/sci/ - Science & Math

can someone answer this

Never heard that one before.

Fucking summerfags. This isn't new or insightful.

he is able and not able at the same time

Epicurus wouldn't approve of copypasta.. T_T

can someone ans

While we're on the topic of dilemmas that have been done to death, I find Euthyphro's more thought provoking.

He is malevolent. Duh. God doesn't love you.

<<< epicurus gets owned by a /b/tard

>>3044549
#2 seems to be a paraphrase of Hick's "soul-building" argument.

Answer this

God is not omnipotent. In the Bible it says God is unable to commit sin.

>>3044559
orly?
god commits genocide, god commits murder, god commits adultery (technically... i mean mary WAS married when god shoved a mini magic man up her cunt)

therefore these 3 things are not sins?

>>3044559

soooo when he's pissed off and kill everyone is not contradicting himself?

also does he look like a bitch?

>>3044549
Both of those points can be refuted, though. The second one in particular is just flat out silly, because helping a child with their homework is in no way analogous to a god simply suppressing his urge to cause major disasters, diseases, and so on. Most suffering in this world is not "educational" in any way. If a kid is born with a severe genetic defect, suffers terrible pain and then dies a week later, you can hardly call this a "lesson".

>>3044562
every fucking time i try to play guess who, the opponent ALWAYS says that line...

>>3044520

>>3044564
you could argue that god is not the cause of the natural disasters, they are just natural phenomenon, and he simply chooses not to help, and let us clean them up ourselves and deal with it.
maybe this existence is supposed to be a little bit shitty, so that by comparison, when you finally get into heaven, it seems so much better than before.

ADA

God knows that there is no such thing as "evil", only human nature.

Whence we multiply.

>>3044561
You really do have a way with words.

>>3044570
>you could argue that god is not the cause of the natural disasters, they are just natural phenomenon, and he simply chooses not to help, and let us clean them up ourselves and deal with it.
I don't see much of a difference there. Sure, if I kick you down the stairs and then let you bleed to death, I'm being more deliberately malevolent than if you fell down the stairs by accident. But if I still allow you to bleed to death, I'm a bastard either way. At best, your proposal elevates god from "malevolent" to "negligent".

>maybe this existence is supposed to be a little bit shitty, so that by comparison, when you finally get into heaven, it seems so much better than before.
He could simply make heaven better, instead of making someone's life worse.

I think, no matter how hard you try to come up with rationalizations and excuses, you always end up with a god who's either a huge dick, or just incompetent.

>>3044619
what if he HAS to be negligent? this life is a test of faith, if he simply helps out with all your troubles, then he proves his existence and ruins the test?

What if heaven is already the best it can possibly be? it is ultimate bliss, nothing can exceed it.
a transition to that from a very shitty life will feel like hitting the jackpot.
a millionaire going there, who has had everything in life, will just be all like "well...this is a slight improvement i guess...hmm, not bad."

>>3044520
When a young child is caught in the wreckage of a hurricane. Stuck under tonnes of debris but still living and very much suffering, s/he is slowly being crushed by the debris over several days. The child is not found and dies. IF there was a god who was also good, he would have at least killed that child instantly (if the death of the child was somehow part of gods plan). But to leave the child suffering for no reason for days and days, that would require either a universe without a god or a universe with a god that is either evil or just plain uninterested in humans and morality.

Perhaps bad stuff has to exist to teach people moral lessons, but it still seems a little strange that some people lose a football game while other people are imprisoned, raped and tortured by their parents for years before being killed.

Ignoring the extent and distribution of evil is crappy armchair philosophy.

>>3044626
>what if he HAS to be negligent?
Well, that's what I meant by incompetence. If god's in a position where he has no other choice but to cause/allow his very own creation to suffer, then he probably made quite a few mistakes during the conceptual stages of Project Universe.

>this life is a test of faith, if he simply helps out with all your troubles, then he proves his existence and ruins the test?
As I said, there are many kinds of suffering that could hardly be considered lessons, or tests of faith. If I get hit by a car tomorrow and spend the rest of my life in a vegetative state, I don't see how this suffering could be of any instructional use to me.

>What if heaven is already the best it can possibly be? it is ultimate bliss, nothing can exceed it.

>a millionaire going there, who has had everything in life, will just be all like "well...this is a slight improvement i guess...hmm, not bad."
Both of those examples can be linked to god's incompetence. If heaven is as good as god could have possibly made it, yet it's still not good enough to impress people who led great lives on earth, then the most logical thing for god would not be to make people's lives shittier, so that they appreciate his little afterlife theme park more, but to make their lives on earth complete joyrides and shut down that lame heaven place altogether.

>>3044626

Well, if heaven is the bestestest place a god can imagine or create. You either don't need to make life harder just for it to be better in comparison because it's just that awesome by itself, then I ask why all the senseless suffering in the first place?

Or heaven isn't really that neat so this lousy, lazy god needs to "improve" it by making everything else utter crap. In which case it would be a shitty god.

No negligent nor half-assed being is worthy of veneration in my opinion.

Anyway, I think you're just playing devil's advocate (pun not intended), so... yeah.

>>3044520

I would answer by saying: How many Gods there was before the 1 you are refering to and how many there will be when this 1 is dead and forgot by everyone?

I even doubt your pope or whatever you call the dude geting his feet licked by brain washed weirdo, actually believe in the shit he's talking about

Religion is and always was about human controling other human using superstition, golible-ness, and other human weakness

>>3044669
>>3044694

am indeed playing devils advocate. i'm very much atheist, in fact i have an entire folder of images related to bashing religious people with.
<<<i'll pick on at random.

also, good posts guys :)

sage for the sake of /sci/

please /x/ is that way

freedom of choice.

define evil and then read any of the religious texts.

god wants you to move your ass and do something about it,
if you are not able or willing then that will be your problem

>>3044717

...actually that would not be your problem.

anyway also external judgement and test.

>>3044721

eh hem..

"scientific experiment"

God is ready, willing, and able to destroy all of the evil in the universe, and He is going to do exactly that, exactly as He foretold, on exactly His timetable.