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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 601x508, 2f7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17092785 No.17092785[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

how do you argue against someone who says "if god why bad things happen?"

>> No.17092793

>>17092785
two words m8

FREE
WILL

>> No.17092796

>>17092785
>>17092793
GOD"S WILL

>> No.17092798

I guess I'd ask them why they take it as a premise that God existing would contradict bad things happening. It seems to betray a lack of familiarity with the material. Have they read Job?

>> No.17092801
File: 1.18 MB, 2048x1152, sneed christmas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17092801

look them in the eyes and say sneed

>> No.17092812

>>17092793
>*gets cancer*
>"y-you only got cancer because of free will bro!!*

>> No.17092813

>>17092785
If not god why good things happen

>> No.17092825

>>17092039

>> No.17092830

>>17092812
Yes, environment and lifestyle are huge contributors to most forms of cancer.

>> No.17092831

>>17092812
OH NO I GOT CANCER AND WILL SUFFER FOR A BIT AND THEN GO TO HEAVEN

>um acktually dude im an athiest so I would go to hell

your own fault then lol

>> No.17092838

>>17092785
You quite literally can't.

>> No.17092844

>>17092785
The idea that bad things happening is the end of the world or whatever is a bad take, to be honest
>if God is realm then why do babies die???
Because death isn’t necessarily a bad thing

>> No.17092851
File: 6 KB, 200x200, microwave.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17092851

>>17092785
>if god real why life hard

>> No.17092857

>>17092785
because we ate the apple

>> No.17092860

>>17092785
"You seriously think you're smarter than God? Logically, how can a mere human as yourself comprehend the actions of a such a vastly superior being?"
That should shut up logic dicksucking renditions

>> No.17092866

>>17092860
Yes I do because I didn't let the devil roam free and have to kill millions of people because of my fuck ups

>> No.17092869

>>17092785
>Or since people ask about the problem of evil or suffering in the world—“Why, if God is both good and created the world, do we have such evil and suffering in it?”—and they are, wisely, not satisfied with any of the answers different Christians have historically given, that just proves for them that Christianity is not “true.” But the better idea is that Christianity was never “supposed” to be a philosophy in the first place. Christianity, understood correctly, should not claim to offer intellectually satisfying answers to all intellectual questions, even legitimate intellectual questions.
Christianity can't answer that question, in short.

>> No.17092872

tell them that if God obeyed their wish to eliminate all evil human beings would cease to exist instantly

>> No.17092882

>>17092860
>renditions
Redditors. Fuck autocorrect

>> No.17092885

>>17092872
they are probably an antinatalist loser tho, won't work

>> No.17092890

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLZ6zrPy6oo

>> No.17092894

>>17092882
>phoneposter calls other Redditors
nice

>> No.17092895

>>17092785
If no God why good thing happen

>> No.17092900

>>17092844
what about a baby that is slowly eaten by a bear

>> No.17092903

>>17092798
I love Job but it doesn't give a satisfactory answer

>> No.17092907

>>17092866
Part of God's plan, arrogant brainlet

>> No.17092915

>>17092907
pretty crap plan then

>> No.17092934

>>17092894
Only redditors care about trivial irrelevant shit like phoneposting
The true giveaways are reddit spacing and not being racist

>> No.17092936

>>17092785
Believe in a god that's not a Jew on a stick and this question becomes trivial.

>> No.17092939

>>17092785
Because of you, all of you sinners, God gave you the ability to hurt Him, a show of ultimate love and trust, and you still choose to hurt Him and his creation.

>> No.17092940

>>17092915
4u

>> No.17092942

>>17092915
Says the sheep to the shepard

>> No.17092952

>>17092785
"Have you seen the Leviathan?"

>> No.17092959

>>17092812
Cancer isn't evil anymore than a cold, a thunder storm, or a wolf, it simply is. Why such things can exist is a good question but it has nothing to do with evil

>> No.17092991
File: 187 KB, 720x496, 015FBBC2-25B2-418A-B50F-27C0946EE73D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17092991

>>17092860
>”You don’t understand, he’s real but he’s so fucking epic that, like, we can’t even begin to think about him dude! Trust me!”

>> No.17092994

>>17092785
>if no god, no things “good” or “bad,” only things.

>> No.17093001
File: 32 KB, 450x323, spinoza_3-866384980.jpg(mediaclass-list-image.e236162578feb619104a8b70b221afe1aa6b7c0d).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17093001

>>17092785
The bad is just as divine as the good.

>> No.17093025
File: 156 KB, 1536x864, final_5da832b18b9b730013cf18d0_754186.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17093025

>>17092991
To soothe your little reddit tantrum maybe it would be good if you thought of God like some sort of cool alien species from an avengers star wars in a nutshell video or a advanced ai or something, like you know how reddit atheist citizen epic scientists are always saying that aliens and ai could be incomprehensibly more intelligent and different than us? Its like that

>> No.17093037

>>17093025
No you goober, I don’t want to think like that. You’re the one who has to.

>> No.17093049

>>17092903
I just give it as an example from the Old Testament to illustrate that God was never premised as not allowing bad things to happen. Quite the reverse, God has allowed bad things to happen from the beginning. So I dont know why someone would ask "If God, why bad things happen." It seems to be implying a contradiction based on a misreading of God.

>> No.17093050

>>17092959
All you've done is played a semantic game here. Let's grant that some terrible ills that befall people are in a category other than "evil". Why does this category exist? The theodicy problem is entirely unchanged, you've just changed the terminology so you can chalk up a rhetorical win.

>> No.17093053

>>17092793
If he can stop bad things and won’t, then why should I worship him? If he can’t, then how is he god? The threat of hell seems to be the only reason, and I don’t want to follow a religion based on threats.

>> No.17093059

God set up the dominos and tipped the first one is all.

>> No.17093061

>>17093049
>I dont know why someone would ask "If God, why bad things happen."
Because most Christians hold the false belief that God is benevolent.

>> No.17093062

>>17093025
>you know how reddit atheist citizen epic scientists are always saying that aliens and ai could be incomprehensibly
I don't use reddit so how would I know that, you redditor?

>> No.17093065

>>17093053
To say that you would only worship a being that allowed only good things to happen is inherently a contradiction because nothing could be good in the absence of bad. A God that allowed no bad would, in so doing, also allow no good. It would be a morally inert universe.

>> No.17093071

>>17093053
>>17092890

>> No.17093079

>>17093065
Ok ... so there exists some moral principle that God can’t control, i.e. that’s outside God’s purview

>> No.17093098

>>17093079
That's not an accurate summation of what I said. God allows both bad and good to occur.

>> No.17093104

>>17093037
You're the one acting irrationally. There's not logical fault between the premises 1. Bad things happen and 2.) God exists
It's a misconception to believe otherwise. You can't argue against the actions of a Supreme being, you can't even really infer intent behind those actions unless that intent is expressed by the being itself.
Logically speaking, there's no reason to believe in God, but that should be where the argument against religion stops. But when you start trying to argue from within the context of God's actions and the bible you fail, it's as pathetic and meaningless as some fat need arguing whether or not superman could have realistically beat batman.

>> No.17093116

>>17093098
Well
>A God that allowed no bad would, in so doing, also allow no good. It would be a morally inert universe.
Directly Implies that God is bound by some moral principle outside his purview or was bound by such when creating our universe.

>> No.17093123

>>17093116
I dont see how that's implied, sorry.

>> No.17093131

>>17092959
based
>>17093050
>terrible ills
Terrible by your estimation. In a situation where God exists, your estimation is largely irrelevant.

>> No.17093141

>>17092785
>"if god why bad things happen?"
In short, they don't, only things not sufficiently good by our arbitrary criteria happen.
>I shouldn't have gotten cancer
Says who, bro?

>> No.17093149
File: 163 KB, 550x847, pangloss_large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17093149

>>17092785
>We're living in the best of worlds

>> No.17093154

>>17093104
Yeah and what you’re doing is selling me the religious snake oil again.
P1. Suppose a supreme being exists
P2. Either his morality is knowable or he is unknowable
P3. If it is knowable we can criticize his actions
P4. If it is unknowable there is no reason to suppose we ought to believe in him
“He is unknowable” is snakeoil because you proceed to state things about him so that I comply. If his morality is unkowable to us we may as well not believe.

>> No.17093172

>>17093123
Ok so the statement “if he allows no bad he must allow no good” takes for granted that no bad implies no good. If this is universally the case, independently of God, then there exists a universal rule outside of God. If god can choose to disobey this rule then we’re back to “well why didn’t he”

>> No.17093173

>>17093154
>P3. If it is knowable we can criticize his actions
Not him, but it seems you conflate here "we could criticize" with "we can criticize". You could if you knew them and managed to navigate them appropriately. But you likely don't. So you can't.

>> No.17093198

>>17093173
Sure. That’s pedantic but you’re not wrong.

>> No.17093202

>>17092857
I LITERALLY SOLVED IT RIGHT IN THIS POST RETARDS STOP ARGUING

>> No.17093208

>>17093053
Only if you knew how much of a MONSTER OF INIQUITY YOU HAVE BEEN, and the worst of your crimes, though, criminal you have been, is that you haven’t had the good grace to see the iniquity you have committed against a HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS GOD, AND IS HE NOT DESERVING OF THOSE OF WHOM HE HAS DIED FOR, HE IS CREATOR OF ALL THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH AND THE FULLNESS THEREOF. YOU ARE HIS AND BY DENYING HIM YOU ARE DENYING THE ACTS OF LOVE THAT HE HAS DONE FOR YOU, AS HE HAD HIS SON DIE FOR THE ATONEMENT OF WICKED MEN WHO DIDNT DESERVE IT.

>> No.17093217

>>17093172
The reason for the statement that without bad there can be no good is that with any definition there is also a negative. If there are "large" things there must be "small" things, because they are those things which are outside of the set "large." It's the same with good and bad: bad is what is not good, good is what is not bad. You couldnt just have good without bad. You could say hypothetically that there might be an inert world with no good or bad, but God breathed those words into creation, so we dont live in that world. Therefore, since there is good, there is bad, and in no way does this contradict the notion of God as laid out in the Old Testament

>> No.17093219

>>17092785
You could say that god is not good or not always good?

>> No.17093227

>>17092793
Isn't free will and everything else macro or micro God's doing? Any series of events would be his doing right?

>> No.17093234

>>17093154
But he is unknowable bro.
> we may as well not believe.
Like I said, logically speaking there is no reason to believe or not to believe. But if you are arguing from within the scope of the Bible (i.e. criticizing the INTERNAL consistency of it), you are doing a fools errand. The Bible is internally watertight because of the unknowability of God.

>> No.17093248

THE PURPOSE OF MAN IS NOT FOR HIS OWN PLEASURE, OR TO MAXIMIZE HIS PLEASURE, BUT FOR THE GLORY OF GOD!

>> No.17093249

Because giving a metaphysical being human traits like empathy is fucking retarded

>> No.17093300

>>17093227
Not him, but to use an analogy, you're free to choose whether or not to pull the trigger, but whether the gun fires is God's. So both yes and no - it is his doing, but it is also yours.

>> No.17093322

>>17093249
Christianity in general is too anthropocentric

>> No.17093331

>>17092785

Which God are we talking about? For example, if we are talking about the Christian God, there is no reason to believe that God intends to end all suffering in return for belief. God is not genie that gives you the things you ask for in return for doing something. If you read the bible and come this understanding (and to be fair, many do.) you don't understand the text. Certainly, you won't have a functioning society if people reject God, but there's no reason why, if in a society where most people follow God and you do not, you couldn't avoid most suffering by exploiting the system. A close reading of the text will provide many examples of such. It also provides examples of people who did nothing wrong and suffer any way. Jesus exists an example of a man who is literally does nothing wrong and he gets crucified. The world is shit. It sucks to be here. There isn't a good reason not to just end it all because no matter how good you are at avoiding pain you can't avoid all of it, and even if you could you will still die. Certainly, there are examples of people who do not suffer because of their faith but again a close reading of the text will show that even these people do a lot of suffering, Looking closely you'll come to find that these people feel blessed not simply because they do not suffer but rather because they understand it is a miracle they did not suffer this one time. If you look even more carefully it's not a sense that God has stopped them from suffering but a sense that God has given their lives meaning. That's what God really offers people a sense that they exist for a reason, they everything they do has a purpose, If you do the right thing and no one notices or even if you are punished , if you get cancer out of nowhere, or someone wrongs you, God sees you and he gives a shit. Furthermore, you can fuck up your whole damned life and suddenly wake up one day and say to yourself enough, and even if the people around you don't forgive you ( and maybe who can blame them) God sees you and God sees you trying to fix things and he gives a shit and that matters. Also, on the other end of the situation when you see the world glorifying evil and there's nothing you are in a position to do about it, there's a sense that God will eventually short it out and that people in the end will get what they deserve. Anyway, sorry I didn't cite verses for you, but you might want to look especially at Job, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms to see what I am talking about, but I mean this idea is kind if everywhere. Really asking this question is a bit like asking why Captain Ahab would not stop trying to kill that damned whale. It's a good question, but it misses the point entirely.

>> No.17093358

>>17093322
That would probably be because it's los anthropos creating a system around their experiences. Like, what are the alternatives lol

>> No.17093379

>>17092785
It's arrogant to assume the nature of God. God is omnipotent, maker of everything in the world. To assume he only makes the good simple pretty things is to not understand that nature about God. God made the floods, destroyed Sodom, gave man the free will to do harm to another man, so how does saying "hurr Durr God makes bad things" contradict the Bible in any sense? Our idea of good and bad often just turns into our idea of vain self interest. Why would everything that God made be in the purpose of fulfilling our shallow goals?

Tldr: the people who make that argument have a child's view of religion, and project onto actual religious people

>> No.17093465

>>17093217
Aha so there are rules of “language”, something we might call “logic” that God is bound to. For example, the rules of language (logic) suggest that when there exist an A there must exist a not A, and God couldn’t have created a universe where this need not be the case. This constrains God to being bound by some arbitrary rules of logic that we thought up, like that when A exists, not A exists.

>> No.17093485

>>17093465
>that God is bound to
God is bound to nothing but himself. Anon was explaining how dichotomies work in this world.

>> No.17093496

>>17093465
I see, you have a monomaniacal fixation on demonstrating God to be "bound" and getting an "aha" moment. This fetish is getting in the way of your actually understanding other people's arguments. Too bad I guess. Disengaging.

>> No.17093519

>>17093234
Well that’s not even true. The Bible’s consistency is independent of the existence of God. We can criticize any books internal consistency without knowing whether the characters described are real, I meannthey usually aren’t in fiction.

>> No.17093535

>>17093485
Well apparently God is bound by these dichotomies. Why?

>> No.17093538

>>17093535
As previously stated, God is bound to nothing but himself. He chose to oppose those dichotomies in this world. When I meet him, I'll ask why.

>> No.17093541

>>17093496
All of the things that we can meaningfully talk about are bound by definitions. Of course I’m “monomaniacal” about that, just like Im monomaniacal about the truth

>> No.17093553

If no God why GOOD thing happen?

>> No.17093556

>>17093538
But he can’t create a world without the good/evil dichotomy, can he. Hence this dichotomy exists outside his omnipotence, and his omnipotence is therefore bound by this dichotomy. He can’t create a world that is only good and not bad, by your own admission

>> No.17093564

>>17093553
White men

>> No.17093573

>>17092812
Being born in China next to a toxic waste dump is free will

>> No.17093576

ITT retards who got memed into religion by the MDE guys and a circle of autists online think they can glibly dismiss the Euthyphro dilemma without giving it more than 30 seconds thought

>> No.17093581

>>17093556
>He can’t create a world that is only good and not bad, by your own admission
Neither me nor the anon you tried to 'gotcha' beforehand claim this. God is bound to nothing but himself. He chose to oppose those dichotomies in this world. When I meet him, I'll ask why.

>> No.17093583

Read the fucking bible you imbecile.

God is not your buzzfeed.

>> No.17093584

>>17093573
> toxic waste dumps pop into existence spontaneously and humanity is forced to live there by God
hmmm

>> No.17093593

>>17093379
It's a valid question if you're assuming god is both omnipotent and all-loving

>> No.17093599

>>17092785
Nothing bad has ever happened because everything happens according to the divine will

>> No.17093600

>>17092793
free will isn't innately good, in the same way we ask "what good is the freedom to be a slave to your vices?", what good is the free will to suffer? (something that actually has an innate quality to us as human, bad)

>> No.17093603

>>17093581
>A God that allowed no bad would, in so doing, also allow no good
He said exactly that. If he isn’t bound by anything but himself then why bad thing happen?

>> No.17093606

>>17093600
>what good is the free will to suffer?
If your only axiom is that pain is bad, it's no good at all. But it seems that is not the only axiom in theism.

>> No.17093612

>>17092785
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

>> No.17093620

>>17093584
but let's be clear it is the baby's fault for being born there

>> No.17093629

>>17093612
If you ever said that to my face I'd twist your nipples off on general principle.

>> No.17093630

>>17093603
Alright, I understood him differently, but you may argue he meant what you're saying. Again, if you're asking why this dichotomy does exist, I will for the third time reply "I'll ask him when I meet him."
You can go Kanye on me with "You ain't got the answers, man" and that's fine. I generally don't claim to have answers as to why the world is the way it is. But to be clear, God is bound to nothing but himself.

>> No.17093632
File: 240 KB, 1920x1080, 3D432F5E-745D-4C9F-BA5A-83B0AFD90BC1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17093632

I’ll try to share my personal view on god’s level of omnipotence. I think he has the potential to be omnipotent, but he refrains from it.

I see our universe as a 3D computer simulation, only that it was rendered instantaneously. People who are in the “real world” outside of the simulation could view this simulation whenever they want, see what they want (by scrolling and inspecting it), interact with the simulation, and go forward and backwards in time. This essentially gives him the standpoint of being a timeless.

God didn’t know what would happen when it rendered, but when it rendered, he gained access to it and became instantaneously timeless.

Our world’s eternity occurred within a brief speck of time in his world, like an entire movie being stored in a small CD.

This is definitely a stretch to others, as I’m sure you could stretch other religions until they make sense. However, I don’t care; it makes sense to me

>> No.17093642

>>17093620
Lmao what? No. It's the result of the will of whoever is responsible for the waste or those who chose to live there. The baby willed nothing. Free will is not an exclusively individualistic concept, there is actually free will in others as well.

>> No.17093645

>>17093630
If God were bound by himself, his essence would contain a contradiction. God is either unbounded or not infinite

>> No.17093657

>>17093645
>If God were bound by himself, his essence would contain a contradiction.
Not at all. All is bound to itself first and foremost.

>> No.17093671
File: 7 KB, 225x225, 1599675848449.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17093671

>>17092785
I don't do apologetics. Allahu Ekber.

>> No.17093688

>>17093606
>>17093606
what is the purpose of pain though? if he is an omniponent being, is it really inconceivable that there is no better reality which could have been given us? there are many qualities which give us joy,happiness, pleasure and fulfilment, what makes free will so good? even in the partial aspects, why not give us conscious structure which benefits us more, rather than make us prone to suffer, harm each other and be in a constant search for short happinesses? why alcoholism and addiction prone consciousness? there can be some good addictions, but what is the point of having bad addictions? and if you say overcoming hardship gives us fulfilment, why couldn't we have a conscious structure that gives us a stream of fulfilment and happiness? or a life at least more prone to it? there are people who don't even get a chance at life, die at birth or of disease before the age of 1, what was the point of that life, how good of a reality is it, when you can be born, be tortured and killed off for no reason, did Alfred Fish's victims live in a perfect reality? would you want to have lived one of their lives? I cannot conceive of a perfect god, creating the cycle of suffering of life, why not creature consciousnesses in a state of enlightenment or nirvana?

>> No.17093700

>>17093630
I like Kanye, but that’s not something I’m going to believe in, or that you should believe, for that matter.
“Our World exists, and kind of sucks in some ways. Suppose there is a being who created our World who is omnipotent. Because he is omnipotent, he could’ve made a much better world. I have no clue why he didn’t.
...
Therefore he is the supreme moral agent and exists and you should believe in him”
Isn’t something I’m sold on, nor is it even grounded on anything. If we can’t know anything about God’s motives and are back to “muh I dunno man”, then we have to apply that standard to everything god does. But in that case, we don’t know whether we should worship him, maybe he wants us to do otherwise.

>> No.17093722

>>17093642
No. The waste was there BEFORE the baby was born. The baby could’ve chosen to be born elsewhere, he isn’t entitled to be born in that particular location. Hence it is his fault.

>> No.17093754

>>17093688
God obviously is not 'good', because 'good' is a measure of what is useful to humans. An infinite being does not care about what is useful to humans--it is an infinite being. It is still superior to you on an objective level by virtue of having infinite power of being, but the fact that there are things in the world that disagree with your essence is not an objection to the idea of the infinite

>> No.17093763

>>17093722

Wait people can choose where they’re born?

>> No.17093784

>>17093688
>what is the purpose of pain though?
It notifies your mind that your body's integrity is being threatened. Suffering is then your mind notifying that its integrity is being threatened. Integrity of your mind and body are definitely values, but they're by far not the highest values. You're supposed to lose the integrity in time, but to do it in a proper manner. The fact they're values makes that manner actually matter.
> is it really inconceivable that there is no better reality which could have been given us
It is analyticall inconceivable, yes. You can propose a universe where logic works differently, dichotomies don't exist and good doesn't require possibility of evil. But you cannot then judge an alternative system of logic from within your system of logic.
Said simply, you can feel like it would be cooler if people never died, but thinking it out to its consequences would probably show otherwise.
>what makes free will so good?
Nothing makes it good. It is good in and of itself. Just like bodily integrity or pleasure are good in and of themselves. Except pleasure would be no good to you if it was someone else living your life instead of you freely doing your will.

You can probably tell this is a huge topic, so I can't respond to every single sentence, sorry.

>>17093700
>Therefore he is the supreme moral agent
There was no 'therefore'. He is by definition the supreme moral agent. That you can object to particular things doesn't make you, a hairless monkey in his 20s, wiser about the nature of the universe and its hypothetical alternatives.
Intellectual curiosity is a virtue, I love that you have it, but if you say "I'm not going to do anything about it until I know every single detail", that's not curiosity, that's alibism. You base your life (aka worship) on what is the highest or you base your life on something derivative, but you never know the full picture. So I'd go with the highest.

>> No.17093789

>>17093754
>'good' is a measure of what is useful to humans
Yikes.. so this is the state of athedog philosophy

>> No.17093796

>>17093722
>The baby could’ve chosen to be born elsewhere
How lol I know you're trying to pull a stunt but it doesn't even work ironically lol

>> No.17093813

>>17092793
God can't be all powerful if we have free will. If he's all powerful then everything is his responsibility and everything we do his will and not our own.

>> No.17093816

>>17093796
>>17093763
It is ordained by God.

>> No.17093822
File: 41 KB, 444x593, 1606841913083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17093822

>Article 1. Whether goodness differs really from being?
>I answer that, Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): "Goodness is what all desire." Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is clear from the foregoing (I:3:4; I:4:1). Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present.

>> No.17093827

>>17093789
I believe in God, retard-- an absolutely infinite being that is the cause of itself. This being is perfect but that perfection has nothing to do with the human essence

>> No.17093835

>>17093816
>ordained by God
>chosen by baby
One has to go, my man.

>> No.17093846

>>17093835
It works much as we have free will in spite of His existence

>> No.17094192

>>17093784
>It notifies your mind that your body's integrity is being threatened. Suffering is then your mind notifying that its integrity is being threatened. Integrity of your mind and body are definitely values, but they're by far not the highest values.
I can see the purpose of suffering in the plain sense of its practicality in life, yes.

>It is analytically inconceivable, yes. You can propose a universe where logic works differently, dichotomies don't exist and good doesn't require possibility of evil. But you cannot then judge an alternative system of logic from within your system of logic.

But if god cannot manipulate logic, is he truly omnipotent? I think this is actually a good argument in many ways, thought it begs the question of gods power and what he can really do for us.


>Said simply, you can feel like it would be cooler if people never died, but thinking it out to its consequences would probably show otherwise.

Coupled with the above argument, this is fair, though, god's logical constraint seems to point to a god reducible to something like a deity with no intervention or a god with tight constraints on his power? Though we cannot analytically derive a different logic from ours of course, omnipotence means omnipotence. We cannot analytically derive much about god's nature in fact, besides metaphysical logic, which only points very basic possible aspects of god's existence, though nothing very substantial about his properties, let alone his moral character (evil or good).

Maybe god perfectly conforms to this logical reality, but not omnipotent, as then he could manipulate an existing elemental structure (logic).

I'd say in a way, omnipotence, at least in its full sense, implies every element of existence as something possible to be broken or manipulated, an infinite amount of logical structural possibilities.

>Nothing makes it good. It is good in and of itself. Just like bodily integrity or pleasure are good in and of themselves. Except pleasure would be no good to you if it was someone else living your life instead of you freely doing your will.
I meant this more in relation to the arguments on god's moral character as a creator, rather than the world perspective on it, though good is.

In summary, If a god is assumed to be good (good as in, OUR good, the only one we know for sure) and omnipotent/all-powerful, I argue that free will should be perfectly good for us and suffering would not exist, and if the logic we know of does not permit this, he would make it work anyways (omnipotence). If he cannot do this then he is not omnipotent, if he can but does not want, he is not all-good, and if both, then he is neither all-good nor omnipotent, then little substance of the common pillars of our conception of the common monotheistic god remain.


>You can probably tell this is a huge topic, so I can't respond to every single sentence, sorry.
Eh, its fine, you made a good response.

>> No.17094252

>>17092785
There is no god, only empty materialism, you become worm food after death NEXT

>> No.17094340

>>17092793
Assuming free will exists, then why does God send people to hell or punishes them for committing evil if he values free will, that's just a form of coercion and deterrence. Are you saying God punishes evil but allows it to occur in the first place? Police officers don't wait for a guy to commit a murder before arresting him, they try to prevent it from happening, are they evil for violating the free will of the murderer? Free Will can still exist without evil as God can allow someone to desire or will evil but prevent them from actually committing it.

>>17092860
When someone provides a contradiction in God's nature or actions that you can not logically respond to, you just say that the error lies in us, that God knows the answer but we're too dumb to understand. You already presuppose the conclusion that God exists and that every argument agaisnt him is born out of ignorance

>>17093065
The existence of Good just implies the possibility of Evil. If Good is a set of things and actions then sure, you can say Evil are the things outside that set, so evil must exist in potentiality. But how does that imply that Evil must exist in actuality?

Because there was a lot of semantic arguments in this thread about what evil is, let me create a better problem of evil argument. For the sake of this argument, let's define Good is anything God desires and Evil as anything God doesn't desire. Let's also assume God desires certain things and not others.

Premise 1: If God was able to, he would produce a world that is entirely good, ie. a world where he desires everything that exists
Premise 2: God is all powerful and is capable of making any world he wants
Conclusion: If God exists and is all powerful, this world would be good according to him, we would desire everything it.
Therefore: If God exists, he would desire everything that exists in this world including human suffering

This isn't an argument agaisnt the possibility of God, it just shows that if God exists, he must desire the current state of the Universe

>> No.17094365

>>17094340
*Conclusion: If God exists and is all powerful, this world would be good according to him, he would desire everything in it.

sorry, typo

>> No.17094449

God if he exists is either not capable of or interested in stopping evil.

Why? I don't know. Maybe it's all bullshit though, I doubt there is a God in the traditional sense of the word.

>> No.17094529

>>17092785
What makes people assume that god interferes in the affairs of men? I understand that you might try to seek favor from god but it is only to try to gain something. I have tried to speak to him but even my prayers are just an attempt to assuage my anxiety about death. It isn't actually worship. People with a real religious practice and faith are able to worship and receive salvation.

>> No.17094539

>>17092812
A world in which it is not possible for wickedness, suffering, and causeless death to manifest physically is a world that does not allow free will.
In a world of perfect kindness, those rare souls willing to do evil for personal gain would never prove themselves as such because an opportunity would never present itself. The we can only be cut from the chaff in a world that allows for anguish, pain, suffering, and the mistreatment of man by other men and by nature.

>> No.17094813

>>17092793
How can free will exist as long as a God is omniscient? If a God knows all that is to happen, the exact outcome of every decision, then that decision was pre-determined. If it was pre-determined, then you don’t have free will.

>> No.17094837

>>17092785
Well I’m a non-believer, but this is a shitty argument for God not-existing. What it is an argument for is God not being omnibenevolent. If you are trying to rebut them saying God isn’t good, despite having the ability to stop suffering yet choosing not to, there isn’t a great rebuttal.

>> No.17094848

>>17093379
Why is it arrogant to assume the nature of a God. Being a creator doesn’t make one above criticism or analysis. My parents made me and they’re pieces of shit.

>> No.17094869

>>17092907
That doesn’t make God any less of a shithead

>> No.17094880

>>17092860
Well I don’t need to sacrifice myself, to myself, to appease myself for getting mad over my children eating some fruit.

>> No.17095142
File: 94 KB, 690x1010, Angel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17095142

>>17092785

1. The Dark originates from a different source than God.

2. The story of Sofia and Her children is the ontological story of us trying to become more like God --to be closer to God.

3. Divinity is a respector of free election.

>> No.17095160

>>17095142
So if the dark originated from a different source than God that doesn’t mean anything, unless he doesn’t have the power to stop it, but that would mean God isn’t omnipotent.

>> No.17095180

>>17095160
Did you even read the rest of the post to which you replied?

>> No.17095190

>>17092959
Cancer causes suffering, and suffering is evil.

Also, your characterization of natural disasters and disease as "cold, blind forces" has a naturalistic ring to it, and I doubt even theologians would agree with you.

>> No.17095198

ITT: the book of Job

>> No.17095219

>>17093784
So beautiful

>> No.17095277

>>17095180
Yeah, and the other two points are not unique in any way, so I don’t care enough to question them anymore, but I’ve never heard someone say the first point, so I questioned it.

>> No.17095282

>>17094192
I'd say the only way God could erase free-will, erasing logic, would then be erasing himself. For him to only have good, and to choose when to break the rules of reality, i.e. choosing to heal a person against reason, would then mean that reality, actually isn't reality. For that to be, then the truth of his creation, actually isn't truth. It can be broken or manipulated. Life would then not exist "actually". To ask what you're asking, it seems to me your saying God can only be infinite, if he can choose to be nothing, as limiting off nothing would then be a restriction of Gods infinite body. But having that truth would result in God being nothing.

>> No.17095295

Because here's the answer: God doesn't give a fuck and we're irrelevant to him. Deism is the most solid position to take.

>> No.17095349

>>17095282
Do you believe God is all-knowing? If so, then God through his (it’s?) supposed existence has already eliminated free will.

>> No.17095675

>>17095277
All three assertons are mutually informative; if you mean to ask: "Why does God not stop the Dark, as it is presently in the world, from impinging upon the Good?", the answer is: Beside these general conditions being a constitutive part of the final Kosmic cycle, Jesus Christ personally helps anyone in particular who, upon consciously reaching the circumstantial limits of his/her noble potential, turns to Him with earnest intent.

>> No.17095688

>>17095675
>...[assertions]...

>> No.17095840

>>17092785
I'd probably question where they got the idea that a lack of suffering (i.e. "bad things" not happening) is intrinsically desirable from anything other than a human perspective, much less god's. Or how they imagine one could live righteously/morally in a world without even a possibility of such things.

>> No.17096539

many christards are no better than soibois with their inability to discuss anything without quoting their storybook. Instead of "everything is Stahwahs" it's "everything is jayzus"

>> No.17096557

>>17092785
God is only evil to non-whites. This is why places like Africa are in shambles and in perpetual poverty while America is the most powerful nation in the world.

>> No.17096719

>>17092785
don't care, christianity is fucking retarded and has poisoned religious conciousness to the point that it's a headache convincing the average tard that there are conceptions of god besides the foreskin slurping jew god

>> No.17096737

Christian culture is centered around Jews. They have holidays for Jews. They killed hundreds of thousands of white men to worship Jews. They listen to Jewish psalms. They elect a Jew as their first pope. They call you a Jew for not worshiping a Jew. They draw the entirety of their culture from Jewish mythology. They post stories about Jews. They celebrate the religious life of Early Jews. Their biggest event of the year involves the birth of a Jew. They use Jewish words like "Hallelujah" and "Amen" and name their children after Jews. When you say "Judeans/Israelites" they're not thinking of a Middle Eastern people. They're thinking of their "ancestors". Their churches are completely adorned with Jews. They worship their saints and prophets disproportionately filled with Jews and their Apostles also filled with Jews. Their men sit around dying for the King of the Kews while their women sit around praying to a Jewish mother. They worship Jews like Saul of Tarsus and Jehohanan and Thomas and the rabbi Yeshuah bar Yosef while attacking the Greeks and Romans who actually built an empire and scientific institutions before Jew worshipers took over. They hate Jews who don’t worship their Jew but love Jews who do worship him. They send their Jew worshipers to kill those who don’t worship Jews and celebrate when Ancient European monuments and shrines get destroyed because they don’t honour Jews. They read Jewish books to a point where "Holy Lands" does not make them think of their ancestral homelands but about a desert instead. They will tell you how much they hate Jews and how they threw them out all the time and they are just pretending to live with them now but the evidence speaks for itself in that Christianity has always been and will be a religion of Jew worship

>> No.17096916

>>17092785
God isn't an arbitrary tyrant

>> No.17097278

>>17092801
Only good answer in the whole thread.

>> No.17098023

>>17092785
Because those bad things led to good things for other people.

>> No.17098051

>>17092785
>bad

>> No.17098073

>>17094340
the divine mysteries cannot be discerned by pure cognition

>> No.17098153

>>17093722
>The baby could’ve chosen to be born elsewhere
This is the kind of retards you're arguing with.

>> No.17098160

>>17092959

All those things are in fact Evil.

>> No.17098164

>>17093001
Bro that's misconception of spinoza

>> No.17098185

>>17093104

Yes, I CAN argue, and I am arguing.

>> No.17098192

>>17093234

Terminally idiotic.

>> No.17098196

>>17093208

It seems like you concede the point...?

>> No.17098202

>>17093248

Wouldn't this make rejecting him a Deontological duty?

>> No.17098205

>>17093249
>>17093322

Who or what else should my argument, as a man, be centered around and why?

>> No.17098209

>>17093379
>It's arrogant to assume the nature of God
>proceeds to declare the nature of god

What did he meant by this?

>> No.17098220

>>17093784

The relation between pain and bodily damage is tenuous. Benign injuries are often more painful than lethal ones. The rest of your reply is grammatically incoherent. Stop replying.

>> No.17098228

>>17093822
>excrement is
>therefore excrement is good

So THIS is the power of Theodicy?

>> No.17098234

Because good cannot exist without bad

>> No.17098256

>>17098234

Why?

>> No.17098363

>>17098256
what do you mean why retard, if all were to be good we wouldn't know it's good, so there needs to be the bad in order to recognize the good

>> No.17098381

>>17093053
>If he can stop bad things and won’t, then why should I worship him?
Prove suffering is bad first, even Neechee admits struggle is what drives humanity forward.
>b-but it feels bad :c
Tough shit.
>I don't want t-
Tough shit.

>> No.17098384

>>17092785
Because s8n be fucking us, and m& helping him by cucking each other

>> No.17098388
File: 3.13 MB, 427x453, X5DwbOL.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17098388

>>17092831
So basically christianity purpose is to cope for a shit life believing something comes after and that it will be better

>> No.17098389

>>17092785
Bcas a good outcome need not have a nice or pleasant generation.

Can't look at a WIP and declare POS.

>> No.17098392

>>17098220
>Benign injuries are often more painful than lethal ones.
You need to be notified of threats to bodily integrity that you can do something with. To argue that pain is not a notification of threat to bodily integrity is a lame exercise in deconstruction. Get rid of your non sequiturs and then try to tell people when they're incoherent lol

>> No.17098394

>>17098388
>So what you're saying is...
t. Kathy Newmann

>> No.17098396

>>17098228
You are barely trying.

Save your strength: don't.

>> No.17098400

>>17098394
Was about to samepost.

Ghastly woman.

>> No.17098407

>>17098363

What makes you think so?

>> No.17098413

>>17098392

This is meaningless conjecture.

>> No.17098416

>>17098396

Is excrement perfect because it is?

>> No.17098417

>>17098413
Calling out a non-sequitur is neither meaningless nor conjectural. It's literally "no, because this right here". It doesn't get more immediate and impactful than this.

>> No.17098421

>>17098416
Not him, but yes, it is perfect to the degree to which it exists.

>> No.17098423

>>17098381
Prove a child getting killed by accident is good.

>> No.17098431

>>17098421

Do you eat it?

>> No.17098436

>>17098417

Pain in an area otherwise structurally sound area is just as common painless structural damage.

>> No.17098442

>>17098431
Eat shit? Lol no.
>>17098436
>structurally sound
Do you propose neurons trigger themselves out of boredom with no stimuli?

>> No.17098444

>>17098442

Why not eat it if you claim that it's perfect?

>> No.17098449

>>17098444
>Why not eat it if you claim that it's perfect?
Because it's not food, silly.

>> No.17098454

>>17098442

I don't propose anything. It is demonstrable that people experience migraines with no detectable structural damage just as often as people experience nothing with foreign objects embedded in their heads.

>> No.17098456

>>17098454
>I don't propose anything.
Good. Then we don't disagree about anything. Take care.

>> No.17098460

>>17098449

It is not perfect then, falling short of food.

>> No.17098464

>>17098454
>detectable structural damage
Not the argument. But of course, there's nothing you're proposing, so ... it couldn't possibly refer to the argument anyway.

>> No.17098466

>>17098456

Your argument that bodily damage is the cause of pain is demonstrably false.

>> No.17098468

>>17098460
The claim was that it is perfect to the degree to which it exists. It doesn't, to my knowledge, exist as a food. You are entitled to think otherwise though.

>> No.17098470

>>17098468

How many kinds of perfection are there? What is the relation between them?

>> No.17098473

>>17098466
Oh, we're back at proposing things? Well, let's then make it clear that I specifically said 'threat to bodily integrity', not "detectable structural damage" or whatever you choose to refer to in your next reply.
>>17098470
I never counted nor felt the need to relate them all.

>> No.17098476

>>17098468
>it is perfect to the degree to which it exists
So "perfection" just means "at least it manages to exist"?

>> No.17098481

>>17098473

People often die of painless lethal injuries.

>> No.17098487

>>17098473

So there ARE multiple kinds of perfection?

>> No.17098492

>>17098476
No.
>>17098481
Doesn't contradict the fact that pain is a signal of bodily integrity being threatened. It doesn't have to signal all threats. But its signals do denote threats.
>>17098487
I never counted.

>> No.17098499

>>17098492
>No.
Oh, really?
>Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists

>> No.17098502

>>17098492

What does it mean then if there are states between bodies and pain or lack thereof contrary to your hypothesis?

>> No.17098514

>>17098499
Yes, really.
>>17098502
>contrary to your hypothesis
This is where you're wrong. My proposition is that pain signals a specific thing. Not that all such things are signaled through pain.
It's as if I proposed "during rain, water falls down" and you argued "but sometimes water falls down without it raining". It sure does. But I'm referring to what rain is.

>> No.17098518

>>17098514
>Yes, really.
Do explain why I'm wrong.

>> No.17098519

>>17098514

How would you know that pain does do what you claim that it does?

>> No.17098522

>>17098518
Because those are two different claims.
>perfection
>at least it manages to exist
One is a term describing a state, the other one is an expression of comfort over an item.
>>17098519
By thinking about it calmly.

>> No.17098525

>>17092785
I don't

>> No.17098527

>>17098522
>By thinking about it calmly.

An even more pathetic concession than "I never counted".

>> No.17098528

>>17098522
>the other one is an expression of comfort over an item.
How?

>> No.17098537

>>17098468
>It doesn't, to my knowledge, exist as a food
Lots of animals eat shit. Who decides what it exists as? Do you have some divine right to link an object to an idea?

>> No.17098540

>>17098527
You're allowed to feel that way. But just to be clear, you have no counter-arguments. Besides "how do you know pain hurts" of course lol
>>17098528
By expressing comfort over an item.

>> No.17098544

>>17098537
>Who decides what it exists as?
It's not a decision, but a recognition.
>Lots of animals eat shit.
Good for them.
>Do you have some divine right to link an object to an idea?
After you having asked me "how do you know pain hurts" or something of the sort, I feel like I do have insights that you would classify as divinely sophisticated, yes.

>> No.17098545

The answer is not arguing with such a person because they won't understand whatever you say.

>> No.17098551

>>17098540

I did not ask "how do you know pain hurts?", I asked how do you know that pain is a sign of bodily damage, lethal or otherwise? Misologist, illiterate cretin.

>> No.17098553

>>17098540
>By expressing comfort over an item.
I asked you to explain why it is such. Comfort? Where did I ever express "comfort"? Don't fucking tell me you interpreted "at least" as "I'm glad it's that way", you'd be a sophist of the highest grade.

>> No.17098567

>>17098551
>how do you know that pain is a sign of bodily damage
For the third time, the claim is 'threat to bodily integrity'. You were talking about ... illiterate cretin?
>>17098553
>Where did I ever express "comfort"?
In the fact "at least" didn't relate to anything, thus was presented as common expression of comfort usually is.
>If you say this, you stink!!!!!
Cool.

>> No.17098571

>>17092785
Iranaeus theodicy

>> No.17098577

>>17098544
But it's recognized as food, yet you would not eat it. How is this perfect?
>>17098544
>I feel like I do have insights that you would classify as divinely sophisticated, yes
I feel like you have a psychosis and should take some pills.

>> No.17098584

>>17092785
Ask them what makes a thing bad. Laugh as they don't have an answer. Pray that they might be corrected.

>> No.17098587

>>17098577
>But it's recognized as food
Ask about it those that recognize it as food.
>How is this perfect?
By virtue of its existence.
>I feel like you have a psychosis
Says the man compulsively talking about eating shit.

>> No.17098589

>>17098567

How does a "threat to bodily integrity" differ from bodily damage? What the fuck are you even taking about? You cannot have a "threat to bodily integrity" with no bodily damage. All bodily damage is, by definition, a threat to its integrity. You are terminally idiotic.

>> No.17098595

>>17098567
>didn't relate to anything
It's "The very basic thing it can do is existing".
>>If you say this
Yes, if you misinterpret my words to dodge the question you're a sly, lowly sophist.
There is no difference between "being perfect" and "existing", isn't it? If not, explain why in detail.

>> No.17098599

>>17098589
>You cannot have a "threat to bodily integrity" with no bodily damage. All bodily damage is, by definition, a threat to its integrity. You are terminally idiotic.
Looks like you need to relearn your syllogisms.

>> No.17098600

>>17098587
>Ask about it those that recognize it as food.
What?
>By virtue of its existence.
How?

>> No.17098607

>>17098599

Explain the difference between them or stop posting this shit, retard.

>> No.17098608

>>17092785
You're assuming that God is good.