Philosophy

If he's all-knowing he probably has a better idea of what is good than you

>>9594878
Wow, this argument has never been thought of before. Are you one of those enlightened redditors?

>>9594884
But we are the ones that decided or "was told by God" that he is all good, therefore either we decide what is good or God has already showed us what is good.

>>9594878
>hay guis i've been thinking about this really hard and i've come up with something
>everybody come and listen to my unique insights
>no wait really guis
>please

oh fuck off. there's no god. no sensible person believes in a god any more. now fuck off to your /his/ containment board

Maybe God just ain't good, he could be spiteful and sadistic
There's no need to impute good intentions

>>9594878

okay, ill bite.

premise two. why would goodness, even infinite goodness, preclude suffering?

File: enlightened.jpg (66KB, 750x751px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x751px

>>9594898
M'lady.

>>9594963
>ebin hat meme

day of the fucking rope can't come soon enough for you turds

God is the abyss of being duh

File: chinaman.jpg (8KB, 355x397px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 355x397px

>>9594977
>day of the fucking rope
There's always >>>/pol/ for you to shitpost, you greasy neckbeard.

God wants us to experience a minuscule amount of pain in earthly life in order to allow us to conceive the infinite good that eternity will give us.

If we had nothing negative to which we could compare heaven with, it would provoke such happiness and nourishment.

>>9594977

this butt blasted over what he calls an imaginary friend

>>9594878
Premise 2 is wrong.

File: 1496570549705-a.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>9594878

Why do you define suffering as bad? Lots of people chose to suffer and enjoy it. I do, when I run marathons.

It seems you haven't thought this through. Tell us, when you define something as 'bad', what precisely do you mean by 'bad'? I want the definition you use, not merely an example of something you might define as bad. Surely you don't judge things to be 'good' or 'bad' without knowing what you mean?

Moreover, if we accept the hypothetical prepositions that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then it must follow that God knows better than you or I in what good and bad consist. Consequently, if God, being all-powerful, causes things to happen in the world that we perceive as bad, then it can only be our perception or definition of 'bad' that is mistaken and in fact bad, because we are not all-knowing, and he is.

>>9594878
define all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing

>>9594878
>All good
This is a dubious aspect of most theistic gods.
>Premise 2
This premise is the most dubious premise when you consider actual theologies. For instance, I think it's in Jeremiah where it says God will mold the actions of disobedient and evil people to his own will like a potter molds clay. This sounds like a God who does not outright prohibit suffering or evil yet molds it into a perfect will.

>>9594878
>Taking stories literally instead of figuratively, still after 1500 years.

>>9595021
wouldn't *

>>9595032
So in your view, famine and cancer are in fact good things because God hasn't eradicated them?

>>9594878
>Premise 2: Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering
God gave humans free will and they ran away from him, which is why they suffer. Its without God that hell is.

There's a few reasons why god might do this, one being that he has overriding goals for mankind such as free will. The idea is that god creates purely for the joy of creation and he wants us to love him, but we can't actually love him unless we're given the choice to reject him. Without the ability to do evil we would just be robots.

Another possible reason for god to allow evil to exist might be that it allows a certain good to spring from it that might otherwise not exist, or in other words, it might be better to allow some evil to exist because a greater good will come of it. If we all lived in padded rooms our entire lives we could never get hurt but we could also never really live a fulfilling life. It's the same idea here.

You might ask why god doesn't limit the amount of evil or suffering that exists, but evil in this sense is a relative concept. If the greatest evil that existed in the world was a stubbed toe, and we had no real concept of the sort of evils that actually exist in our world, we would still be wondering why god allows stubbed toes. It only really makes sense to limit evil entirely or not at all.

>>9595062
so he's not omnipotent then

>>9595054
not him, but no. ops second premise is implicitly "an all good-being would do everything to stop *all* suffering". that anon showed that there exists some (non-bad) suffering that an all-good being would not stop. so the second premise is false.

>>9595079
Why? How does that strips it from Him?

>>9595054

Yes. The world is perfectly just.

>>9595079
if humans have radical freedom such that they can introduce suffering and evil into the world, then God lacks the power to prevent it
if God has the power to prevent it and abstains, then he is not all-good

Suffering is actually kinda good if you think about it.

>>9595085
How is a 5 year old kid being diagnosed with leukemia just? What did they do to deserve it?

>>9595085
read Hume's dialogues, brainlet

File: image.jpg (38KB, 480x393px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x393px

>>9594878
Existence is futile without suffering desu

>>9595090

You're assuming that God would not have good reasons for allowing evil to exist. See >>9595067

File: Epictetus-Feature.jpg (153KB, 400x453px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 400x453px

>>9595054

>So in your view, famine and cancer are in fact good things because God hasn't eradicated them?

I think they are neither good nor bad but indifferent. Good and bad lies only in our perceptions, thoughts, opinions, and consequent choices, all that is outside your choice is morally indifferent. We have complete control over our own perceptions, thoughts, opinions and consequent choices, and thus our good and our bad are entirely in our own choice.

>"Do you therefore likewise, being sensible of this, inspect the faculties you have, and after taking a view of them, say, " Bring on me now, O' Jupiter, what difficulty thou wilt, for I have faculties granted me by thee, and abilities by which I may acquire honour and ornament to myself."—No; but you sit trembling, for fear this or that should happen; and lamenting, and mourning, and groaning at what doth happen; and then you accuse the gods. For what is the consequence of such a meanspiritedness, but impiety? and yet God hath not only granted us these faculties, by which we may bear every event without being depressed or broken by it; but, like a good prince, and a true father, hath rendered them incapable of restraint, compulsion, or hindrance, and entirely dependent on our own pleasure: nor hath he reserved a power, even to himself, of hindering or restraining them. Having these things free, and your own, will you make no use of them, nor consider what you have received, nor from whom? but sit groaning and lamenting, some of you, blind to him who gave them, and not acknowledging your benefactor; and others, basely turning yourselves to complaints and accusations of God? yet I undertake to show you that you have qualifications and occasions for greatness of soul, and a manly spirit; but what occasions you have to find fault, and complain, do you show me." - Epictetus

>>9595100
Theists always claim that God doesn't want to violate free will, but do they ever explain how the non-violation of free will is a virtue in itself? Would you be opposed to being sent directly to paradise right now even if it were done without your consent?

>>9595100
surely a truly omnipotent and omniscient being could create a world competent devoid of evil, and surely a truly omnibenevolent being would do so

what kind of perfect being has to balance accounts and make pragmatic trade-offs to maximize value?

>>9595114
*completely devoid

File: Guido_Reni_031.jpg (313KB, 1576x2358px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1576x2358px

>>9594878
This argument is probably the best one the atheists have. It's not an original argument, but it's still very good. There hasn't been an emotionally satisfying answer made to this argument yet. But here's what Aquinas puts in the Summa:

>As Augustine says: "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

In the Bible there's this idea that some things are better if they're lost and then found. Like in the parable of the prodigal son. The father threw a party because his son had abandoned him, but then had eventually come back asking for forgiveness. The prodigal son's brother was mad because he never had a party thrown for him even though he never abandoned his father. There was no reason to throw a party for someone that never became a better person, because he was always a good person. So, I guess it's kinda like this in Christianity. Because mankind deserved death, it's all the more greater that they eventually get eternal life.

>>9595114

You have yet to define what exactly you mean when you say 'good' and 'evil' as I asked here >>9595032

>>9595113

I explained in my post. If God's objective is to create creatures that love him, then free will is a necessity. Without free will we're robots, and robots are incapable of loving anything.

>>9595114

I can't respond to you if you refuse to read what I wrote.

>>9595130
Also freewill is a necessity to being in the image of God

>>9595125
I'm not OP
although, if that's your stance on 'good' and 'evil' I don't see why you don't just give up on language and argument altogether, since you admit you know so little about your own concepts

>>9595130
reading =/= assenting to
I am disputing your argument

>>9595140

You know, I was going write exactly what I wrote in my first post which addressed the point you brought up but I changed my mind. You're not willing to have a conversion.

So God can't eliminate evil without violating free will? Surely I can help someone without violating their free will?

>>9595125
Man, apologists always fall back on this fucking line of argument.
>God knows better than we do, we don't know anything, so shut the fuck up.
Like, the human conception of "good" is the only one we have to work with. If you claim that God is all-good then you're talking about the human conception of good, even if it doesn't admit of conceptual analysis, and you're just lapsing into meaninglessness if you claim that God's good is completely separate and inscrutable.

File: jidf.gif (7KB, 332x375px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 332x375px

>>9595120
good and evil cancel each other out on the balance sheet of life heehee

good requires evil just like credit requires debt

everything cancels out and god takes a little deduction for the operating expenses

>>9595032
But you're isolating suffering from its context. You run a marathon and suffer physical pain but you get benefits like a sense of achievement. If you thought absolutely nothing good would come of it and you had a choice, you wouldn't have done it.

That kind of suffering is fine, when you choose to undergo it for a greater good, and people do get a sense if accomplishment from overcoming suffering. But the problem of suffering is about pointless suffering, which absolutely does exist and some people just have shittier lives and less opportunities for choice than others, which contradicts the idea that this world was specifically planned as the world that provides the best opportunity for everyone's spiritual growth.

The classic example is natural disasters, a father who's entire family dies in an earthquake is going to be in serious mental pain. What's he getting out of it? E didn't choose ir deserve it. And yes, I'm purposefully making it similar to Job, becuase Job provides two conflicting and very un-Christian answers to the problem.

>>9595156

It's not that it's a violation of free will. The question is why eliminate some evils and not all?

I think it's important to note that there can be free will and no evil. It's possible for everyone to just happen to choose not to ever sin.

>>9595140

Where did I admit yo knowing 'so little'? I don't claim to know much, but I do know exactly what I mean when I call anything 'good' or 'bad' and have developed what I believe to be a universally applicable logically consistent system for measuring both.

Why do you discuss 'good' and 'bad' without even attempting to define or even understand the nature of either? Are you in the habit of authoritatively talking about things which you you know absolutely nothing about?

>>9595159

>Like, the human conception of "good" is the only one we have to work with

Explain this conception of 'good' by precisely defining it as you understand it.

Why do you discuss 'good' and 'bad' without even attempting to define or even understand the nature of either? Are you also in the habit of authoritatively talking about things which you you know absolutely nothing about?

>>9594878
God allows suffering because we suck
premise 2 is false

>>9595021
>minuscule amount of pain

Tell that to starving children, rape victims, tortured prisoners, etc.

Not saying OP's argument is perfect, but it can't be explained away by vale of soul making reasoning like "We suffer so that we'll be better" when there is real suffering that is either fatal or pointless.

>>9595184
>>9595196
>>9595184
>I do know exactly what I mean when I call anything 'good' or 'bad' and have developed what I believe to be a universally applicable logically consistent system for measuring both
Care to describe it?

>Why do you discuss 'good' and 'bad' without even attempting to define or even understand the nature of either?
Because I'm not a Platonist and I have an inkling how language works, and, hint, it's not a static structure of words and their definitions. Forcing a definition upon the word "good" invariably fails to capture its usage, and its usage is the key to its meaning, which need not be exhaustively explicable with other words, much less a sentence or two.

>>9594878

The idea is that Pleroma is Pleroma not by contractual exemption from corruption, but by its immanent Goodness and Truth which can be endlessly refracted into all manners of incarnation without being destroyed.

>>9595205
>Tell that to starving children, rape victims, tortured prisoners, etc.
Do you have reading disability or something? The reason for all the suffering is because people run away from God.

>>9594878
think of what a shitty useless person you'd be if you had never suffered

wait, nm you're already shitty

>>9594878
>anthropomorphizing god

>>9595208

You purport to understand how language works, and yet can't write a simple definition for a word you use multiple times every day? Excuse me if I don't believe you. I think you've never so much as considered the question before in your entire life, and have always used the word under the assumption that you knew what you meant when you used it. You have just now realised how ignorant you were, and are now looking for excuses for your negligence.

Seeing as you are demonstrably irrational I don't think posting my definition will do any good: you want to turn the spotlight away from your own ignorance and instead focus the argument on my definition, which you will attempt to pick apart irrespective of it's merit. I'll post it anyhow in the small chance that you might derive some kind of benefit from it - I hope the question I have asked has benefitted you also

.To put my definition simply, the 'good' of any thing is proportional to how well it fulfills it's function, or if you prefer, by how much of it's definitive qualities it possesses.

>>9595183
Yeah, this is where the argument really sticks in the case of Christianity specifically. If heaven is pure paradise, there's no evil there. But evil is a necessary consequence of free will. So people in heaven can't have free will and are automatons, which kind of fucks up the whole soul-consciousness-freewill thing. Or if they do have free will they can commit evil and heaven has suffering. Or, they have free will but are purified so they never choose evil, but then why couldn't God make the world with that kind of free will from the start?

The Christian answer is that the world is in a fallen state, traditionally due to Adam and Eve's transgression (original sin). This necessitates the plan of salvation whereby people live a mortal life in which they spiritually grow, and those who accept God (Jesus, after c.33AD) return to Him in the afterlife. However, this opens a whole other can of worms, like Adam and Eve never existing (and no, genetic Adam and genetic Eve don't fit the bill, they exist due to other Y-chromosome and mitochondrial lineages dying out, they weren't a single couple that spawned the entire human race). Also, you still have the problem of not creating humans in a purified state in the first place, because Adam and Eve could choose to sin.

>>9595259
>You purport to understand how language works, and yet can't write a simple definition for a word you use multiple times every day?
My understanding of language goes against the adequacy of "simple definition" for actually providing the meaning of a word, which was the point I made in the post you're responding to. Think about how you learned to use words, and think about how you do use them in the contexts you use them in. Is this really something that you think is adequately captured by an isolated sentence?

>how well it fulfills it's function, or if you prefer, by how much of it's definitive qualities it possesses.
So, Aristotle's conception of virtue, essentially? Don't you have to assume a completely teleological and essentialist view of nature for that? I can see why we disagree on language.

>>9595266
>So people in heaven can't have free will and are automatons

Who says that? The angels were in heaven and then chose to reject God, becoming the demons.

>>9595054
God never meant for our world to be perfect after the fall. Man would enjoy earthly related things and forget God's kingdom.

>>9595281

We cannot know that reason is perfect, yet it is the best such tool that we have. Language too has it's limits, but that does not prevent us from using it to the best of our ability. Please explain your understanding of language to me, and how this understanding prevents you from defining words but not from using them.

>Is this really something that you think is adequately captured by an isolated sentence?

I didn't say adequately, I said 'to put it simply'. It's my view that language has inherent limits, and that in describing intangible things it can only really circumscribe them, and not truly reach the thing itself. That, however, is not an excuse for me not to do the best that I can to develop a functional definition in terms that I can understand.

I haven't read Aristotle, but I have read bits of Plato and most of Epictetus, and developed my understanding based on my reading of them.

File: IMG_1816.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x600px

>>9594878
Have you seriously not heard of theodicy before?

>>9595308
It's just one possible explanation for reconciling the Christian ideas of free will and heaven, nobody necessarily believes it. I mentioned the other alternatives, seems like you skipped over those. So, another one is that free will exists in heaven and people can choose to do evil in heaven (like the traditional Lucifer story), but that means heaven isn't a paradise and has suffering just like Earth, which is not the Christian view of heaven at all.

As an aside, the fallen angels story is essentially Christian folklore cobbled together from bits of the Bible and apocryphal writings. The idea of a war in heaven is in Revelation, but it explicitly happens during the end times, and is pretty ambiguous about how it goes down (like all of Revelation). There is also the star if the morning being cast down in Isaiah, but in its context it's obviously about the Assyrian Empire, with star of the morning being a title of the Assyrian emperor, being physically destroyed (cast down).

>>9594878
Sometimes maybe suffering is good for you though.

>>9595219
What? Do you mean those who suffer do so because they run from god?

>>9595266
maybe heaven is free from all these worldly things you think we would need there. I guess I would say heaven in just being in eternal love. Or you can just read Socrates and his idea that he could just think forever.

>>9595351

I don't you understand what heaven is to Christians. It's not some material paradise like living on a beach and relaxing all day. Heaven is merely a term that describes being in the presence of God. We see willful evil as the rejection of God, so if you choose to do evil you're choosing to not be in the presence of God, so you're no longer in heaven. There's no contradiction between free will and heaven.

>>9595378
That doesn't answer the question, why did God create a universe of worldly things in the first place, why not make it eternal love or pure thought from the beginning?

And I've already said why I'm not satisfied by the fall from grace explanation for this.

>>9594878
> impling you get to define what good is

>>9595395
But if you can choose to reject the presence of God while you're in it (due to free will), you can lose the state of grace after getting to heaven, which goes against all Christian theology. If you can't lose that state of grace in heaven, why not have everyone born into God's presence, and forget the physical world? Like I said, the fall doesn't answer this because Adam and Eve were created in a state where they could choose to lose grace (unlike in heaven). Of course the theological reason is that people need to go through suffering to spiritually grow, but that's only necessary due to Adam and Eve's sin, which begs a lot of questions because they were in God's presence (He was walking in the Garden) yet chose to sin and were punished, but being in God's presence in heaven means you won't sin, so why not start it off like that?

>>9595408

Because we came from caveman. I mean you can hate the stories we've told from our beginning but it's how we got to this point and make sense of the world. If you want to throw it out just be wary of diving in an abyss (you might not come out). Jesus is a symbol if you don't believe it historically (the symbol of being killed though innocent and good). Maybe free will is just a habit and that habit can turn into excellence; I assume your shitposting shows that your just like a girl in your fear of abandonment and really just want to be useless on this planet.

>>9595499
I'm talking about the orthodox Christian views of heaven and free will, your post seems to be about the social utility of Christian symbolism, which is not what we're discussing.

>>9594878
I think the Gnostics are right and he's not all-powerful. He can't, so to speak, make 2 + 2 equal 5. There may be something in the very structure of the universe which makes suffering inevitable for living creatures.

>>9595448

You're assuming that being in heaven is like being in time, where a follows b which follows c. The creator of time can't be bound by it so God will have to outside of time. And outside of time it everything that happens or will happen would be experienced at the same moment for eternity. Everyone in heaven chooses freely to accept God and if they were ever weren't they wouldn't be in heaven.

This story of the fall of angels explains this while condescending in a sense because it places the story in time, as is the story of Adam and Eve.

>>9594878
Morality is a human construct, and is not the same for all cultures. Also an all good person would know what suffering is "good" in some cases. For example, without suffering there is no contrast to good, and there is no real reason to live if everything is good continually.

How about you try something more rational next time.

>>9595531

I said free will (and somethings we might fight until the end with our will) is habit. I also said that heaven is just an idea or story. You pick at Christian ethos but can't see the logic of it's utility for people that grew up in it and how it's just frames to see the world; much like Islam or Judaism. You are in control (this is real life) is only thing they want you to understand.

>>9594878
>Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering
Wrong. Plenty of suffering is good.

>>9595535
Is that a question of power? We can change axioms and give new meanings to things. It might be called lying most of the time, and the ability is solely attributed to Satan.

>>9594878
So many retards ITT, /lit/ is a pathetic board. OP your argument is ridiculous and it has been refuted a long time ago. What is an all-powerful being? It is a being that can do everything that is logically possible (Aquinas). Therefore God cannot, for example, change the fact that 2+2=4. God is perfectly good, which means that he wants to create the best possible world. A world with free beings is better than a world without free beings and freedom of will neccessarily implies the presence of evil. Being perfectly good, God has created free beings and therefore He *allows* evil but does not conduct it; free creatures are responsible for their actions. On top of that, everything evil could be understood as to allow a greater good that would otherwise be impossible (just think of Judas and Christ). It is as simple as that. Just read Leibniz you retarded pseuds.

>>9594892
That doesn't follow at all. Because God told us he is omnibenevolent, it is impossible for humans to be mistaken about what good is? What?

>>9594951
Exactly. There are challenges in theodicy, but this poorly constructed syllogism is not one of them.

>>9595717
Just read Hume you retarded pseud.

>>9595587
That would be a good answer if not for the Christian idea of the end times, which definitely take place at a certain temporal time (Matt 24:36). Heaven doesn't exist for eternity or outside time, because an apocalyptic scenario happens on Earth, the dead are resurrected (1 Thess 4:16). Heaven is a temporary paradise until the second coming, in Revelation it's even remade along with the Earth (Rev 21:1)

It also begs the question: if everyone who was ever saved and everyone who will be saved are in heaven eternally, how can they ever be on Earth? How does a soul leave a body at a certain temporal moment, but then is in heaven eternally? Additionally, how do pre-Christ souls work in that regard, it would mean the harrowing of hell couldn't happen because that event occurs after Jesus is crucified which requires the passing of time in the afterlife, or at least a link to time on Earth.

File: 240_F_85117216_blSt6Bs1tUTDDWQbWPkiuPXcTs5YrIHI.jpg (21KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 240x240px

>>9595216

I should add that this is not to say suffering and Evil are necessary in any way. They are not. In and of themselves, as redeeming means, as counterweights of the Cosmos, as integral parts of the Eschatological blueprint, and every which way in between - they are completely worthless. As is all refraction of God. All creation, incarnation, manifestation, all existence - actual, potential, ideal - all of it is a shadow that collapses under its own futility and falsehood.

The point being that absolute immanence is maintained even in the absolute freedom of that which is immanent to stray from its own immanence.

>>9595120

And this is not monstrous to you? You don't have to bring Gnostic considerations into this. It's very frightening by itself. A person who would actually do that to their own children would be shunned by almost all denominations.

The problem of evil is not seen as a good attack against the possibility of a god since Plantinga's defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

>>9595838
Not sure if it's really monstrous. Parents punish their children or even let them hurt themselves so they can learn a lesson... So I'm not sure the comparison works here.

You have just proven that there is no all-good(in your morality) God.

>>9595757

You're conflating heaven as how we defined it here (being in the presence of God) with the scriptural heaven which as I mention earlier is a condescension of the truth. The truths of scripture are related as stories placed within time so people can come to understand them which is why it's not useful to look to scripture for evidence of whether or not heaven is eternal. We can reason that heaven is eternal because the creator of time cannot be bound by it. The creator of a TV show can't be a character within the TV show itself. The creator of an Iphone can't be an Iphone itself.

I don't know how to answer your questions about people entering eternity. People are currently in time, and they'll leave time. It seems simple to me. I don't see why God leaving and entering time as he wills would cause a problem.

>>9594878
Too many assumptions, like people who believe in God. How are you defining "good"?

>>9594898
They pollute /pol/

I'm a Christian but I reject the first premise.

I'm not very popular at my local church

this is in essence what epicurus's riddle asks;
"Is God willing to stop suffering, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able to stop suffering but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil.
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?"

Good and bad are human concepts that God is above.

>>9596434
Nope, God IS good. God is not above good.

>>9595050
>Believing any fairy tales after the industrial revolution.

>>9594878
your definition of god is inadequate.

>>9595027
Explain. I don't know how it is wrong.

>>9595096
Which one(s)?

>>9594878
Without suffering, joy and bliss would have no meaning. Besides, the suffering of this world is only temporary and is very brief compared to eternity.

>>9596385
Well thats because youre a heretic.

>>9594878
This is a young-man's argument against God.

I once held a similar argument.

You will grow out of it if you keep practicing logic in earnest.

>>9594878
>Premise 2: Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering
Life is meaningless without suffering.

>>9595081
Marathon running is good because you get something out of it though (endorphins, fit body). Why doesn't God cut out the middle man and give you those feelings all the time i.e. why doesn't he eradicate all suffering?

>>9595120
>There was no reason to throw a party for someone that never became a better person, because he was always a good person
So, why doesn't positively reinforce good behaviour and reward the son? Similarly, why does God keep throwing us bones (Noah so we die out, Jesus for our sins) if we never listen?

>>9597636
It is a cliched argument, but I've always struggled with it, because it is genuinely a good argument. How do you get out of it? The only thing that keeps me a theist is that I think there's more valid arguments for the existence of God than this one valid argument against the existence of God.

>>9597714
People in this thread have already challenged the axiom that good => no suffering.

If you accept that life is good, and life is filled with suffering, then you already see why this is a bit naive.

>>9595093
Why is leukemia bad? How does leukemia impact the disposition of the soul towards God, which is the essence of good?

>>9597645
that's a biochemistry question, and probably a thermodynamics question.

like man why can't i just feel good forever

i keep turning this knob but the volume doesn't go up to infinity

i ate 38325 meals in my lifetime but i'm still hungry what's up with that

>>9594878
lol how long did it take you to come up with that one anon? I've heard 9 year olds ask the same question

>let me know what you guys think, i've really been thinking about this really hard
>philosophy

God is like a 3 dimensional polygon. From several set points come a multitude of intersections. One intersection is suffering. This comes from the vertex of God that is: 'That which is freely chosen is more valuable than that which is necessary." If you concentrate hard enough, you can feel this statement as a singular truth, beyond words. It is then that you will know God in part.

>>9594878
>attempting to use reason to deny the existence of god
>he hasn't read Kant
your points could honestly be cumulated by a 10-12 year old

>>9594878
>Premise 2: Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering
stopped reading there. if this were the case adam would have never taken the apple. God is not a shepherd.

>>9597899
>i keep turning this knob but the volume doesn't go up to infinity
Why not if God is infinite? If anything it should be easier if it is a biochemistry question because all he has to do is manipulate the chemicals in our brain to make us feel whatever he needs to.

>>9594878
Perhaps you can't understand 'good' and what might serve 'good' ends?

Also at no point in any monotheistic religion I can think of is suffering considered bad.

>>9598104
The true answer to this question is that humans don't exist to be in infinite happiness. The idea is a relationship with Him is more important and ultimately better for us.
Would I want my son to just experience happiness for all time but not see, eat, or think? I can't say I do, an existence of infinite dopamine seems like a waste. But I'm a romantic- I just suspect 'God' is too.

>>9597714

The argument assumes that God can't have a good reason to allow the existence of evil.

File: fpepe.png (203KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 495x495px

Suffering is something people bring upon themselves.
If you get cancer it's your own fault.

>>9594878
>implying that omnipotence implies God micromanages the world
>forgeting the devil
>forgeting the corrupting influence of sin
>forgeting that Creation is basically a science experiment gone wrong
>implying that Christians believe any of this because they think its cool, and not because its the most sufficient explanation for the nature of the world

but muh science
*shares ricky gervais facebook post*

>>9598372
>implying suffering is inherently bad

>>9594878
Demiurge is a deceiver...

File: tfw2smartformemes.jpg (1MB, 4030x4096px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4030x4096px

>>9594878
God is absolutely neutral, he chooses to be 'good' or 'bad' , he is benevolent because he has shown interest and intervened with humanity, mostly with good intentions
God isn't chained in dichotomies and morals
He creates them

>>9595867

That's opposite to my question. I was measuring both Man's and "God's" monstrosity against an ideal standard, not against each other's, which is not an argument either way.

>>9595717

This thread is a nightmare. Theodicy is the synthesis of all wordly abomination's justification. The "God" you speak of is even worse than the Devil. Possibly THE worst portrait of the Demiurge. The layers of misery in this state of affairs are so many and so mutually aggravating that I can hardly think of anything worse.

>>9598387
'le suffering isn't bad' is cuck-tier sophistry.

File: 1485283399136.jpg (38KB, 640x628px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x628px

>dude suffering will be gone AFTER YOU DIE AND GO TO HEAVEN LOL

>>9598423
t. someone who has never opened Theodicy

Look brainlet, the purpose of your argument is to *prove* that God does not exist. The argument fails because (among other things) evil does not necessarily contradict God's attribute of perfect morality. Just like you can say "There's lots of suffering so God does not exist" I can refute your statement by saying "The suffering serves a greater purpose, that of achieving good that would otherwise be impossible". Your pitiful argument does not *prove* that God does not exist, but it might give you a reason to *believe* that God does not exist - the reason being the fact that there is a lot of evil which you refuse to perceive as means of achieving greater goods. This is a sad board.

How is it just for God to let humans suffer "for the greater good"? Since he is supposed to be a perfect being, he is unable to comprehend the human condition in the first place. It's been clear since ancient ethics that intellectual knowledge of an act is nothing if not tempered by experience. God would have to judge people's actions based on their character flaws, material conditions or mental problems, which are the results of his creation, but he suffers none of these things.
It's basically like a monarch praising the humbleness and purity of poverty-ridden people, pure twaddle.

>>9594878
>Someone who is all-good would do everything he could to stop suffering

No, if god exists, then this means that our suffering is exactly what he wanted. This would mean that our suffering is good.

I mean, didn't we kill his son or something like that?

>>9594878
How can believers of an omniscient god also believe in free will? If he knows everything that means it's all set in stone, which means no one could act in any way other than the way they act.

>>9598958
>the purpose of your argument is to *prove* that God does not exist.

No. The ONLY thing I know is that God is Truth and Goodness and nothing else, and that Truth and Goodness are ultimately God and nothing else.

Even the Atheism in this thread is nothing but protest against "God" the Zookeeper, "God" the gaslighter, "God" the racehorse bookkeeper, "God" the yuppie, "God" the Archon, etc.

>>9594878
Read Aquinas and his Summa Theologica,particularly Question 2 for that matter...

>>9595167

>That kind of suffering is fine, when you choose to undergo it for a greater good, and people do get a sense if accomplishment from overcoming suffering.

No, that suffering is acceptable because of the opinion I have regarding it. I think it is reasonable to subject my self to it, and thus that it is 'good', and so I not only accept it, but enjoy it. You say death is a kind of suffering, but that's not how a suicidal person see's it. When they are convinced of the opinion that their 'good' consists in suicide, they go and kill themselves. One man might be of the opinion that to be hanged is an unendurable suffering. Even so, when another man feels that it is reasonable, he goes off and hangs himself. Physical pain and death are neither good nor bad in of themselves - their 'good' or 'bad' consist entirely in the opinion we choose to hold of them. If we believe that they are reasonable, we assent to them.

>But the problem of suffering is about pointless suffering, which absolutely does exist... The classic example is natural disasters, a father who's entire family dies in an earthquake is going to be in serious mental pain. What's he getting out of it? E didn't choose ir deserve it.

The father suffers not because of the earthquake, and not because of his families death, but because of the opinion he holds regarding death. "Men are disturbed not by the things that happen, but by their opinion of the things that happen."

>>9597645

You're missing the point, it isn't about what you get in return. For example, if someone spills a drink on you and you believe they did it purposely, it will anger you. Why? Because you hold the opinion that they were purposely trying to aggravate you. If someone spills a drink on you and you believe it was an accident, you don't get angry with them, because you are of the opinion that they didn't intend to do it to upset you. The act of the drink spilling is itself indifferent, what decides whether you become angry or not is the opinion you hold of the act.

>>9594878
Heaven is infinite good.
An infinite good would by its nature render a fixed amount of suffering as no suffering.
There, you can try next time.

>>9594878
This is what many atheists and Christians get wrong about god. God is the god of good and evil, not just good.

Satan is allowed to chill on earth because God says so. They even chat together sometimes and make bets. God realizes for people to understand good, evil must be created.

It's the classic "one cannot exist without the other" paradox.

>>9600470
This idea comes from the Church more than the Bible. The God of Abraham is open about his cuntiness. The Church had to turn him into cuddly sky daddy to keep european peasants pacified

>>9600470
But whats the point of that? If god was all powerful wouldn't he just make good appreciable without the need for evil?

The whole balance argument seems like a pure speculative justification plot hole.

>>9595021
Alright, but when we get to heaven, won't the actual experience be no different than if we'd never had an earthly life? I don't think knowledge of evil can really exist in heaven, since this would mean feelings of fear, memories of suffering, etc.. So what other baggage from our earthly life will we retain there, and what's the point? How is earthly life supposed to make us appreciate it more once we get there? It seems arbitrary.

>>9600560
I would also like to see /lit/'s response to this. Another thing I've been having trouble understanding is why Christ had to die at all.

>>9595535
wew, back to linear algebra with you

>>9595717
>2+2 = 4

it's like God himself can't fathom linear algebra

>>9600560

The idea that good only has value relative to evil is more evil than evil itself.

>>9594878
The almighty Redditor. He even named himself

>>9598433
>Not an argument

>>9594878
>Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering

not if it's for some greater good

>>9603415

Is there a Good so great that God does not already contain it and all of its permutations and is not already perfectly experienced in God?

>>9604257
God is the greatest good, but what I was trying to say was that there might be/is greater good than just sparing someone from suffering.

>>9603384
I wasn't proposing an argument.

File: FB_IMG_1479144911656.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>9594878
maybe "power" doesn't involve being able to remove or add the whole evil and good maybe the "all powerful" nature of the being merely means to transfer and move around the two. Energy is never created only transferred, if we look at it good and evil in that aspect it could make sense.

I dont know, I dont really believe in god im just putting things out there so others can critique or expand upon the idea

>>9594878

Suffering is not necessarily bad.

Go to sleep.

>>9594878
Weak bait.
You defined God as omniscient, omnipotent and most benevolent.
You forgot to mention that we, however, possess neither of those qualities - not being all-knowing, we cannot state with utmost certainty that the existence of Sorrow in this world isn't merely a part of a much greater design which we will, inevitably, ignore.
So, the part where you state that there can be no God (implying that God existing is absolutely impossible) is an outright lie.
But is it really lying if the person doing it is too limited to understand that he's uttering falsities?

>>9606557
Why isn't suffering necessarily bad?

>>9606585
Nothing is achieved without it

>>9606588
literally nothing? because thats obviously false
plenty is achieved without suffering

>>9606585

Ultimately, good and bad cannot defined by human standards, only by revelation bla bla bla

theodicy led to gnosticism. the god everyone here believes in is the demiurge. lucifer was the angel who denied his kingdom and freed mankind from his slavery. we have a yearning for the true god beyond this illusion perpetrated by YHVH

File: images.jpg (10KB, 243x207px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 243x207px

>>9595098
>Existence is futile

Correct

>>9606616

have you ever considered ripping two tiles of ribs from your torso so you can suck your dick?

>>9606615

you are playing too much SMT , you cant even get your fatass off that smelly ass chair and you want to fistfight God?

>>9606613
?? how in any way does that even come close to addressing my question?

>>9606631
smt makes more sense than the bible, imo. how else could the omnipotent god of the jews have to send himself down in the flesh to amend the law man broke with him? aquinas' argument of god's higher unclear morality is abstract compared to the defined tribal war god of the bible. also try not to project on other people, nerd.

>>9606588
thats what i thought
go read a book faggot
the fuck outta here with your cliches

>>9606651
>>9606599
It's true though. You can't grow as a person without experiencing a fair bit of discomfort, suffering, stress. You'll just stagnate.

>>9606675
Why though? all you're doing is asserting that suffering is necessary, you haven't actually presented any argument as to why
I could say that suffering slows growth and causes people to stagnate, and that in fact the freedom afforded by happiness allows us to grow as a person
but without an argument theres no reason for someone to believe one of us over the other
so, again, why?

>>9594878

>Premise 2: Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering

this neglects the possibility of cost/benefit analysis. having designed creatures that learn by experience, stopping all suffering would deny men the ability to learn from it; God does not exist to prevent suffering, but to help us learn to overcome it, perfect our souls, and return to Him in paradise.

File: 18838799_1589403557745625_5711164651068384797_n.jpg (32KB, 398x398px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 398x398px

>>9606650

>trying to understand the FACT that God descended to earth to suffer and be killed

the absurd is beyond our grasp

Of course that fanfics with some kind of logical coherence seem a lot more attractive to a black man like yourself

>>9606689
Because only when you do suffer you HAVE to grow. As in natural selection, sure, some will naturally evolve without there being a need for it, but most of the evolution comes from necessity.
You have to run faster to avoid getting mauled by predators? You gradually develop muscle and bone structure that is better suited to sprinting, or climbing. You have to go to school even though all the other children pick on you because you're nerdy and a loner? You understand that the way other people behave towards you says more about them than it does about you, you learn how to better manage your emotions, you grow.
And if you don't, that's natural selection too.

>>9606689

Because you are arguing in a world without an afterlife, in a world without infinity. A self-contained, material world cannot justify or even explain (except in the most abstract reductive materialist sense) suffering. But an afterlife can, by making itself the reward for a suffered life.

>People requiring logical proof of God
>>misunderstanding faith this badly

>>9606716
first off, you seem to misunderstand how natural selection works... chance is far more important to natural selection than the strange conception of necessity you are working with. You've also failed to show how evolutionary necessity amounts to suffering
but back to the actual topic at hand, you didn't support your assertion that suffering forces you to grow.. i could just as easily stagnate as a result of suffering. you have yet to provide a justification for your assertion, you've just kept repeating it, but this time with some semi-evolutionary nonsense thrown in

>>9606725
why cant a self-contained material world justify or explain suffering?
you've just asserted that an afterlife is a necessity to understanding suffering, you have done anything to show why thats true
i could argue that in a world without an afterlife suffering is not a necessity, but is in fact quite the opposite: suffering is what should be avoided at all costs, because as far as we can tell, the best indication of good and bad are pleasure/the absence of pain (good), and pain/suffering (bad)

>>9606737

this

>>9606741
Natural selection was just an example. I know how it works and I know I bastardized it in order to get the point across. We're not talking about Darwinian natural selection.
I have 'failed' to show how evolutionary necessity equals suffering because I think it's pretty damn self evident. If you need to evolve, you're obviously in a bad position. Otherwise you wouldn't need to evolve in the first place. And that bad position is also what we call suffering. Weakness, vulnerability.
You have to deal with suffering either way. People don't usually enjoy stagnating in sorrow and thus suffering for their whole lives. So if you want to deal with it and overcome it, you will have to work on the root of the problem. And you will inevitably learn something, as does anyone who overcomes something they thought they couldn't surpass.

>>9606812
you've made it pretty clear you dont understand the full scope of how natural selection works, because you still insist on a 'need' to evolve, neglecting the fact that populations dont evolve out of a 'need' to evolve, the evolve out of mutations which result in higher levels of evolutionary fitness, that is, the ability to reproduce. it has nothing to do with 'needs'. but the crux of your argument seems to be that suffering = necessity because if you 'need' to evolve then you must be suffering
youve still failed to show that necessity = suffering, youve just asserted it, yet again, and backed it up with a poor understanding of evolution.

Finally, you still have failed to show in any way that you need suffering to grow as a person, which before you started with your pseudo-scientific nonsense, was the original statement you made
so again, how is suffering necessary for human development? I would argue there are other factors that lead people to grow and change
if I'm right, and I;m pretty sure I am, then that means that suffering amy be a sufficient factor for growth, but it cannot be a necessary factor.
so, I'd say you're still wrong

>>9606873
If one was perfectly content with his situation, why should he evolve?
If you do evolve, then clearly you weren't perfectly fine before.
Which means that a quantity of suffering, however abysmal it may be, was present.

>>9606954
lol thats not at all how evolution works
you realize that individuals cannot evolve, only populations can evolve right?
so that doesn't answer the question, and it doesn't justify individual suffering as necessary

>>9606967
For the last time, I'm not talking about selection of the species. I'm talking about individual evolution, growth as a human being. Personal development.
Your unkeenness on the subject doesn't surprise me. Keep repeating yourself and maybe in a thousand years we'll get to a point.

>>9594878
Someone repost this to r/atheism.
I can't because my sporadic reddit trolling account has too low karma.

>>9606980
listen dumbass, its not my fault you dont know what the word 'evolution' means, and again, im not the one who tried to use my faulty understanding of natural selection to distract from the fact that you're unable to justify your assertions

but no its cool, lets quibble about that rather than addressing my earlier point, and i quote, "Finally, you still have failed to show in any way that you need suffering to grow as a person, which before you started with your pseudo-scientific nonsense, was the original statement you made
so again, how is suffering necessary for human development? I would argue there are other factors that lead people to grow and change
if I'm right, and I;m pretty sure I am, then that means that suffering amy be a sufficient factor for growth, but it cannot be a necessary factor.
so, I'd say you're still wrong"

or, since you probably cant read that much at a time, you are arguing that suffering is necessary for personal development. I have said that there are other things that can motivate human development (hope, love, etc) without requiring suffering. therefore, suffering is not NECESSARY for personal development, although it may be sufficient.

>>9606980
also, not only is "unkeeness" not a word, but you're "not keen" wrong as well

you should probably invest in a dictionary, or at least try and make your way through a wikipedia page at some point

just some helpful advice so you dont continue to be such a fucking moron :)

>>9607005
>>9607000
Wow.
In primis, English isn't my first language, so I had to neologize with 'unkeenness'. Considering how the English language works, it just might have been an actual word. But whatever, it is now.
In secundis, it is you who doesn't know what 'evolution' means. You're applying a scientific\darwinian interpretation to a psychological process. I only used it as an analogy in one of my first posts and now you're clinging onto it like it's the only thing you possess in this world.

Now, as I said - and throughout your incoherent rambling you still haven't given a precise answer to that particular post - everyone here would agree to the fact that suffering is caused by a lack of something positive, or vice versa (too much of something negative). All of the alternative factors for development that you mentioned - hope and love, precisely - refer to a condition in which one desires, but doesn't possess. In other words, as Kierkegaard would have it, anguish. Sorrow.
Hope is the wish for something good to happen. But if you're only surrendering yourself to hope, instead of fighting for what you need and want, you'll probably not achieve that which you want, and for sure you will not evolve, since you'll have done nothing. At best, you can hope, no pun intended, to learn from your mistakes; that, however, still requires the suffering of making those mistakes.
Love, on the other hand, is simply a state of strong desire and appreciation towards something. If you already possess that which you desire, you will have no need to evolve, and thus you will not evolve. That is clear.
But if you don't possess it, or if you think you might lose it if you don't change, or if, even while having that thing, you feel unworthy of being its owner as you are right now, you will feel the need to change and evolve.
And likewise one would hope that the obviousness of the suffering intrinsec in the conditions that I have just describe requires no explanation.

File: 1496291483429.jpg (22KB, 265x259px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 265x259px

>>9594878
>philosophy

What did he mean by this?

>>9607000
>>9607005
And by the way, I have to thank you: I gain a minute of life for every ad hominem that gets flung towards me.

>>9607045
Holy shit, wow, you got dumber

nice use of the latin, that definitely covers up the fact that you have no worthwhile points

First, you argue "In secundis, it is you who doesn't know what 'evolution' means. You're applying a scientific\darwinian interpretation to a psychological process."
Please enlighten me on this psychological process, thats not how you used it (you specifically said "natural selection"). I'm not familiar with anyone who uses evolution as a 'psychological process'

then you say "I only used it [evolution] as an analogy in one of my first posts and now you're clinging onto it like it's the only thing you possess in this world."
You're wrong here too, as I have repeatedly stated, that what I was asking was not about your misguided understanding of evolution, but rather for you to justify that "suffering is necessary for personal development". its interesting that you have not responded to that point adequately in the slightest.Im not the one who keeps returning to evolution, you are, because you based your idea of necessity on natural selection

next, you say "everyone here would agree to the fact that suffering is caused by a lack of something positive, or vice versa (too much of something negative)". thats not an argument, in fact, thats fallacious. Just because 'everyone agrees' doesnt make something true. You could get a bunch of people in a room together who all believe the earth is flat, but that doesnt make it so.

after that, you say "All of the alternative factors for development that you mentioned - hope and love, precisely - refer to a condition in which one desires, but doesn't possess. In other words, as Kierkegaard would have it, anguish. Sorrow."

i really want to address the point you made about kierkegaard first. I did a significant amount of graduate work in kierkegaard. that is not, in any way, even close to what kierkegaard means by anguish, and kiekregaardian anguish has nothing to do with sorrow. to put it as briefly as possible, anguish for kierkegaard is the recognition that one is absolutely free in the world, and is responsible for the path they take. it seems like you have never read kierkegaard. I would suggest you do so.

Finally, you go on to argue that "one would hope that the obviousness of the suffering intrinsec in the conditions that I have just describe requires no explanation."

I want to point out that you consistently attempt to justify yourself by claiming things to be obvious or self evident, which is generally a clear indication you have no real justification (or any real idea of what you're talking about)

AS for the way you define love and hope, I'm not going to argue with you over definitions you've made up to fit your assumptions, if you want to argue from defintions, please cite soemthing as to what love and hope mean. You just making up your own conception of hope or love to fit your assumptions about suffering doesnt show anything.

>>9607045
finally, even if we were to accept that my two examples of 'hope' and 'love' are in some way reducible to suffering (which i dont think is true), that still does not prove that 'suffering is necessary for personal development'

so again, why is suffering NECESSARY for personal development?

and just so you know, necessary means "required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential". because you seem to not get the question

>>9607050
youre welcome, i hope you live a long and happy life

but youre still a dumbass

>>9594878
>28“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

So (the Christian) God reveals that through him there is no suffering.

Cya l8r nerd don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya

>>9607109
Not him but 'suffering' i.e. discomfort, pain, etc. is a quality felt by the 'flesh' i.e. your body. Your flesh is sin, it rots, you die; the wages of sin. Your sin suffers but your soul is what God is after. A suffering of the flesh is a strengthening of the soul, and a good soul is where God can reside.

>>9607128
thank you for actually addressing the question

unfortunately, I dont think I'm versed well enough in theology to dispute you in any way here haha

I guess from my secular point of view, my response would be, so what? If i dont accept your assumptions (that god is real, that flesh is sin, etc) then none of what you argue holds any water for me

but like I said, I dont think Im well enough informed to dispute you on that

so, from a christian viewpoint, for all I know, that could very well be a good reason why suffering is necessary

>>9607094
Let's see. You argue my every point except the ones that prove me right. You allegedly did a significant amount of graduate work on Kierkegaard, and you can't bring yourself to recognize his view of desire as despair. Anguish may have not been the particular word he used, but I have to remind you, I'm not an anglophone. I didn't study Kierkegaard in English. And I'm actually reading the first tome of Aut-Aut.
That brings me to the 'latin' point; in Italy, we actually do use latin forms like that, even when we have nothing to cover up.

But anyways, this little pantomime of ours is starting to bore me out, so I propose we play a game. My next argument will put an end to our silly diatribe. I'll give you one post to preemptively find it and dismantle it. Don't waste it.

>>9607167
please, calrify for me, what point proves you right that "suffering is necessary for personal development"? put it simply for me, because I am apparently just too dense for your highness.

(in case you didnt get it, that was sarcasm, because you're incredibly smug, and also a complete moron)

>>9607167
and please make it quick, im tired of asking you the same question without you understanding it

i plan to go to bed in a couple minutes

>>9594936
Why would i want to worship a man who literally made people suffer just to test their faith. A man who does not intervene at all.

>>9607145
Well that's what I got from the bible when hanging out at a Christian club in college. They were non-denominational though so I may not be aware of passages that contradict this idea. If there are denominations there are different interpretations about the nature of God, his message, and our purpose, etc. so I can't be too certain.

And yeah the response is 'so what' but if Christianity is true then you can't really opt out since everyone gets judged. It's all contingent.

>>9607174
You're not supposed to ask me, we're not playing the same game like this.
But since I'm an extremely magnanimous being, and not in any way smug, I don't despise you for your limitedness. Instead I thank you for it, for I can be grateful to God as well, for giving me an intellect superior to yours.

So, all joking aside, if you don't want to understand what I've already said, fine. But I will tell you, my dude, you're looking at this from only one angle.
Suffering is not only a motivation for personal growth. It is also part of the process of evolution itself. You can't grow muscle without exercizing, and exercize requires fatigue. You can't become good at something if you don't put hours and sweat into it. You can't grow unless you get out of your comfort zone, and that which is outside of the comfort zone is, by definition, uncomfortable.
Sleep tight, camerata. And thanks for all those minutes of life you graciously gifted to me.

>>9607185
Jesus is an intervention.

>>9607203
lol

i have enjoyed arguing with you, and am glad it gave you minutes more of life

you are the one who stated that "suffering is necessary for personal development". which is what Ive asked you to justify. you have not be able to do that.

and finally, while your example of exercise is nice, it doesnt show that suffering is necessary for personal growth.... so, youve still failed to justify your initial assertion
last thing, the way you write is absolutely cringeworthy. its readily apparent that you think youre brilliant, but you really come across as quite a dumbass

night night

>>9607200
>>9607145

Also from what I understand the predicament man is in now is essentially the same as the garden of Eden: there are two trees in the garden, the one of knowledge and the one of life.

The fruit from the tree of knowledge is what gave us sin. The tree of life however is the tree we are intended to eat from and also prefigures Christ, i.e. we 'ingest' Christ/life, as was our intended purpose, so we become one with God.

So our predicament is this choice between knowledge (sin/flesh/satan) and life (redemption/spirit/Christ) -- it's a fight over our soul between the body and the spirit acted out through us.

>>9607212
You keep claiming that I haven't proven the necessarity of suffering in one's personal growth, yet you don't care to specify why. I think I've quite proven it in my last response to you.
I've enjoyed arguing with you too, but you lack sportsmanship. In fact, I don't think I'm that brilliant at all, I'm just not enough of a tool to think that the one who came across as a dumbass here would be me, and not Sir Ad Hominem.
Good night, regardless.

File: DEMIURGE.png (107KB, 766x996px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 766x996px

>>9606588

Who is responsible for the initial state of separation from that which must be achieved and why? This would make "God" the pervert of perverts, the sadist of sadists, the monster of monsters. This is THE WORST possible portrait of any entity. In Gnosticism it is at least rejected and the possibility of goodness - not as Cosmic carrot and stick, not as "because", not as emergent from millions of cycles of misery - but as a thing in and of itself that is there for everyone here and now and forever is there despite all corruption. Whereas Christianity is black on black. "One day I'll own this boot".

>>9607258
Brool story, co.

File: demiurge.jpg (63KB, 482x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 482x600px

>>9607275
>the way i justify the horror that defines this world's creation and perpetuation is in the baseless belief that its warden will take me by his side if i justify it
>the only thing he's ever given me is torment so why would he lie?

>>9606749

My argument is premised on redemption. Yours is premised on a thin scientism that identifies pleasure and pain with good and evil. You don't get to claim the moral-rational high ground just because you think science can ground ethics.

>>9594878
For goodness to exist, evil must exist. God is all-good but humans aren't. Humans aren't slaves of God and since we're not all-good, evil will exist.

>>9608058

None of that makes any causal sense.

>>9608089
It does. How do we know what good is if there isn't any contrast to it? God didn't copy himself when he created humans. Humans aren't inherently all-good. We were given a free will and that includes also the free will to be evil.

>>9608089
said no one ever

>suffering shouldn't exist
thats pretty silly man

>>9608146

How do you know what anything is? Apophatism plays almost no role in actual Epistemology.

>>9594878
>he hasn't taken the gnostic pill

>>9608314
Through perception, then you reflect upon those perceptions. You cannot know, but you can perceive and base opinions upon that. The Bible can be used as guidance to help you categorise those perceptions into what is good and what is evil.

>>9594878
>Premise 2: Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering
This is debatable. You define suffering as inherently bad, I would argue that the highs of life are nothing without the lows and that pleasure does not exist without suffering.
I am an atheist, don't call me a theist shill.