Problem of Evil

As a non-believer, I believe Augustine addresses the problem of evil in a conclusive manner.

>>1186710
Why do you think so? I understand his ideas in broad terms, but I can't see how you as an non-believer would see it as valid with such a heavy reliance on the scripture.

>>1186775
It's valid if you accept the Christian god, which I, of course, don't. It solves the problem if you're coming at it from a stance of cognitive bias rather than truth seeking. The problem of evil exists only if god does, so you must attack it from the hypothetical of an existing god.

>>1186703
The idea of evil will be destroyed by Guts thick long rustic dragonslayer.

>>1186703
Evil is a direct result of our sin, and we can sin because God gave us free will, and he gave us free will because he loves us. The moment he takes away our ability to sin, he also takes away our ability to act freely, which is against God's wishes (obviously, as we all possess free will).

We could eliminate all evil in the world if we all stopped sinning.

>>1188020
Or god, being all powerful could just make it so sin doesn't result in evil.

Evil is a product of agency.

>>1188026
>Or god, being all powerful could just make it so sin doesn't result in evil.
sin = disobedience to God.
You cannot logically have sin that does not result in evil because, being God all that's good, any act of disobedience and opposition to good (God) will inevitably be evil.

>>1188059
This is a good summation. Sin in itself is evil, when you are not acting in accordance with the ultimate good (acting in accordance to God) you are committing evil. You can't separate sin from evil or sin isn't sin anymore. This boils down to an argument about semantics, not what God is capable of, we just have a special name for evil actions: sin.

Basically if you strip evil from the world, you strip away free will. If man is not able to be evil he has no free will.

>>1188032
So when a tsunami kills tens of thousands of people or a child dies from cancer, that isn't an evil?

>>1188148
It's a product of the ontological contamination of sin. Every time you sin, you are contributing to that. Every rape, every murder, every death from cancer, you share responsibility in.

>>1188161
This isn't addressing the problem of evil. Epictetus does not draw a distinction between suffering caused by natural disaster and suffering caused by humans.

When a roof collapses on a church and kills everyone inside you are still faced with the exact same questions. God was either unable or unwilling to prevent it.

>>1188148
I wouldn't call it evil, I'd call it unfortunate. Lots of disease is spread via sin however, like AIDS, and natural disasters like wild fires and flooding are often a result of human idiocy or outright intentional evil.

If you want to eliminate all unfortunate events from the universe I really don't know how that could be done while leaving the universe as we know it intact, you need to throw causation out the window entirely. God could surely do it but if it meant the universe would change entirely from the ground up it probably interferes with his intentions.

>>1188161
That's fucking idiotic.

>>1188205
I was just trying to bring up things that are completely divorced from human agency. A random cancer wasn't anyone's fault and tsunamis aren't caused by humans either.

>>1188205
See this post
>>1188197

>I really don't know how that could be done while leaving the universe as we know it intact,

And this is where Epictetus concludes that there is no God worthy of being called "good" (if one exists at all) so religious is not a matter of concern.

>>1188197
God has the will to stop sin, but he chooses not to because it's like a butterfly effect or jenga, and the only way to forcibly stop its consequences is to forcibly stop it, which would undermine our free agency.

>>1188209
You think that because you have the Romish-Protestant juridical conception of sin

>>1188237
>You think that because you have the Romish-Protestant juridical conception of sin

No, that's seriously fucking idiotic. We can observe the causal factors that lead to all of those things. No amount of "sin" has been observed in those.

>>1187989
>Griffith
>did
>nothing
>wrong

>>1188257
Sin is metaphysical, not material

>>1188276
Yes, yes. That age old cop-out. We can observe all manner of material causes for these things, but surely sin, which seems to serve no function in the affair must play a part, because you really want it to.

>>1188237
You havn't addressed the question. You've moved the goal-post. You are still only discussing evil caused by humans. I already told you the problem of evil makes no distinction about the cause is.

I'll ask again. If a natural cause causes a church to collapse and kills everyone inside was God
1) Unwilling to stop it
2) Unable to stop it
If he was both willing and able why was it not stopped?

The fact that this problem is older than your religion but you still can't come up with an answer that doesn't move goalposts really says something.

>>1188229
Suffering isn't evil, it can just be (and often is) caused by evil.

Why is a church collapse evil? Why ought God prevent it? Is a rock falling down a hill evil? If not, what difference does it make if there is a man standing in its path? Man's opinion with what is and isn't evil is often wrong, some see a wolf eating a deer as evil, some don't. Some see a church collapse as some innate cosmic evil, some see it as a random event; a moralless (not immoral) result of the natural laws of the universe.

Sin is evil, anything else seems quite ambiguous. Can you be condemned to hell for something that isn't sinful? No. Therefore everything that isn't sin is either completely neutral or good, I'd suggest.

>>1188289
You actually can't directly observe causation, Hume pointed this out.

>>1188301
He's able but isn't going to at the cost of its repercussions.

>>1188302
>Can you be condemned to hell for something that isn't sinful?
I should change that to "WILL you be condemned"

God could condemn you unjustly, but he is just, and won't.

File: 1462167660467.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>1188237
>Romish-Protestant
Stop coming up with bullshit terms, shillantine

File: problem-of-evil.jpg (59KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x386px

>>1188302

In the "problem of evil" 'evil' refers to any sort of misfortune, suffering, or injustice regardless of cause. When you change the definition of the word "evil" to something else you are moving the goal post and not addressing the question.

>>1188321
Seriously was there anything wrong with Roman or Catholic? This is as bad as the "racial scientists" and their bullshit terms like "araynid".

>>1188020
Free will doesnt really make a lot of sense though, if our choices are made and our personality comes to be by a mix of our life experience and biology and god made everything and knows everything he knows that X person would do if it experiences Y life.
Do you understand? my english sucks, what I'm trying to say that free will is a mere ilusion for someone who can account for all the near infinity of variables that influences decision making.
The more you analize biblical concepts the more you understand that the simplest explanation is the most logical, and that explanation is that the people who wrote the bible were primitive humans and not a cosmical being.

>>1188059
>>1188105

lesser good is not equal to evil.

>>1188357
>Free will doesnt really make a lot of sense though, if our choices are made and our personality comes to be by a mix of our life experience and biology and god made everything and knows everything he knows that X person would do if it experiences Y life.
It only doesn't make sense if you make it out to be something magical.

Do you feel like you've made choices? Do you feel like you weren't coerced? That's free will. It's an experience like pain and pleasure.

>>1188345
It's all bullshit she/he comes up with to make the Catholic Church look bad.
Constantine is literally paid to shill for Orthodoxy. Not even joking. I see her/him here every single day, whether it is day or night, 24/7. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than one person 2bh

>>1188373
God is absolute good.
The opposite of absolute good cannot be only "lesser" good and has to be absolute evil by its very nature. That is why all kinds of sins are equal in the eyes of God.

>>1188312
Then he isn't omnipotent.

>>1188312
The conclusion the problem of evil would draw is that God is malevolent since he is able but unwilling.

How would refute this?

Imagine if there was a small child drawning in a lake after a strong gust of wind has pushed him into it (ie he did not use free will to enter the lake). There is a life saver within an arms reach of you, you could throw the child it but choose not to and instead walk by.

>>1188393
He is, but he allows our agency in order that we be more than automatons.

>>1188375
You're agreeing with me, its a mere ilusion for someone who can account for all the variables, therefore >>1188020 its not an argument, there is no such thing as free will for an hipothetical being that can comprehend and know everything, if we chose to sin then it should be his reponsibility for creating all the variables that lead to that event.

>>1188398
Doing so wouldn't really impact any agency. If, however, God started making life preservers pop out of thin air constantly, it would change things quite a bit.

>>1186703
The problem of evil is a temporary problem that God is ready, willing and able to deal with, decisively, on His terms, and in His timing.

>>1188337
I argue that from the Christian viewpoint the argument of evil is flawed or otherwise irrelevant, as it assumes misfortune, suffering and injustice are innately evil when they're actually just a result of the ONLY manifestation of true evil in this universe which is sin; an active, knowing disobedience towards God and all his goodness. Man alone has the capability to knowingly disobey God (disregarding Satan) and so he alone is capable of being evil, anything else that only "seems" evil (unpleasantry) is either a just result of the natural universe (which is not evil in and of itself in any way) or a result of man being evil (which still does not make the result evil, but instead causes misfortune, suffering or injustice).

A chair isn't evil if the leg snaps off while you're sitting in it, it's unfortunate and unpleasant. Is God really "malevolent" if he doesn't keep your chair upright? I'd say no. Why does God not prevent things from being unpleasant? Because he has no obligation to, unpleasantry is not evil, it's morally neutral. Why does God not prevent man from being evil? Because it would prevent him from being free, which is what God wants.

Basically the argument of evil should really be called the argument of unpleasantry, in which case God has no obligation to make everything pleasant, there is no evil in the unpleasant and God is thus not malevolent for permitting unpleasantry.

>>1188425
What does agency have anything to do with the problem of evil? Like I said the problem draws no distinction between actions from free will or actions from other sources. Why should such a distinction even be made?

If I did not throw the life saver to the child would I be in the wrong?

>>1188375
If my answer to that is no, those that mean that free will doesn't exist?

>>1188480
This arguement only makes only makes sense if you buy into a bunch of Christian theology.

I do not think sin exists. Neither did the guy who wrote the problem of evil. The concept is completely meaningless to someone who is not a Christian. So your argument will only convince another Christian.

>>1186890
>truth seeking
Spooked hard

>>1188509
Fair enough. OP asked for a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and so I offered it.

>>1188389

We are not limited by only absolute good and absolute evil. In between those extremes lie a myriad of steps. If one of our actions fails to live up to the standard of absolute good that doesn't necessarily means that it was an evil one. Disobedience, which in this case can be equated to failing to live up to a certain standard in ones actions should not be confused with being limited to a binary choice of two opposites.

>>1188404

Then he wouldn't be omnibenevolent as he would put human agency over better outcomes. Besides, you are still refusing to adress a scenario not based on human action.

>>1188432

What does that even mean?

>>1188480
>Is God really "malevolent" if he doesn't keep your chair upright?
No but it certainly refutes the claim that god is omnibenevolent as he is capable of stopping the chair from breaking when you are sitting in it .

>Why does God not prevent things from being unpleasant?
Any omnibenevolent being that's also omnipotent most by definition prevent things from being unpleasant. Claiming that unpleasant experiences are necessary or a greater good is illogical in this case as an omnipotent being is capable of achieving the same results from a more pleasant experience and an omnibenevolent being would want the most kind outcome possible.

>>1188565
As someone not famillar with the term, what does the term Judeo-Christian mean?

>>1188705
>No but it certainly refutes the claim that god is omnibenevolent as he is capable of stopping the chair from breaking when you are sitting in it .
Absolutely not, there is nothing evil about a chair breaking or even you suffering because of a broken chair, it's not even a moral event, it's amoral. YOU think it's immoral because you're a flawed, biased, mortal human being who is wrong about pretty much everything, but what you think is evil doesn't matter. We know for a fact (if you're Christian) that sin is evil, and anything that isn't sin isn't evil.

>>1188760
>YOU think it's immoral because you're a flawed, biased, mortal human being who is wrong about pretty much everything
Also I don't mean this to be an insult, we're all flawed, biased, mortal human beings who are wrong about pretty much everything.

File: 1462930790855.png (40KB, 825x635px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 825x635px

>>1188760
This is what you are doing

You are also saying you axiomatically right because of your religion and anyone who is not part of it is always wrong.

>>1188789
>You are also saying you axiomatically right because of your religion and anyone who is not part of it is always wrong.
Well considering this is a religious question, yes I am saying this, because I know my religion is true and everyone else's is false. If I were to throw away any religious argumentation I would also need to throw out the entire question.

>>1188647
>We are not limited by only absolute good and absolute evil. In between those extremes lie a myriad of steps. If one of our actions fails to live up to the standard of absolute good that doesn't necessarily means that it was an evil one.
If a sin is simply something that goes against what is absolutely good, it must be not this absolute good, therefore evil. There is no "absolute evil", evil is simply anything that goes against the good that is the word of God. To try and reason that something can be against God but also not evil is pointless, you'd be arguing on terms that re simply rejected by the nature of the argument. What you call the absolute good is not a "standard", it's simply what is good. Anything not good must necessarily be not of God, and therefore evil.

>>1188705
>an omnibenevolent being would want the most kind outcome possible
I think "letting literally anyone into eternal paradise with the only requirement being that they admit that I'm letting them in" is about the most kind outcome you could have.

Problem of Evil will forever plague an all powerful, loving, knowing god.

>pick two
This would "solve" the issue.

>>1186703
A great deal of the "problem" of evil is meaningless if you have a 100% certain knowledge of an afterlife which will be better for virtuous people than their mortal lives were.

If you're God, and you see a barbarian horde putting pious innocents to the sword, are you going to lament their gruesome fate? No, you'll welcome them to Heaven and the victims will ultimately be glad for their deaths.

It doesn't apply to the Abrahamic God.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7

>>1188808
>I know my religion is true and everyone else's is false

And this is why some theists aren't worth debating with.

>>1189440
OP asked for a Judaeo-Christian perspective and I provided one, I don't know what the fuck else you want.

>>1189454

Not that guy, but I will very much like it when you stop worshipping your false christ and your false god, who even and /especially/ in the case that they are as they are described, /are wholly/ undeserving of worship.

My preference is that you come to be in the truth of this while you are alive. But the above will take place one way or the other, and in a very short space.

>>1189468
I was an atheist and became Christian on my own, I have no interest in going back.

>>1188237
You are slowly making me reconsider my Christianity.

All of your posts embarrass our religion. People like you probably give God a headache with your over-complications and boastful assumptions.

>>1188059
> implying god couldn't have changed the rules of logic for this to not have been true

>>1189658
>implying he does not have very good reason for doing so
>implying you know better than God and can tell him to do things differently
>implying that God can do anything wrong by the very definition of who God is

>>1186703
There is no problem of evil
It's an emotional "problem" and nothing more

>>1188480
>A chair isn't evil if the leg snaps off while you're sitting in it, it's unfortunate and unpleasant. Is God really "malevolent" if he doesn't keep your chair upright?
In this scenario the one who made the chair specifically chose to make it so that it would inevitably snap while someone is sitting in it even though he could, at no cost, ensure it would never snap, how is that not malevolent?

>>1189840

This comment is short enough to invite multiple interpretations.

One possible interpretation is that the poster is a very dull conventional theist, who does not even want to admit of the animating problem of the thread. The history of theology shows that intellectually honest apologists are at least willing to discuss the matter at length, and settle into their own squishy indefensible defenses of an unjust god. At least they try (although failing into squishy mystery), to their credit.

A second possible interpretation is that the poster is an atheist who (provisionally) correctly appraises the situation by correctly regarding a dumb, unthinking universe, finding no malice, and concluding that there is no problem of evil, absent god (outside of man, anyway, a smaller matter). The "problem" then becomes man's problem.

But of course the latter is disingenuous in that the problem of evil is clearly always and correctly a /theological/ problem, and one correctly directed towards such a god as history suggests. /Of course/ humans are regularly evil. Where else shall we place agency? When we're a bunch of chemicals giving rise to animals, "evil" can be more correctly explained in terms of competition among organisms, having anhedonic/painful effects. But once this god business gets involved, we're off on a hypothetical course which is itself of course only a weird projection of human drives, exteriorized onto god.

The point being that in view of an unjust god, which is the human historical conception of god (and exactly because humans are animals, and animals are obliged to be unpleasant toward one another at certain times), then /of course/ there is a problem of evil, which itself derives from the randomization of organism competition, which itself has no genuinely meaningful end, or to use the expensive five-dollar-word, "telos".

>>1190272
Nope

>>1190315

a scintillating rebuttal.

Here's how religious people solve the problem of evil.

>whatever god does, it is good

>>1188306
Oh for fuck sake. You detest Hume, but you'll hide behind him when it's convenient. You cunt.

>>1190455
>I know better than God
this is how non-religious people solve the problem of evil

>>1190475
>I know better than magical fairies

Come back to me when you:
A) Have a coherent definition of Gawd, preferably one that has consensus among the religious.
B) Have some method of determining what Gawd knows, feels or wants, and with proof that the method works.

Until then, your babble is no better than the Jonestown people. And at least they're not bothering us anymore.

>>1190523
But you haven't demonstrated that any of what you claim is the actual word of God. But if you're the poster I'm thinking of, you'll either give a bible quote, or some rot about the word becoming flesh, because you seem literally incapable of understanding what proof is.

>>1190525
>But you haven't demonstrated that any of what you claim is the actual word of God
What evidence do you want exactly?
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (as said in Matthew 16:18). If you believe in Jesus you consequently believe that doctrine is preserved in the Catholic Church. You can look at history and see that the dogmas were preserved.

>>1190532
>What evidence do you want exactly?

Objective proof. If it fails to work because I disagree with it, it's not objective.

Also, I believe Jesus existed. But there's no evidence he founded squat (no, a book written with an obvious agenda doesn't count). In fact historical consensus seems to validate only that he was born, baptized, and crucified after doing some preaching.

>>1190537
>If it fails to work because I disagree with it, it's not objective
Get the fuck off of /his/ right now.

>>1190539
No. If simple disagreement can poke holes in your proof, then it's not proof.

>>1190523
>This is how non-religious people resolve the problem of being wrong about religion
Don't make me laugh, you dimwit. I'm about as wrong about religion as your babble is right.

>A)
Prove it.

>B)
Prove it.

See, I asked you for some method of getting to all your inane conclusions that isn't mere bald assertion.

>>1190537
> If it fails to work because I disagree with it, it's not objective.
That's not an objective way of defining reality at all
>Objective proof
like what? define objective proof

>>1190561
>See, I asked you for some method of getting to all your inane conclusions that isn't mere bald assertion.
Christianity teaches us who we are better than any scientific paper will ever do. There is your proof.

Is there literally any other answer than "god works in mysterious ways"?

>>1188020
So God isn't all good, since he allows evil, despite being all powerful.
An all good and all powerful God would make it so people have free will, yet don't do evil.
That he lacks the power to do so makes him flawed, not all powerful.
The alternative is that he lacks the intention to do so, which makes him flawed, not all good.

>>1190598
>Christianity teaches us who we are better than any scientific paper will ever do. There is your proof.
That's not proof, and it's false, to boot. Human behavior is much better understood using the scientific method on every level, than the bold proclamations found in iron-age books.

Christianity teaches us practically nothing about who we are, so you're not even right about that. It's a collection of stories of failure by a celestial dictator, it teaches us more about this fictional figure than ourselves.

I'd love to hear what Christianity "teaches" us about ourselves that doesn't stand in relation to being servile to skydaddy.

>>1188808
>because I know my religion is true and everyone else's is false

You don't know this. You believe it. There is a huge difference.
The moment you confuse the two is the moment you declare yourself wrong.

>>1190619
>Human behavior is much better understood using the scientific method on every level
Just look around you. Science simply comes up with bullshit theories to enable every whim and fleshly desire of people.

>Christianity teaches us practically nothing about who we are
Completely wrong. I suggest you educate yourself.

>It's a collection of stories of failure by a celestial dictator, it teaches us more about this fictional figure than ourselves.
You are tipping really hard. God is not a dictator. In fact, quite the opposite. He solves our shit all the time, even though ungrateful little bitches like you insult him and refuse his love.

>I'd love to hear what Christianity "teaches" us about ourselves that doesn't stand in relation to being servile to skydaddy.
Read the Bible, learn about Catholicism, and you'll have your answer. You can't expect me to answer this question in detail in a 4chan post.

I'm a pretty firm agnostic but I don't think the problem of evil is as strong an objection to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God as it is claimed.

If we grant that God does indeed have these qualities, then it follows that in the world he creates, any situation which we perceive as Evil would not be necessarily be EVIL, perceiving it as we are with our limited knowledge. If we're going to grant that God is omnibenevolent and all-powerful, it follows necessarily that the world he creates must have the least amount of evil necessary. So we essentially flip Leibniz in saying that this is the least bad of all possible worlds, rather than the best possible.

Of course, this is no way justifies belief in such a God in the first place (because you basically run into the ontological problem, which I think is far less sound), nor does it prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian God at all

>>1190628
>Just look around you. Science simply comes up with bullshit theories to enable every whim and fleshly desire of people.
Science is a framework for understanding the world around us. You've done nothing to refute my point.

>Completely wrong. I suggest you educate yourself.
Go on, educate me.

>You are tipping really hard. God is not a dictator.
"Not a dictator" who says shit like "worship me or burn forever"? Nah, don't buy it.

>Read the Bible, learn about Catholicism, and you'll have your answer. You can't expect me to answer this question in detail in a 4chan post.
You have answered in NO detail, which makes me think you have no answer. Read a book that isn't the shitfest called the Bible for a change.

>>1190606
"God works in mysterious ways" is a declaration against free will, much like God being all knowing, and him knowing what you have done, and will do.
Removing free will removes evil as well, but most people aren't willing to take that trade.

>>1190640
>Science is a framework for understanding the world around us. You've done nothing to refute my point.
not an argument. You said science explains human nature. Then tell me what human nature is using science. I will be waiting.

>Go on, educate me.
I am not your teachers, we don't spoon-feed here. Start by why people sin, and why people are evil.

>"Not a dictator" who says shit like "worship me or burn forever"? Nah, don't buy it.
You have it the other way around. Because of original sin, everybody deserves to go to hell. We are tainted and corrupted, hell is the only possible consequence. God though made up a plan so that not only can we be saved from that destiny, but it is through our own free will, by accepting Jesus, his sacrifice, and his sacraments through the Church that we are finally saved.
If God was a dictator he would have simply destroyed us when Adam sinned, or he wouldn't have given a shit and let us all go to hell.

>You have answered in NO detail, which makes me think you have no answer. Read a book that isn't the shitfest called the Bible for a change.
I cannot answer in detail because of how rich the topic is. I suggest you educate yourself and find out how deep and enlightening Catholicism is

>>1190657

>Start by why people sin, and why people are evil.

Not him, but ignorance of the consequences, and over the top addiction to particular types of stimulation.

>>1190657
>not an argument. You said science explains human nature. Then tell me what human nature is using science. I will be waiting.
Learn to read, strawmanning religious asstard. I said science explains human behavior much better than your looney tunes book.

But, still there is an answer to your question. Human nature is the propagation of their genes, i.e. evolutionary processes.

>I am not your teachers, we don't spoonfeed here
And that only seems to be because you're incapable of it, not some effort to save time.

>You have it the other way around.
No, I don't. God created the rules himself, and furthermore, I'll be delighted to know why people who did not commit original sin are punished for it.

>If God was a dictator he would have simply destroyed us when Adam sinned, or he wouldn't have given a shit and let us all go to hell.
And you say this based on what? Who says God can't simply be the petty, sadistic prick he's portrayed as in the Bible?

>I cannot answer in detail because of how rich the topic is. I suggest you educate yourself and find out how deep and enlightening Catholicism is
Are you aware of what the word NO (none, nada, nil) means? Me saying you "answered it in NO detail" means you didn't answer at all. Again, reading comprehension.

>>1190668
>ignorance of the consequences
the consequence is eternal damnation

>>1190671
>I said science explains human behavior much better than your looney tunes book.
Care to empirically prove it, though? It seems to me that the more society rejects religion, the more confused, lost, and unable to find an identity people become
>Human nature is the propagation of their genes, i.e. evolutionary processes.
That is circular reasoning. Creating life does not give meaning to life itself. Evolution does not tell you anything about who you are supposed to be. Passing down your genes is of your actions, but not its goal. Nobody ever did anything "to pass down their genes", not even the act that brings to that.
>yeah lad I totally want to fuck that bird to pass on my genes
things nobody ever said
>And that only seems to be because you're incapable of it, not some effort to save time.
Nope, I already explained why and my reasoning makes perfect sense. Free to delude yourself though.
> God created the rules himself
God created the rules, and we disobeyed them. So yeah, it is our fault.
> I'll be delighted to know why people who did not commit original sin are punished for it.
Because sin corrupts us and makes us incapable of being in the presence of God. It's as if you were complaining that you should not suffer radioactivity after a nuclear explosion because you didn't set the bomb off and it happened in the past. Actions have consequences. You might not like it, but that won't change the truth.
> Who says God can't simply be the petty, sadistic prick he's portrayed as in the Bible?
Just look at his actions. He sends his only Son on earth to take on himself the sins of men, so that we can be restored to how God intended us. All he does in the Old Testament is to bring forth that moment. All he does after that moment is to let everyone know of him, so that they can accept salvation and be saved.

>>1190671
>e saying you "answered it in NO detail" means you didn't answer at all.
I never said I answered it, nor that I answered it in detail. I said the complete opposite. Maybe it is you who should brush up on his reading skills. Start by reading about Catholicism and how rich our faith is. How much it tells us about how God loves us

>>1190698
For some reason you think I want an in-depth answer. I don't, any depth will suffice so long as it is an answer, and we can move from there.

>read muh religious apologetics
Can't even boil down the basic points of what you're talking about? Fuck off, retard.

File: this.jpg (27KB, 400x419px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x419px

>>1190709
>>1190709
I am not telling you to read apologetics. I am telling you to read about the faith. While you read about it, meditate on it and ask yourself how it applies to your life, what message it's conveying.
It helps to read what Catholic saints wrote. They give you an insight in the thoughts and practices of people who have a great love for God and understand him better than most.
If you are sincere in your pursuit of truth, and REALLY open your heart, you will find what you are looking for. Ask God for guidance, and he will give it to you, because he loves you.
Good luck anon, and may God bless you.

>>1190725
So you have no argument, no point to make, and your answer is a request that the other guy brainwashes himself?

If you are sincere in your pursuit of truth, and REALLY open your heart, you will examine evidence, proof, arguments, and accept them, rather than clinging to belief.
Truth is in knowing, not in believing. Truth is in things that are, not things you wish were.

>>1190767
How would I explain something like quantum mechanics in a sentence? You are being illogical. I am telling him to study about the faith because he is judging it without knowing it.
I open my heart every single moment of my life.
I have made plenty of arguments, not sure how that relates to this aspect in particular, seeing as my argument is exactly that he needs to educate himself, and no short statement, no matter how poignant, will ever change his preconceptions all of a sudden, seeing as his point of view is that of somebody uneducated in the subject. The rest of my posts adress some of the arguments he raised in a more specific way.
You are obviously clouded by your bias, anon.

>>1190786
>know faith
Believe* faith. Not know. This isn't something to know. Its not knowledge. It is a belief. It isn't a fact, doesn't exist. It is something you wish were true, so you choose to live as if it were true. That doesn't make it true.
You don't know, you believe, you act as if you know something is true, without it being true.

>You are obviously clouded by your bias, anon.
Your posts are the dictionary definition of bias. I'll do what the other guy did and abandon the thread, maybe you can host a new one a month from now when you've learned the difference between knowing and believing.

-sin/evil is a product of man, who also has free will.
God cannot go back on his word, man has free will so he must deal with its products

-evil is inherent in the world, god puts evil here so we can choose to do good.
read: Soul Making Theodicy

-what makes things sad, evil , happy are based off the the immediate reaction to the event. On a long enough timeline you can see the holocaust, jeffry dahmer etc... as good. Since god lives beyond time he probably doesn't really notice the small evil blips in reality.

interesting to note
has there ever been a passage in the bible, or any other sorta of scripture where God directly intervened to stop evil?

>>1190833
>God cannot
So he isn't all powerful, and thus isn't God.

>>1190843
Oh im sure he could go back on his word, but that might lead to things like the unmaking of all existance like in dogma.
or he's such a perfect benevolent being that taking back our free will is probably the biggest douchbag indian giver things an all powerful being could do.

>>1188148

Terrible, yes, but not evil.

It's a natural phenomenon. It is neither good nor evil. It exists because of the natural laws put in place by God.

>but he could have made a world without tsunamis

And then you have a world without currents. Or any of the natural laws and phenomena that keeps the world spinning.

Same thing with cancer, only difference is, you wouldn't exist as a living being.

>>1190880
If he were all powerful, he could remove evil without removing free will.
If he can't do that, he isn't all powerful.

>>1188301

Why would God want to be above His laws?

He is, yes, but why would He show it?

I mean, even if He did we'd just scream "Tyrant" and try to kill Him. We are just that cuntish.

>>1190887
if he could remove the evil without removing free will then it wouldn't be free will

unless you can give me an example

File: 10.jpg (68KB, 312x320px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 312x320px

Evil is an observation, not an explanation.

>>1190897
I am not all knowing nor all powerful. Just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean an all powerful all knowing being couldn't. We are talking about the being who allegedly created everything from nothing - time, laws of physics, all the energy and matter in existence.

If he can't do something, anything, this means he isn't all powerful.

>>1190907
well then
he's stubborn
and thinks being an indian giver douchebag is the worst thing an all powerful being could do.

>>1190934
So he isn't all good, thus not God.

>>1190887
That's not how evil and free will work

>>1190976
If he can't make them however he wants, he isn't all powerful.

>>1190985
That's not how it works sorry

>>1190989
Nothing to apologize for. If God can't do something, he isn't all powerful by definition.

>>1188760
You seem to be confused regarding the meaning of the word benevolence.

Also:
>We know for a fact(if you're a christian)...

Since when are facts subjective?

Seneca did.

>>1189118
>If a sin is simply something that goes against what is absolutely good, it must be not this absolute good, therefore evil. There is no "absolute evil", evil is simply anything that goes against the good that is the word of God. To try and reason that something can be against God but also not evil is pointless, you'd be arguing on terms that re simply rejected by the nature of the argument. What you call the absolute good is not a "standard", it's simply what is good. Anything not good must necessarily be not of God, and therefore evil.

First of all we are clearly not working from the same definition of evil/good.
My argument still stands tho since you fail to take into account that things, even if we would stick to your definitions, can be more or less evil/good. Seeing as option A can be worse or, more evil than option B then it follows that the latter is more good/less evil, as it is closer to what acording to god is deemed good.
>I think "letting literally anyone into eternal paradise with the only requirement being that they admit that I'm letting them in" is about the most kind outcome you could have.

It would be more kind to drop the requirement.

evil is LITERALLY "everything I don't like"

think about it my fellow millennials, like it's a thing

>>1189393
>the victims will ultimately be glad for their deaths.
Yes, allthough they would be ever more glad if there death wasn't one of agony.

>>1190635
>If we grant that God does indeed have these qualities, then it follows that in the world he creates, any situation which we perceive as Evil would not be necessarily be EVIL, perceiving it as we are with our limited knowledge. If we're going to grant that God is omnibenevolent and all-powerful, it follows necessarily that the world he creates must have the least amount of evil necessary. So we essentially flip Leibniz in saying that this is the least bad of all possible worlds, rather than the best possible.

Your arguments goes against the notion that god is omnipotent as an omnipotent being would be capable of creating a universe without evil. If you combine that with the claim that god is omnibenevolent then god's nature would forbid him from creating a universe with any evil in it.

>>1190657
>You have it the other way around. Because of original sin, everybody deserves to go to hell. We are tainted and corrupted, hell is the only possible consequence. God though made up a plan so that not only can we be saved from that destiny, but it is through our own free will, by accepting Jesus, his sacrifice, and his sacraments through the Church that we are finally saved.
If God was a dictator he would have simply destroyed us when Adam sinned, or he wouldn't have given a shit and let us all go to hell.

So then you admit that god isn't omnibenevolent as to just forgive is kinder than to offer forgiveness if certain conditions are met.

>>1191846
>My argument still stands tho since you fail to take into account that things, even if we would stick to your definitions, can be more or less evil/good
Way to ignore my entire point. I'm saying that's wrong, and you just reasserted it. Anything that is not in accordance with God's word (good) is simply evil/sinful. Like how stealing and murder may have different degrees of punishment, both are equally illegal. "Evil" as you're talking about is a very abstract concept, sins really aren't.

>Seeing as option A can be worse or, more evil than option B then it follows that the latter is more good/less evil, as it is closer to what acording to god is deemed good
Not really. We might say that stealing is less evil than murder, but stealing violates God's word just as much as murder does. You can't bargain with sin, i.e "If I wasn't stealing I'd be murdering, so it's better for me to steal"(not a realistic example but you get he point), that doesn't really fly. A sin is a sin.

>It would be more kind to drop the requirement
Not really, it also wouldn't be just (letting imperfect beings into perfection), the sacrifice of Christ is necessary. Is God unkind for allowing fully self-aware and intelligent beings to make their own decisions?

>>1191972
>to offer forgiveness if certain conditions are met
I don't get this meme of calling "admit that Christ's sacrifice absolves you of sin" a "condition". It's done, you just have to admit that it was done, about as little effort as it could be. Why is "forcing mankind to believe something" considered kinder than "allowing each person to make their own decision"?

>>1192312
>>1191972
The problem of evil does not draw a distinction between causes from "free will" or from natural disasters.

If you saw someone in trouble and you had teh ability to help them without serious lose to yourself not helping them would be dick-headed. Somewhere right now there's someone trapped in a burning building. God is either incapable of saving the person without harm to himself (not all powerful) or he is unwilling (not omnibenovlent).

300 years before Jesus the idea of an all powerful, infinity benevolent, and infinity knowing God was refuted. After more than 2,000 years of theological development no good answer has been found.

The free will argument is moving the goal post. The paradox doesn't even care if free will exists or not.

Evil is something that avoids you from achieving good. Good is the best possible way something could be.
Evil is something that avoids you from achieving the best possible life.

That can be literally everything in the hands of the Devil, even though God created both things and the Devil.
The Devil is the father of lies, so he temps our well intentioned will so we can be perverted.

The Devil can only do that because God allows he to do so, because bad actions must be punished in order for good actions to be recompensed.

>>1188658
It means that before the creation of the world there existed no evil, and after this creation has come to harvest there will again be no evil.

Evil is a temporary cost to the creation that is outweighed by the glory of God being magnified in both the people He took for Himself under the old covenant, and the people He took for Himself under the new covenant.

There will exist nothing evil in 10,000 years, or in 10,000,000.

>>1192382
You're under satan's delusion. It's not about being rewarded for good acts and being punished for bad.

It's a matter of life or death.

>>1192354
>omnibenovlent

Spotted the atheist strawman.

>>1192387
Well, eternal life is a reward, isn't it?

>>1192396
It's life.

Right now, most people reading this, and in fact most people walking on the face of the earth, are dead.

They just don't know they're dead because they use mankind's definition of dead, which is the cessation of life.

God's definition of dead is being separated from Him.

So if someone does not belong to God, he is dead, and eternally dead; if someone does belong to God, he is alive, and eternally alive.

It's a matter of life or death.

>>1192354
>burning buildings aren't scenarios ultimately caused by people
"okay"

All human suffering is caused by human imperfection. I'm not saying that hurricanes hit because we engage in sodomy, but literally any bad situation, or indeed any situation period, has a direct causal relationship to the actions of some amount of imperfect, sinning people. Free will is inextricably bound to the "paradox".

>>1192396
No. Everyone sins, therefore everyone ought to not get eternal paradise (rewarding imperfection with perfection isn't just). But Christ, sinless, died and went to Hell anyway. This sacrifice bears the weight of everyone's sins, no amount of sinning would invalidate you from that. The whole "you go to hell if ur gay/touch yourself/etc." is a puritanical meme.

>>1192427
Let's say an earthquake happened and kills thousands.

What "human action" caused this? Have you ever heard of the Lesbon earthquake. It was a huge quake that killed thousands and destroyed pretty much every church in the city while leaving the other buildings mostly untouched. This was way back hundreds of years ago and was a major turning point away from Christianity.

The atheists and Deists like Voltaire said that it was proof that God either doesn't exist or doesn't care and argued earthqaukes were caused by natural forces, in a time when people still thought they were punishments for sin. The theological churches could not accept that God would just watch silently as his church's were destroyed and good people were killed randomly and tried to figure out what sort of sins they must have done to deserve it or what displeased God about his church that made him want to destroy them.

>>1192408
must be nice feeling like such a special boy

Go ahead and mask those nasty elitist feelings behind a love of god. They don't have to be anything else.

Evil: your baby porn collection.

>>1192576
It is. It very much is. I highly recommend it.

>>1192576
>Go ahead and mask those nasty elitist feelings behind a love of god. They don't have to be anything else.

Non sequitur much?

>>1192562
>What "human action" caused this?
Human choice ultimately lead to people being in the area. I never said that human action caused all events, but that human action is partially responsible for all suffering.

>>1192312
>Way to ignore my entire point. I'm saying that's wrong, and you just reasserted it. Anything that is not in accordance with God's word (good) is simply evil/sinful. Like how stealing and murder may have different degrees of punishment, both are equally illegal. "Evil" as you're talking about is a very abstract concept, sins really aren't.

It's you who are ignoring my point and not the other way around.

We are talking about evil and not necessarily sins. While I do agree that stealing and murder are wrong, one of them are much much worse than the other.


>Not really. We might say that stealing is less evil than murder, but stealing violates God's word just as much as murder does. You can't bargain with sin, i.e "If I wasn't stealing I'd be murdering, so it's better for me to steal"(not a realistic example but you get he point), that doesn't really fly. A sin is a sin.

So what if a sin is a sin? We are talking about evil and good. Stick to the subject. And yes, you can totally "bargain" with sins in regards to the way you put it forward. Or are you saying that it is of equal moral value to shoplift some medicine you need as to massacre a whole town? If your god doesn't see that one of those are by far less moral than the other then your god is incapable of morality. If I'm put into a situation where I have to choose between two evils I will always pick the lesser one.

>>1190212
I already said this, the scenario is amoral, whether God prevents the chair from breaking or not there is no moral or immoral outcome, a chair breaking is beyond morality entirely, it's not a moral event, so God is neither moral or immoral for letting it happen.

>>1192312
>>1192910

>Not really, it also wouldn't be just (letting imperfect beings into perfection), the sacrifice of Christ is necessary. Is God unkind for allowing fully self-aware and intelligent beings to make their own decisions?

God is omnibenevolent so he cannot by definition be just which means that we don't need to bother with that part of your claim. Even as that wasn't the case god is omnipotent so he is capable of transforming imperfect beings into perfects ones which would solve that problem.

Why is the sacrifice of christ necessary? An omnipotent being would be capable of finding another way and an omnibenevolent one would not want to cause suffering, especially as it would be unecessary in this case due to his omnipotence.


Is God unkind for allowing fully self-aware and intelligent beings to make their own decisions?

Yes he is as he's fully informed about the existance of the consequenses and is infact the one who is responsible for the punishment.

I myself would be unkind if I didn't try to stop a person who unbeknownst to him/herself were about to be walking out into oncoming traffic. I would be even more unkind if I was the one driving the car that is heading towards the person if I was capable of stopping my vehicle but decided not to since I didn't want to stop "fully self-aware and intelligent beings [from making] their own decisions".

No

Dostoevsky addressed it very well, though.

>>1192938
>God is omnibenevolent

Where does God reveal that He is "omnibenevolent", whatever that means?

Do you have chapter and verse, or is this just your personal opinion?

>>1192938
>Is God unkind for allowing fully self-aware and intelligent beings to make their own decisions?
>Yes

Unreal. You would rather be a robot.

>>1192959
Jesus answered the Grand Inquisitor before Fyodor was born.

>>1192938
>God is omnibenevolent so he cannot by definition be just
what

>An omnipotent being would be capable of finding another way
well, maybe this was "another way". The need is that allowing multitudes of imperfect people into perfection, so a perfect being goes to imperfection in their stead. why is this inadequate?

>punishment
nice meme, see >>1192427

>unbeknownst to him/herself
except you're completely fucking aware, you just choose to believe it isn't true. the people who actually aren't aware that the message of Christ exists or are unable to effectively interpret it, i.e pre-columbian pagans, children, the mentally handicapped, etc., they're covered under grace. But you're completely capable of understanding it and just choose to believe it's a fairy tale.

>>1192331

>I don't get this meme of calling "admit that Christ's sacrifice absolves you of sin" a "condition". It's done, you just have to admit that it was done, about as little effort as it could be.

It might seem like a small effort to you, as you have no problem with submitting to the deity in question but that doesn't change the fact that it's a condition non the less. Refering to it as a "meme" is just needless shitposting tier.


>Why is "forcing mankind to believe something" considered kinder than "allowing each person to make their own decision"?

By the applied condition you are forcing mankind to believe something with the threat of eternal punishment.


If god only chose to reveal the consequenses in a manner that would leave us all with no doubt of their authenticity then we would be free to make our own decision based on our own wishes, wants and desires. Neglecting to fully inform people in a convincing way when you are capable of it is extremely heinous when the consequenses are so dire.

>>1192972

lol

>>1192383

Ah okay, so god is not omnibenevolent then.

I'm an atheist, but the problem of evil can be solved theoretically in this way:
Free will + trial and error = self improvement as a species

Free will and evil co-existing does not dictate a god would be malevolent.
It could be part of a refinement process.
Evil could be the sand/grit to erode away at the rough until the rough is pure.

>>1192980
Who said that being kind to humans was a good thing?
If humans are inherently evil, surely they deserve evil.

Have any of you actually read the bible?

Isaiah 45:7

>>1192980
Who said He was?

If you don't know, it was atheists. Atheists equate God with "omnibenevolent", which does not exist; they then prove "omnibenevolent" does not exist, which they think proves that God does not exist.

Shooting a rabid dog headed towards your children is the right thing to do. It is not "omnibenevolent".

>>1192992
Yes, enough times to know that the word rah in that context is properly translated "calamities".

>>1192966

It's the only way the problem of evil is a problem. If you are not working from that assumption then what are you doing in this thread?

>>1192970

Not necessarily. What I would like is to be fully informed in a convincing way.

>>1193000
As I stated above, it's a temporary problem.

You literally prefer to be an automaton. You likely drool over transhumanism nonsense.

>>1193000
>What I would like is to be fully informed in a convincing way.

That way is to consent to have God's Holy Spirit live in you and resurrect you into eternal life.

There is no other way that does not end with you treading lava.

>>1192976
>submitting
what exactly am I submitting to? What authority is directly dictating what I must and mustn't do without my consent?

>Refering to it as a "meme" is just needless shitposting tier
It's not meant to be a degradation, it's literally a meme. So is Christianity.

>By the applied condition you are forcing mankind to believe something with the threat of eternal punishment
1) you just have to accept the thing you are being given, i.e salvation, you're not being forced to do anything
2) it's not a punishment, you can't justify why an imperfect being should receive perfection

>Neglecting to fully inform people in a convincing way
The information is very clearly laid out, I'm not sure what the issue is.

>>1193032
You live in a medieval country. It has been conquered recently. The conquering king is riding right by you. What do?

>>1192975
>what
Being merciful isn't just.

>well, maybe this was "another way". The need is that allowing multitudes of imperfect people into perfection, so a perfect being goes to imperfection in their stead. why is this inadequate?

Because an omnipotent being is capable of finding a better solution that is easier, kinder and fairer to everyone it affects. One that doesn't include an unecessary human sacrifice.

If you claim that all human suffering is caused by human imperfection then you are free to prove it. Untill that is done I have no reason to not disgard it.

>except you're completely fucking aware, you just choose to believe it isn't true. the people who actually aren't aware that the message of Christ exists or are unable to effectively interpret it, i.e pre-columbian pagans, children, the mentally handicapped, etc., they're covered under grace. But you're completely capable of understanding it and just choose to believe it's a fairy tale.

I'm not fully aware that it is true which is all that matter. Believes aren't something you choose, it's something you are convinced of. Since I haven't been convinced of the accuracy of the christian claim I have no reason to regard it any higher than any of the other multitude of similar claims throughout history.

As god is capable of revealing the truth to me in a way that would convince me but chooses not to he is also the one upon the guilt of any of the consequenses lies as he is the one that is "ordering" aswell as making them happen. The fact that I lack any belief in him is his failure and not mine.

>>1193074
>As god is capable of revealing the truth to me in a way that would convince me but chooses not to

You are stumbling upon the truth.

What you said is true.

Now you need to ask yourself why God will not do that, will not reveal the truth to you in such a way as you cannot deny it, when He could. (And will, if you never repent.)

File: are you fucking kidding me.jpg (39KB, 600x615px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x615px

>>1186703
>ctrl+f
>no "gnosticism" in the thread
>pic related

Gnostics literally solved the problem of evil.

>>1190598
>That's not an objective way of defining reality at all

Then I think you're misunderstanding me. The proof has to require a wilful denial of reality. Simple disagreement shouldn't be able to shoot it in the foot. Example: the bible is the word of god because it says so fails when you disagree about the validity of the bible.

>>1192987

Read up on the notion of omnibenevolence.


>>1192997

If you are a theist and don't believe that god is omnibenevolent then what are you doing in a thread about the problem of evil?


>>1193009

Anti-tip harder.

>>1193011

Okay so then god is at fault as he is basing salvation upon circular workings. It would be much more efficent to just let me know in a more efficent way that doesn't necessitate that I'm already convinced.

>>1190628
>his love.

Sounds like the love of a psychotic abusive alcoholic.

>>1193107
>If you are a theist and don't believe that god is omnibenevolent then what are you doing in a thread about the problem of evil?

I am asking where the idea that "God is omnibenevolent" came from.

Nobody has a source except my source, which is that it is an atheist strawman.

God is never at fault, nor would it ever be worthwhile attempting to demonstrate that He ever was.

>You should read about our faith, it explains so much about human nature!
>certainly better than psychology and neurology, which both make strides towards actually helping people
>but I wont tell you what it actually explains, instead we expect you to read these boring, dense tomes of utter bullshit to appease us

Fuck off.

>>1193112
To damaged people, maybe. There's a strong correlation between fatherless children and atheists/agnostics/anti-theists.

>>1193126
God is all good, benevolence is part of good. There's your explanation, you goddamn moron.

>>1193132
Yes, it makes perfect sense an all powerful god would make it more likely for large swathes of people to reject his message due to circumstances out of their control. He's totally not a sadistic retard, no sir.

Good and evil don't exist.

Why would God create creatures knowing full well they would suffer pain and at times suffer without them committing a single wrong such as babies and all that.

>>1193032

>what exactly am I submitting to?

You are submitting to the notion that you are responsible for the sins of your father. You are submitting to the notion that unecessary human sacrifices are acceptable. You are submitting to the notion that someone else can rid you of commited sins.

>What authority is directly dictating what I must and mustn't do without my consent?

Not that what you are saying necessarily follows from what I wrote but you might want to look up the mafia boss analogy.

>1)
I'm forced to accept the notion that someone can take my sins upon themself. Also something isn't generally considered a gift if it is attached to a threat.

>2)
>it's not a punishment,
You are punished for not accepting it. If I offered you a meal would I not be punishing you if I sent you into temporary exile in your room if you didn't accept it?

>you can't justify why an imperfect being should receive perfection

With an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being I don't have to justify it as the problem becomes moot.

>The information is very clearly laid out, I'm not sure what the issue is.

The issue is obviously that the information isn't convincing for everyone.

>>1193149
kek

File: Aquinas-two-books2.jpg (144KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 533x800px

Why do we give a fuck what Christians have to say?

>>1188020
>we can sin because God gave us free will
He didn't give us very much of it, if any.

>>1193239
Because they make up a large portion of the world's inhabitants and alot of countries' laws and social norms are based or inspired by christian thinking.

>>1193074
>Being merciful isn't just
who said mercy instead of justice was good?

>a better solution
what's wrong with this one?

>easier
everything is equally easy to an omnipotent

>kinder
in what way is this unkind?

>fairer
in what way is this unfair

>unecessary human sacrifice
prove that it's unnecessary

>then you are free to prove it
>humans are imperfect and make all decisions from an imperfect standpoint
>all human decisions and situations are partially causally linked to decisions of previous humans
>ergo anyone in a situation that would cause suffering is there because of the collective decisions of an imperfect line of humans
not incredibly complicated

>>1193193
>You are submitting to the notion that you are responsible for the sins of your father. You are submitting to the notion that unecessary human sacrifices are acceptable. You are submitting to the notion that someone else can rid you of commited sins
all utter nonsense

>you might want to look up the mafia boss analogy.
I'm aware of it, but it isn't accurate for reasons that I've already stated.

>threat
> If I offered you a meal would I not be punishing you if I sent you into temporary exile in your room if you didn't accept it?
I can't believe I still have to say this, but Hell/spiritual separation form God is the just default for imperfect beings. God then goes out of his way to circumvent this and let everyone in if they so choose, but this is apparently a threat. It's like if you were destitute purely because of your own poor choices, I offered to house, feed, and clothe you free of charge, but you said I was evil because I was threatening you with poverty if you didn't accept my offer.

>With an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being I don't have to justify it as the problem becomes moot.
>you can be so powerful that you can logically ignore your own standards of justice because reasons
"okay"

>"If you were actually right I would believe you!"
nice "logic"

>>1193155
Because I'm sadistic.

>>1193137
Again, what is your source for this?

The bible says that God is Good.

Where is your source that says God is "All Good"?

>>1193291
Will you peg me in the boipucci and watch me wriggle in pain with every thrust like a sadist?

>>1193146
It does to me, yes. Not many people want to live with God forever. Most just focus on their little pathetic lives here on earth.

>>1193301
I think he'd like that.

>>1193302
Frankly, the idea of eternal life with God sounds fucking mortifying. Like an eternity doped up on benzos as a psychopath's pet.

>>1193307
What about you :3

>>1193315
See? Not everyone is capable of making wise decisions. In fact, few are.

>>1193317
At least you dropped your trip.

>>1193267

>who said mercy instead of justice was good?

The definition of omnibenevolence.

>what's wrong with this one?

It's unecessary complex and arbitrary.

>everything is equally easy to an omnipotent
I wasn't talking about the omnipotent one, obviously,..

>in what way is this unkind? / in what way is this unfair

I'm not saying that it is unkind/unfair, I'm saying that there are kinder and fairer solutions.


>prove that it's unnecessary
God is omnipotent.

>not incredibly complicated
Realised I was reading things into what you had written. Making a garden.

>all utter nonsense
I agree.

>Hell/spiritual separation form God is the just default for imperfect beings. etc etc.

Yeah god is in fact really kind and generous for making the rules that means I'm by default destined for eternal torment/seperation from good.

>you can be so powerful that you can logically ignore your own standards of justice because reasons

Wut, where ever did you get this from?
What I wrote was that god is capable of making us perfect from the get go.


>"If you were actually right I would believe you!"

Every day I'm strawmannin', strawmannin', strawmannin'

https://www.strawpoll.me/10311069

thank you /his/

>>1193348
>The definition of omnibenevolence.

Where would this come from, again?

>>1193358
not that anon, but I just had a thought.

Omnibenevolence would be maximum goodness.

But there's a problem: what version of "good" is being maximized? If we don't know what "good" is, prior to a conversation about God altogether, what sense does it make to say that God has the epitome of it? It seems like an empty attribute.

And if we're saying that the standard of "goodness" is God, then saying that God has maximum "goodness" just feels like a circular statement.

>>1193401
and that's without even getting into the Euthyphro Dilemma.

>>1193401
I have found it to be a strawman, as "omni" means "all" in common useage, and God does things like floods the world, killing millions of beings, which from His perspective is good, but would not be good from the perspective of the people drowning.

The closest I can find in the bible is God turning evil into good, which of course would have to be the case for God to collaborate with men, or for God to provide some means by which mankind might be saved from its own depravity.

>>1193239
because we are a lot smarter than you will ever be

>>1193193
>I'm forced to accept the notion that someone can take my sins upon themself. Also something isn't generally considered a gift if it is attached to a threat.

You're forced to believe the truth if you want to be a Christian, yes. And you're forced to realize that you'll always be indebted to Christ Jesus, and that you'll never be able to thank Him enough, or pay Him back, for what He's done.

>>1193442
Intelligence? perhaps; Self-awareness? no.

>>1193466
Why should I thanks someone for an immoral deed?

File: Gods-Power-Over-Time.jpg (29KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x495px

>>1193092

Not that guy but:

Any answer other than

"The creature so described is an asshole by any meaningful standard whatever, and is consequently undeserving of worship or veneration;

moreover, since we

a) do not in point of fact have /knowledge/ of such a creature (as honest Christians will own), but instead only historical /traditions/ about the creature whose adherents pretend at knowledge when it is convenient, and alternately instead emphasize the beauty of faith for the same reason when they are obliged by reality to abdicate knowledge, we say that the features of these traditions can be explained in conventionally modern, scientific terms,

b) can, /in the absence of knowledge/, just as legitimately entertain the situations that such a creature, if it actually exist(s), might be some slight permutation of the above, /but at the same time that no human religion ever yet conceived, or that will ever be conceived, accurately describes such a creature as 'actually' hypothetically exists. And that this is by the design of some subset of the above conceivable, intractable infinity of possibilities. In these cases, just as expressible, hopeless, and having /equal legitimacy/ with the above RL historical instances, /by dint of the fact of the ///absence of knowledge/// of the truth of certain religious tenets, even in the historical cases/, we may just as legitimately entertain another unjust deity which will never reveal to us a procedure whereby we might avoid hell. /The absence of knowledge in both cases/ is what renders one unpleasant possibility fungible with the next. We trade one asshole for an infinity of others,

c) have developed a science and a continuum of historical information that /does/ produce knowledge, and that the knowledge that these produce has a clearly inverse relationship with the legitimacy of certain traditionally religious tenets, each time forced to retreat further back, until the whole of course becomes suspect as bogus,

cont.

>>1193788

and in view of the above, since also

d) abrahamic texts can easily and more accurately be read /not/ as being inspired by god, but instead as being historical documents of /projections/ of what an asshole the average human would be as god, and we have historical proofs of this which confirm same (which men were sometimes themselves atheists, the Christian will protest, when he should instead observe that assholes are to be found everywhere, And Still It Moves, and that the better we understand It, the better we reject religion's place in It)

In view of all of these, then, we affirm the above, that

e) The god of abraham, the creature variously described in the above, is an abhorrent fiction which we can, should, must, and will excise from our lives, /even in the event that this proves painful and contrary to the human condition, which history suggests that it will be/. Because /this/ is where the truth leads us, and we must follow the truth, however difficult. And no, the Christian may not console himself about a false irony in the last statement - that truth has not, does not now, and will not in the future, point towards any god. And there the matter reaches its closure, never to be altered, short of god splitting the sky tomorrow, which it was always incumbent upon it to do in the first place, /in order to produce knowledge./ See, even here, even in the "gotcha" by which the Christian claims false victory, the false creature is ever an asshole.

We cease therefore to believe in any god, and especially in the god of abraham, which is false, and even in the case that it were real, it would be wholly undeserving of worship, /even and especially in the case that he runs the end-game in the manner described./ The only genuinely moral action, when faced with the reality of such a creature, the 'impossible' action which for us is not merely possible but necessary, would be to reject it, and to correctly turn one's back on it for ever."

is incorrect.

File: tipping loudly.webm (3MB, 1200x676px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x676px

>>1193788
>>1193814

File: 1451804811731.jpg (160KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 640x480px

>>1193830

>>1188306
I guess you never read G. E. M. Anscombe's critiques of Hume. Too Catholic for you probably.

If God wants to show me he's real, I'll gladly accept. Until then keep dodging

>>1193830
As always, good argument from the highly logical and well educated christian crowd.

>>1195080
>muh arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!!! truth doesn't matter muh arguments!!!!!!!
u totally right senor gentleman

tfw no atheist gf

*tips fedora*

>>1195090
Truth is proven by arguments, cultist.
All the best theologians actually argue their position, and reason it to the best of their ability.
You are a child, a baby refusing to accept the truth, instead clinging to outdated notions that you don't even understand well enough to defend.

>>1194075

Let me guess, his main argument is "causality is infallible because muh faith and muh jesus".

>>1186703
>>1193096

File: 1462839968409.jpg (61KB, 1122x540px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1122x540px

>>1193348
>The definition of omnibenevolence
In a Christian context, whatever God does is simply good. Your entire argument revolves around creating some abstract notion of good that seems right to you and claiming that God must be evil or not completely good because he doesn't fit it. This is no longer a conversation about the Problem of Evil or the validity of the Crucifixion, it's become about you saying that you disagree with Judeo-Christian morality.

>It's unecessary complex and arbitrary
Is the human brain unnecessarily complex and arbitrary? Why didn't God just make it simple!

inb4 strawman, I don't see why something having a minuscule amount of complexity is a bad thing. "He could have done it simpler" is not an argument. An omnipotent being could have done it in any way with an equal lack of difficulty.

>I wasn't talking about the omnipotent one, obviously,..
The entire Problem of Evil hinges around the fact that God is supposedly omnipotent. Which non-omnipotent deity are we talking about?

>I'm not saying that it is unkind/unfair, I'm saying that there are kinder and fairer solutions
prove it

>God is omnipotent
Whatever was done, you'd just claim it was unnecessary because an omnipotent being could have done something else.

>Realised I was reading things into what you had written. Making a garden
what did he mean by this?

>I agree
then why did you claim I believed it? I'm telling you that the assertion that Christianity teaches those things is utter nonsense

>I'm by default destined for eternal torment/seperation from good
only if you make the informed choice to reject Christ after hearing his message.

>haha strawman! that's a strawman!
No it's not, you literally expressed that idea. Your argument was on the level of "if God were REALLY omnipotent, he would smite me where I stand XD".

>>1195107
>Truth is proven by arguments

t. sophist

>>1195591
>truth is proven by faith

t. idiot

>>1188020

Dostoyevsky pls go

>>1195595
>implying I said anything of the kind

t. strawman

>>1195588
>In a Christian context, whatever God does is simply good. Your entire argument revolves around creating some abstract notion of good that seems right to you and claiming that God must be evil or not completely good because he doesn't fit it. This is no longer a conversation about the Problem of Evil or the validity of the Crucifixion, it's become about you saying that you disagree with Judeo-Christian morality.

It's not I who coined the term omnibenevolence. The term is central to the problem of evil.


>Red herrings about the human brain and complexity being bad.

The problem with it not being simpler is that it goes against the assumtion that the creator of the rules is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the being in question possessed those two things then he would by necessity make it simpler so that less people would fail to achieve it.


>The entire Problem of Evil hinges around the fact that God is supposedly omnipotent. Which non-omnipotent deity are we talking about?

Why are you refering to humans as deities?

>prove it

God is omnipotent, therefore he is capable of everything.

Ergo he is capable of just making people perfect without any human sacrifice or conditions.

>Whatever was done, you'd just claim it was unnecessary because an omnipotent being could have done something else.

What did you mean by this?


>what did he mean by this?

I was making a joke based on my misspelling of the word disregard. The opposite of disgard would be to make a garden.

>I'm telling you that the assertion that Christianity teaches those things is utter nonsense

News to me that christianity has abandoned the notion original sin and Jesus' sacrifice.
>No it's not, you literally expressed that idea.

Please tell me where I did this as I'm not aware of ever doing it.

>>1195588
>whatever God does is simply good
Then that means that goodness is just "Godly action". Things being "good" are synonymous with things being "how God would do them".

This makes "goodness" a pointless label.

Moreover, omnibenevolence simply becomes "the epitome of acting like God". Which renders it a pointless label to ascribe to God, because "acting more like God than any other being" is obviously a trait that God would have.

>>1188026
How do you even take the jealous out of jealousy? No offense but that doesn't make sense. Sin according to His word is death, which is evil. Death itself is the price of sin. Now as vague as this sounds, we can try to define it more clearly.

Again jealousy as the example. From jealousy alone you can have multiple forms of death. You can be jealous to the point of anger, which can potentially lead to stealing or killing or acting out ones life in individual anger or frustration which alone can spread like wildfire among the masses, it's translation among the masses can be that of which why people exercise hate over love when dealing with one another, which again, with some individuals, they may take their hate further than others by way of stealing or killing etc etc. Or jealousy can lead to despondence which can in turn lead to suicide, poverty and the routes of various types of hopelessness. So as scripture (not religion) accurately states, all sin leads to death. In a more broader sense it leads to all discord and as such, it has been accurately defined as "evil."

So there's really no way that sin cannot result in evil. It's an option that exists outside of God's will. That's why sin is permitted I think. People always ask, if God's real how can so many innocent suffer? To show what is and isn't God's will. The polarity is never more defined.

As for God's word (not religion), as for God's word in relation to evil, it's a precise blueprint on how to generally avoid and free yourself from suffering and death, which as stated above is sin. An example would be humility and contentment. Be humble and content with what you do have, coveting leads to idolatry and other sin, and since this isn't our permanent residence obviously, what's the point of toiling and struggling and fighting one another in vain? That all stems from fears and all around a lack of temperance. That's where you get sin's opposite, the virtues.

>>1193485
Most people think that the ultimate self-sacrifice is the greatest act of love ever.

You can have your own opinion, and then pay for it.

>>1193788
Bullshit.

God will not overwhelm you while you yet live. He has given you enough information, faculty, agency and sovereignty to believe in Him, or to reject Him.

>>1197349
Anyways, the only true way to combat evil is to not participate in it. Now if evil comes upon you unwarranted or as a test, that's where the faith begins to become more tangible. If it comes upon you unwarranted and you're in faith, you will eventually see you have nothing to truly fear, if it comes upon you as a form of a test, your faith will grow stronger. Either way, with the word of God, the Gospel, when both are taken heed of that's where you get Psalm 21:11, Isiah 54:17 etc etc. Basically no evil device will prosper against you. That's the promise from God, to you. Words from an alleged God of all, in a 2,000 plus year old book, looking out for your best interest by giving you the engineering perspective of human behavior. And I say 'alleged,' because I know a lot of people don't believe.

And if people think anyone is free to do anything, as if our deeds mean absolutely nothing, when even on the surface they obviously mean something and have an effect, do something to anyone, their face and emotions will give you a direct result of your actions...so how much greater the effect of our actions in the greater parts of our destined existence? So yeah, just because you see people getting away with murder literally and figuratively, don't think for a second it all means nothing.

>>1197367
Prove that it means something.

>>1197367
How's that going for ya? Never had an evil thought did ya? Never did anything that anyone ever might consider evil? Like lying? Maybe a little stealing? How about lusting after people? Ever done that? Hate anyone? Wish they were dead? How about jealousy? Ever been jealous? Wanted something someone else had?

Ever?

>>1197354
>Ultimate sacrifice

At least when Tyr sacrificed his hand he never got it back.

Suffering for three days before returning to heaven as its ruler isn't exactly what I'd call a sacrifice. More like a great deal.

The fact is it that human sacrifices are sick and it's even more deranged to believe that sins you have committed can be washed away by them.

>You can have your own opinion, and then pay for it.

Oh yeah go ahead and passively aggressively threaten me. That totally means you have the moral high ground.

>>1197380
In the big picture as in beyond death? I can't. But we have the proof that's on the surface. The human emotions and our interactions with each other tell that story more clear than any language ever could. Our interactions among one another transcend the languages. The languages are at the mercy of the feelings and emotions. That's proof enough for me personally. To know that our deeds, who we are, have discernible impact on a grand scale, just here, among eachother. That tells me how greater they must be in the greater levels of existence.

So yeah, If God's will is to do good, like that 2,000+ year old book suggests, which is urging people to see the prophet in righteousness and good, and we exercise that option among one another, the outcome from that is easy to imagine. I mean in all seriousness, the very fact there's a book that old, with a word of hope, urging people to live together, as if it new before hand we'd be a complete mess on our own, so for me...that's enough to make me raise an eyebrow.

>>1186703
>Has the problem of evil every truly been solved?
It hasn't.

The problem of good hasn't been solved either.

>>1197571
Yes because clearly the bible was the first time anyone ever decided to write down a code of morality.

>>1190696
>God created the rules
Yes, he created the rule "love me or literally burn in torment for eternity"

Hence why God should be considered a psychotically evil dictator.

If sin is defined as a series of finite actions by finite beings that a deity commands not to do, why does it warrant infinite punishment? If one can repent here, why not later in the afterlife?

>>1197362

That your opener, the very first thing that you manage, is both a one-word denial and an isolated curse is deeply gratifying to me from a rhetorical and from an argumentative standpoint.

Of course, you have your wits about you enough to know that you should calmly buttress the thing, which you then do. And you keep on telling yourself that the creature has satisfactorily revealed itself, and at all points in history, AND that it is all-powerful, AND that it is all-knowing, AND that it is "good", AND that to reject it is to warrant hell.

It is not I who will "keep on telling myself" things. That office is reserved for you, and for those like you. Of course, the above is false. What you should really do, is to /cease/ to keep on telling yourself.

>>1197407
>Ever?

Take a guess...

>>1197660
Have you read anything older that "focuses on a code of morality"?

>>1197896
The Republic.

>>1197689
but anon, he's perfect! You're silly for putting human constraints on Him, and holding Him to human standards!

Also he's such a good person, and has such a great personality! :-)

>>1197911
>The Republic.

Is that really older than the Torah? Also The Republic was delivered as a discussion, men who had to debate to find what was good. When the bible was delivered as something separate from man in context. But regardless, good in relation to evil is beyond evident. It really doesn't take much imagination to see the benefits.

>>1198215
Guess Zoroastrians got it right. No wait, the Hindus!

File: Sophia.jpg (102KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x628px

>>1190618

Wow MAN, it sounds like you figured it all out. I mean there is no possible way GOD could just balance the scales of the universe through Karma when you die.... like every religion, worthy of the name, has taught since the dawn of History. Don't worry, I'm sure your few decades of life have made you more wise then an infinite mind that has been around, at the very minimum, Billions of years.

>>1198272
Allowing evil to exist is not good. If evil exists, and god knows of it, and he could remove it, then he isn't all good.
Insult me all way you want what that passive aggressive bullshit, facts are facts

>>2016
>>talking about religion

>>1186703

>>1190272
>Once this god business gets involved
Only the Abrahamic God, and those with similar claims, have the problem of Evil. It is caused by the mistaken belief that 'Evil' is an objective force, when it is in fact a subjective experience. 'Evil' in the context of the Abrahamic Religions, is a description of heresy, nothing more and nothing less.

>>1197896
Code of Hammurable.