resort to inferences about my character in order to feel like you're making a good point speaks volumes about your ability to make cogent arguments.
>>b-buh what about dead babies and rape if i kill babies and rape women then that's the same as a hurricane hitting Florida
If I kill someone by creating a hurricane (in this case, by being god) or I kill someone with a knife, where's the significant difference that makes killing via hurricane morally permissible but via knife not?

[Anonymous No.16504329]

>>16504289
>God is so weak that he's unable to create beings capable of exercising free will and who can experience joy without suffering, got it.
Massive stretch to just pull this out your ass. Pseud move. Might as well just start samefagging if you're going to make this much up.
>got it
You're a snarky faggot with an attitude problem. Nothing you say hold any value because of it.
>If I kill someone by creating a hurricane (in this case, by being god) or I kill someone with a knife, where's the significant difference that makes killing via hurricane morally permissible but via knife not?
This is caveman logic. Your idea of God is Zeus literally hocking down lightning bolts. Already addressed this here >>16503972 You're so fucking incredibly dense you're incapable of thinking of God as being "hands off" even though it's blatantly stated that the God of the bible takes time to rest.

[Anonymous No.16504364]

>>16504329
>Massive stretch to just pull this out your ass. Pseud move. Might as well just start samefagging if you're going to make this much up.
Is the god we're talking about the creator of the universe?
Is the god we're talking about an all powerful agent?
Then why does he n e e d to create a world where people suffer in order to find experience maximal joy?
Answer: he doesn't, or if he does, he's not only "pretty powerful" and not all-powerful.
>You're a snarky faggot with an attitude problem. Nothing you say hold any value because of it.
I'm fine with having a conversation where we treat each other with respect. You have done me no such favors, however, and I'm not nice unconditionally, just like you aren't. In short, stop being a bitch who tone polices and try to make cogent points. I haven't found any as of yet.
>your linked post
Also already addressed. If god isn't retarded, he understands the law of large numbers and knows the consequences of making disasters a randomized event with probability p with multiple trials.
>that the God of the bible takes time to rest
I don't care about a god that requires rest in order to recharge his battery, because clearly the thread was about a god who's supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So bringing up such a deity is off topic.

[Anonymous No.16504381]

>>16504364
>Is the god we're talking about the creator of the universe?
>Is the god we're talking about an all powerful agent?
>Then why does he n e e d to create a world where people suffer in order to find experience maximal joy?
>Answer: he doesn't, or if he does, he's not only "pretty powerful" and not all-powerful.
See you took my advice and just started arguing with yourself.
>I'm fine with having a conversation where we treat each other with respect.
No you aren't you fucking annoying faggot. You format your posts like a bitchy teenage girl.
>Also already addressed. If god isn't retarded, he understands the law of large numbers and knows the consequences of making disasters a randomized event with probability p with multiple trials.
>Implying an all powerful being should give a shit about randomized events totally inconsequential to him
>requires rest
The God of the bible does not require rest and is clearly the God in question when it comes to this overdone 2000+ year old line of argumentation thought up by some fucking dago, posited by faggy attention seeking highschool dropouts.

[Anonymous No.16504423]

>>16490943
Then it wouldn't be a man

[Anonymous No.16504440]

>>16504381
>See you took my advice and just started arguing with yourself.
So just to check, you believe that an omnipotent creator is literally unable to create life that is able to feel joy without suffering? Lol.
>more tone whining/bitching/crying/moaning
>>Implying an all powerful being should give a shit about randomized events totally inconsequential to him
You're like a child that has to be guided step by step, otherwise you'll fall over and get a concussion.
So I originally asked you to find the significant difference between me stabbing someone with a knife and god killing someone with a hurricane. You said god creates the parameters for random disasters but does not directly enact them just before it occurs. Fair enough, there's a difference there. But it's obviously not a significant difference. Let's say I purposefully enacted biological warfare on a population by spreading a virus. For any given person, there is only a 5% chance they will die once they contract it. And let's say given the population, the expected amount of dead will amount in the thousands.
Is this a morally permissible act?
Of course not. Introducing an element of probability doesn't help justify the murder in this scenario or in the randomized disaster scenario. For another example, if I plant bombs on mountains near roads where people travel, I have done something wrong because I can reasonably expect that someone will eventually get hurt if I repeat this behavior long enough. So again, where's the significant difference between these scenarios? I'm expecting you to spaz out and just declare they are different because reasons.
>The God of the bible does not require rest
Cool, then this god likes to cause suffering for no good reason.
>and is clearly the God in question when it comes to this overdone 2000+ year old line of argumentation
Don't care about the christian god. It's just another god that's usually purported to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. This is a general argument that pre-dates christianity. Why are you obsessed with chrisitanity? You one of those self hating atheists that desperately wishes the bible was true?

[Anonymous No.16504486]

>>16504440
>So just to check
Listen, shit for brains. You're sick in the head. You made up some brand new personal God in your own fucking head and applied your own gay "moral values" to it so you could argue against your own creation. Then you insisted that this fucking unestablished figment of your imagination had to have a hand in everything and made the some of the most disconnected arguments imaginable like "randomly occurring natural disasters are the same as manmade suffering because God HAS to give a shit about me". Then you decided you STILL didn't have enough control of the parameters and just started arguing with yourself, putting words in my mouth, and building up some fucking boogeyman in your head. This isn't healthy behavior. Take a break from the internet for a while. Have fun fantasizing arguing about your deviantart OC God with somebody you made up in your head you fucking egomaniac.

[Anonymous No.16504544]

>>16504486
>You made up some brand new personal God in your own fucking head and applied your own gay "moral values" to it so you could argue against your own creation.
Hey, you're a moral nihilist? Awesome! Then why did you start off trying to justify suffering god causes by pretending it's actually for our own good? LMAO. Could've saved us a lot of time by just saying, "hey, god causes suffering with no conceivable benefit to the people he's harming. But morality isn't real anyway, so just fucking deal with it."
>"randomly occurring natural disasters are the same as manmade suffering because God HAS to give a shit about me".
I get it, you're stupid. You don't know what an argument by analogy is. You literally lack the ability to think abstractly. Take some time to pull up the wiki article on it and how it applies in legal and moral discussions and maybe we can pick up where we left off.
>Then you decided you STILL didn't have enough control of the parameters
The random parameters that cause natural disasters? How much I can control them is irrelevant. You're the one who's been arguing with a fictional version of me who's obsessed with anything that's outside of my control.
>Have fun fantasizing arguing about your deviantart OC God with somebody you made up in your head you fucking egomaniac.
I was discussing a god that's omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and who created the universe and would therefore be able to create humans as they are. Apparently you weren't talking about this kind of god! Sorry that we had a misunderstanding. Have a nice day my rad lad.

[Anonymous No.16504580]

>>16504544
>misunderstanding
Shut the fuck up you snarky fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.16504585]

>>16504580
Hey, love you my dude. God bless.

[Anonymous No.16504588]

>>16504585
I genuinely hope you and everyone you care about suffer the most unimaginable pain forever.

[Anonymous No.16504633]

>>16488093
Man is made in God’s image.
God has free will.
God can’t sin only because he’s at the top of the hierarchy and he has no equal so he has no morality to consider.
Humans are next to nothing.
Humans have equal beings.
Humans have morality to consider.

[Anonymous No.16504670]

I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

[Anonymous No.16505116]

>>16504633
Can you connect those together such that they answer the problem? I don't see how it answers it.
>he has no equal so he has no morality to consider.
That does not follow, exactly. Doesn't He still have to consider morality with respect to how he treats His creation?
>he has no morality to consider.
If you insist on that, then if God has no morality to consider, how could He be said to be meaningfully omnibenevolent?
>>16504423
Surely God could form a man similar enough for it to be satisfying to be that man. I don't understand how this change would form a meaningful difference or perhaps one that would make it a deal-breaker.
>>16503859
>If God were to prevent evil he'd have to prevent mankind from existing.
Why, exactly? What do you think about >>16503959? And that doesn't consider why God lets natural disasters happen.
>>16503875
See >>16493136
>I don't like this being a problem of "evil" because some people think that doesn't include "natural evils," if you will, but in there you could just declare it a problem of "bad things happening when God is supposedly supreme," basically >>16488153.
A problem still exists even if you define your terms in a way we might disagree.
>>16503193
Do you think you could live in any situation and still could have that view, that suffering is good? Conflict can definitely be good or fun to deal with, but at the very least, some of the most horrific tragedies of the world do not appear like they benefit any of those who suffered or what was gained did not seem worthwhile at all.
>>16503062
God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This creates a problem when we consider how terrible this world is and why God seemingly does nothing about it.