>2024. >still no rebuttal that doesn't amount to "but Rabbi Yeshua said so"

>2024
>still no rebuttal that doesn't amount to "but Rabbi Yeshua said so"

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good is real, but he's actually Baal instead of YHWH (let alone rabbi Yeshua)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >still no rebuttal

      My philosophy buddy was just telling me about the Epicurean Paradox today. But later he said it's been debunked by ________. I forgot the name he said but goggling it first thing i see is

      >Yes, the standard response is that the inference in the second horn ("if he is able but unwilling, then he is malevolent") is invalid. There is a reason for God to tolerate evil other than malevolence - preserving free will. Subverting free will to prevent evil would be a greater evil. The issue is generally discussed under the name of theodicy, see SEP, The Problem of Evil. –
      Conifold
      Mar 1, 2021 at 20:36

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >preserving free will (?? Lmao not even in the bible) is more important than evil and suffering
        Sounds extremely malevolent actually

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God should be able to create a world were free will don't imply wvil, is a contradiction to us, but god must exist above logic and the law of non-contradiction

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >god must exist above logic and the law of non-contradiction

          If god exists above logic and the law of non-contradiction, he lives in an intellectual realm that is absolutely unattainable for you or me.

          If that is the case, why do you blame him for allowing evil with your human logic, bound by the law of non contradiction, and use contradictions to argue that no god should allow evil?

          You are contradicting yourself here.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's exactly the point, i'm not contradicting myself, i'm showing the contradiction in the concept of god, if he's really omnipotent (above logic)we can't know him or practice a spiritual path, if he's not omnipotent he's not god but the laws of nature, just another aspect of reality without a will or the capacity for miracles (which are by deffinition ilogical)
            The only way we can conceive a god is by faith in a mediator force (like jesus)between our logical realm and the ilogical absolute, but you're renouncing logic and argumentation for faith and pathos, which is fine but you have to recognize that the epicurean argument is logically irefutable

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >
            If god exists above logic and the law of non-contradiction, he lives in an intellectual realm that is absolutely unattainable for you or me.
            >he lives in an intellectual realm that is absolutely unattainable for you or me.
            Exactly, if evil is something beyond our understanding we can't articulate a spiritual path,thus any form of religion is useless and god could just don't exist for all that matters

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that having multiple desires, especially including sinful desires, is not evidence of free will, but simply the existence of multiple desires. If having sinful urges makes us free, then the most homosexual, psychopathic, pedophilic rapey covetous man has more free will than someone who rarely has such desires. The fact is, God could have made us to have far fewer sinful urges. We could have been much more rational, compassionate, considerate, etc. but God decided to design our biology based on a primitive hunter-gatherer environment when he knew that we would develop agriculture and technology that would give us an abundance of people, food, porn, etc. that clashes with our natural instincts to seek out these things that are normally scarce. If God created us, then he did a horrible fricking job.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      evidence of free will =/= free will defence

      there’s NO evidence of free will because it’s not falsifiable. you then deriving from this that our present faculties could be other than what they are and still free makes no sense whatsoever when your initial premise is that freedom cannot be demonstrated anyway. you’re denying any conditions can demonstrate freedom, and then saying god with a bad job with freedom because it could have been different. brainlet

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I’m saying that the existence of sinners isn’t proof of free will. The Bible doesn’t say we have free will, it says the opposite. If the whole defense of evil depended on the question of free will, then you would think God would write about it in the Bible. We hear it all the time:
        >God doesn’t want robots! He wants people to CHOOSE to love him!!!!
        and yet, the Bible actually says that faith is a GIFT of God, it is of grace, not of works, so that no man may boast. So the whole free will defense is not only illogical, it is unbiblical. And the best explanation for sin and suffering is not “freedom,” but simple biology explained by the theory of evolution. If God existed, then we should expect him to create creatures much more advanced than monkeys like ourselves, if he’s just going to hold us to extremely impossible standards anyway.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And if you continue your thought instead of arbitrarily truncating it, you’d know mainstream christians believe that grace is sufficiently given to every human being, who can choose to assent to it or not. Your argument that free will can’t be proven is irrelevant- if free will is unfalsifiable, mounting an attack based on it not existing doesn’t make any sense.
          >if I was God, i’d do X
          But you aren’t, you’re a monkey like you just said.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > you’d know mainstream christians believe that grace is sufficiently given to every human being, who can choose to assent to it or not
            it doesn’t matter what they believe. They’re moronic. You don’t just wake up and choose your beliefs every single day. You can’t choose to believe that 2+2=5 no matter how hard you try.
            > Your argument that free will can’t be proven is irrelevant
            I didn’t exactly argue for that, but that our free will seems awfully limited and not actually “free” at all. Like what’s the point? I would argue that having more rationality and control over our desires would actually constitute free will. If I could simply will myself to desire going to the gym, that would be much more like free will. But simply having two different desires, being pulled by both of them, and eventually deciding on one of them, is not proof of free will any more than it is proof of determinism. Basically if this is free will, then it is useless and I don’t see why God would value it so much. Even dogs can have multiple desires at once, having to make a decision, to ignore one desire in favor of the other. It’s not magic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can’t wake up and choose to believe that…
            That’s not how moral impulses work. You receive an impulse that is either moral or immoral, and wilfully assent or don’t.
            >our free will seems limited
            Nobody would argue this, because if it wasn’t I wouldn’t exist as a discreet entity. I would be everything and anything because I need to be able to choose to be, so I would cease to be a person, limitation is sort of a prerequisite to having a boundary where I end and other things begin. I have already explained that free will isnt falsifiable, it can’t be proven, and so your argument fails. You can’t establish it one way or the other, and so it makes no sense to start deliberating on what constitutes greater or lesser freedom.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If having sinful urges makes us free, then the most homosexual, psychopathic, pedophilic rapey covetous man has more free will than someone who rarely has such desires
      No, because if free-will were measured by the presence of desires, someone who had virtuous desires would, by your logic, have just as much free-will as he who had sinful ones. There's no reason that your logic should only apply to sinful desires; you just chose to make that arbitrary, specious half-argument because you thought it shat on God.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How you measure free will then?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The ability to do one thing, as opposed to another.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That’s not how it works. You can’t quantify temptation, it’s an ever present facet of life. Sure, there are times that you listen to it more or less and feel it’s effects stronger or weaker but even at your holiest it’s still there in as full effect; in the same way that no matter how long a man’s been sober if he was ever once an alcoholic he’s an alcoholic still, he just hasn’t had a drink in a while. It’s the simple fact that we’re capable of sin at all which gives us free will. If we were incapable of sin then we would could only follow God due to our nature and not our reason/faith which the possibility of sin opens up. Moreover, having worshippers which follow him only by nature and not reason invalidates God’s nature as his Glory necessitates people to come to Him of their own volition. Because, what is more glorious? A slave who follows you because he must or a free man who follows you because he wants to? God requires humanity as a kind of dark mirror to see Himself in because in order to fulfill His omniscience He needs perspectives which are not his own such that He can be truly all knowing from every angle. If He could only contemplate His own essence from the perspective of Himself then, in order to reach completeness, He would necessarily have to have a kernel of sin inside Himself which he obviously cannot and thus the creation of humanity and sin are necessitated.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > thus the creation of humanity and sin are necessitated
        If god "needs" anything then he's not omnipotent

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not how that works either. He doesn’t need it in the way that we need water or food. He is utterly incapable of contradicting the facets of His own essence. His need for humanity and sin amounts to a need to not contradict Himself. Theoretically He could exist on his own purely of His own omnipotence but then He would not be God. The effective part of the need is not in humanity but His own essence.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Evil exists
    Proof?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The bible claims so on multiple occasions
      Is the bible wrong?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Is the bible wrong?
        Depends. What's the Bible's proof that evil exists?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Was Epicurus making this argument as a rebuttal to the bible?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Epicurus wasn't making this argument at all because there was no religion with all-powerful all-knowing all-loving in his time.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats right. Cutting it off at the start is the right choice. We're assuming that evil exists even though from the perspective of a god values like evil or good might not exist. Afterall it does nothing for a god wether an act is evil or good to humans. Humans have prescribed what is considered evil and what is good. God simply watches on.

      There are essentially no "good gods". Everything mankind has put onto "god" was description. God or Gods are simply omnipresent. Fused into nature.

      The rest of the questions don't have to be discussed. The paradox never starts because it begins on an assumption.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do the rest of you keep talking. There are multiple reasons to reject the first premise. This anon has it.

        /thread

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >umh ashtually the world is totally good and there are no problems, m'kay??
          >*proceeds to go to /lgbt/ and cry about how his parents won't buy him HRT*

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, my life is good. And I have insufficiently evidence for any of your lives. Ergo, there is no evil.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are essentially no "good gods".
        Well then you're at bad ending number #3 of the chart, and you've rejected the belief that the paradox sets out the defeat.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol

      you fricking pseuds are too stupid to understand that this post completely destroys the argument from evil.

      For evil to exist then morality must exist. Morality is not laws or human agreements of behavior, but a higher level sense of right and wrong that isn't dependent on man (otherwise morality is worthless and changes with the tides of human sentiment). If morality doesn't come from man then it must come from "something above man".

      We call this "something above man" that gives us a sense of right and wrong: God.

      Morality cannot exist without God, therefore the argument from evil is self defeating

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When I made that post, I was hoping that OP would rattle off a litany of grievances and allow me to reduce all those grievances to displacements of atoms and whatnot, but he chose a different tangent.
        I think the reason that traditional theodicies take a more convoluted approach to the AfE is that it took a long time for theistic philosophers of religion to appreciate that premises they accept under their theological framework could be rejected under the atheological framework -- or perhaps they were simply too civil. 🙂

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're taking for granted that such form of morality exist, but moral relativism already refute your argument, not to mention there's other ways to articulate a teascendental morality without god, like the categorical imperative

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't the free will argument imply that God made humans by his image, so they're free to act and unpredictable, i.e. being just like God?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God should be able to make a world in which you can be free and not be potentially evil, if not he's not omnipotent

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Capable? Sure. Should he? Why?
        Epicurus missed the one important thing: The way we see things are not objective. Our senses can be deceived and our rationality is volatile. We have no truly objective conception of what good and evil are, so what he considers 'evil' is in reality, just another cog in the machine that God created.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because if not he's evil, the problem with your argument is that if the will of god is a mistery to us, then we can't follow him or worship him, trying to save the problem of evil by making god a mysterious force only make it even worst, you just cut every possibility for a spiritual practice or comunion

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            IDK, couldn't you say God had "humanlike" elements which we can relate to (like Jesus) and some parts are totally alien and beyond our comprehension (the father/holy spirit)?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but that only apply if you already belueve in jesus as a mediator, which imply faith and not logic, that's why one of the main tenants of christianity is"i believe because is absurd" the christian path is not a path of logic but of pathos

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Epicurus literally never said that.
    You are a Black person.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      >is called EPICUREAN paradox
      >what is Epicureanism
      >what are the Epicureans
      you dumb fricking Black folk just because there's a bust of the man himself it does not mean the image is quoting him

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah right, kek. The arrogance of fools! If you think this high school tier stuff hasn't been refuted you're dreaming. I could refute it at 23--and I only began thinking about it at 22. Take some time to think about it yourself, but I doubt you'll figure it out. Arrogance has a way of preventing your realizing obvious things.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You sure did, pretentious moron

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > If you think this high school tier stuff hasn't been refuted you're dreaming. I could refute it at 23--and I only began thinking about it at 22. Take some time to think about it yourself, but I doubt you'll figure it out.
      >Arrogance has a way of preventing your realizing obvious things.
      God-tier bait

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Then God is not good / God is not loving
    So?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dangerously based

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. I ain't following some fricking Nice Guy God. Sounds like a massive chump. I want a Dark Triad God.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's it like to be a 13 year old emo kid? Sometimes I forget.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You sound upset that your entire argument got dismantled by the rejection of your boring nice guy. She's just not that into you, dude.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gets accused of being 13
            >doubles down
            Ah, I miss the early teen years. Do you wear those spike bracelets?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but you did get BTFO. I’d rather have my god torture sinners because people who do the most common ones (homosexuals, pedophiles) are fricking annoying in this life

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            homie everybody sins. We’re all disgusting and annoying in God’s eyes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Some are worse than others to my eyes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, boy. The kids are out in force! Are you guys picturing yourselves skateboarding up to me while chewing bubble gum viciously?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then morality doesn't exist, god being the ultimate good is what guarantees the metaphysical existence of goodnes and virtue, if that doesn't exist then you're just a crypto-nihilist

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How does denying external morality make one a crypto-nihilist? I have an inborn purpose, reproduction. Moral things facilitate that.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're not denying eternal morality, you're denying morality alltogether by saying that god, the fundamental principle of creation is evil, in doing so you're saying that no law or ultimate principle can exist, since the fundamental principle has none, thus you're by definition a nihilist

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dangerously based

      This. I ain't following some fricking Nice Guy God. Sounds like a massive chump. I want a Dark Triad God.

      can't tremble in awe before a good god.
      he has to be an butthole.
      simple as.
      nobody respects a nice guy.

      i should've predicted the demonolatry turn when they started praising kek

      and i fricking did. i just didn't say anything because i figured you people had it under control. fricking lmao

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    can't tremble in awe before a good god.
    he has to be an butthole.
    simple as.
    nobody respects a nice guy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What good is that argument, seriously? What good did it do for philosophy?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Next day
      >Still no rebuttal
      Well? What good is the argument?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Can't argue with that logic, lol
          Anyone else?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >so if i spec into god not being all powerful, how does that reduce me to man? man and man in the painting together is impossible to prove wrong. there would have to be some such equivalent accomplishment to rendering man as there is to observing man. god cannot prevent evil because evil exists, maybe God can only obscure things with experiences.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the Free will loop completely ignored?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See

      https://i.imgur.com/c6w6dCR.jpg

      Reminder that having multiple desires, especially including sinful desires, is not evidence of free will, but simply the existence of multiple desires. If having sinful urges makes us free, then the most homosexual, psychopathic, pedophilic rapey covetous man has more free will than someone who rarely has such desires. The fact is, God could have made us to have far fewer sinful urges. We could have been much more rational, compassionate, considerate, etc. but God decided to design our biology based on a primitive hunter-gatherer environment when he knew that we would develop agriculture and technology that would give us an abundance of people, food, porn, etc. that clashes with our natural instincts to seek out these things that are normally scarce. If God created us, then he did a horrible fricking job.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Confirmed by Alvin Plantinga (PBUH)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because you cannot be free without the potential for evil. God was honest in making this choice, he allowed us full freedom. He could have created a universe where evil didn't exist, but then our freedom would also not exist.
      You also need to remember that we are being tested on this earth. You give way too much importance to earthly preoccupations, as is often the case with hylics, all that exists on earth is just a framework made to test one's soul, including evil, violence, injustice, etc.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God created evil so that I could exist. Without evil, I wouldn’t have been born.
    The world without evil is called heaven and those that choose to do no evil go there.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Okay, the levels of 13 year old ITT are just getting ridiculous...You kids need to go outside and stop ruining this adult website.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you think that not one of your ancestors is a rapist or murderer?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What a strange question to ask, little boy. More importantly, you seem to think that you're a Christian, yet dare to call the Lord evil. The Hell you seem to lust after--you'll see it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            None of your childish assumptions are correct, sorry! Without evil you wouldn’t have been born. God created the universe such that we could exist. Therefore a world without it couldn’t.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God could have created another way for you to exist without the need for evil, if not he's not omnipotent

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares about whether god exists. The question itself is for plebs

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God tests us not so that he may know how we react, but so we may get to know ourselves better in the process.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He could create a world where such a test is not needed it, by creating this world he show is cruelty

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    book of Job btfos it

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *Evil* does not exist as some objective thing, it exists as a moral decision of men that are created in the image of God, meaning they have the ability to freely create, and every time they choose to evil it is a re-creation of Satan, but they can choose to do good and thereby destroy Satan, and this decision happens at every moment of your life, which is isomorphic to the one moment of God creating OR Christ defeating Satan.
    God is not the Marvel superhero that makes bad things go away by sheer power, while we just get to watch; He is the being whose spark within us enables us to create good and evil, as much as we decide to.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If god created satan then he's evil, if satan did something outside his will he's not omnipotent

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not convinced that God being omniscient is incompatible with free will. It seems to me that determined material reality and our free will are both real and are constantly at odds with one another. The more our souls illuminate our minds, the more the spontaneous will of our souls manifests itself in the world. The will of the soul will be good and pure and aim towards God, so it's not really "free," but true freedom can only be found in serving God. Maybe the seemingly determined material nature of most of the world is really just the manifestation of Satan's will encompassing our universe.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we are made in God's image to know and worship him, but we are not God, for if we were made equal to God we would have no need for God. because of this we have some of God's attributes but in imperfect form. We have his holiness, but it is tainted by world(holiness, is whole, not broken, hebrew word קָדוֹשׁ means set apart, God's holiness shows he is different than us). We have his righteousness in the ability to judge good from evil, but it is not perfect in it's discernment like God's. we have his soverignty in our rule over creation and our righteous authority, but we cannot control everything in the same way as God. we have his eternity in heaven and hell, but all things we experience in this life are ephemeral vanity. we have his immutability in that our nature never changes, but our feelings and ideas always being manipulated by the culture (satan?). while we are not omniscient, we have his ability to know things, but our knowledge is always incomplete. while we are not omnipresent, we do exist, but our existence is marginalized from others. while we are not omnipotent, we live a life where we make choices, but this leads to us making the wrong choices and struggle against God's plan (free will?). Like God we love, but our love is almost always conditional and never lasts (Gods love is much like our own love in that we hate the parts of those we love that hurt them, sin. under the influence of the devil man hates the parts of people that don't hurt them and are holy). God is true in that he is real. we are true in the same way but our truth is incomplete and unknowable, held together by His grace. God also tells only truth, while men can tell truth but they all tell lies. we have mercy but we also have hatred and live in a world of unfairness, but God's kingdom is open to all his children equally, even those who have gone against his will. from all these things we see the existence of sin as a result from our seperation from God. through Jesus Christ we have the way to overcome the brokeness that is our nature as perversions of God's perfection. God hates sin but man was made seperate from God through sin, through Jesus Christ the Lord fully realizes his creation.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    & with the deciphering and publication of the scrolls at Herculaneum, there will only be more such nails pounded into the coffin of monotheism. It's all ogre.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_the_Truthful
    The lack of awareness of Avicenna's proof of the truthful in the west is one of the biggest psyops in history. It is the most bulletproof arguments for the existence of God ever devised. Perhaps it is the strongest logical argument for God's existence, next to Spinoza.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Basically Avicenna's beautiful argument comes down to the idea that there is a necessary existent, which boils down to Aristotle's primary mover or uncaused caused. In short, there must be an entity which is not contingent, for all contingent possibilities to be realizable. Yet this necessary existent must be sufficient to supply the conditions for every possible future actuality, which ascribes to it the godlike property of omnipotence. Personally I'm not interested in theological arguments preoccupied with God's omniscience or omnibenevolence. The minimum necessary condition for God's existence is omnipotence. It stands to reason that it is literally impossible for the initial condition of the universe not to contain all potential future possibilities. The Proof of the Truthful adequacy addresses this minimum condition. God must be omnipotent before it is anything else.
      <Verification not required

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Basically Avicenna's beautiful argument comes down to the idea that there is a necessary existent, which boils down to Aristotle's primary mover or uncaused caused. In short, there must be an entity which is not contingent, for all contingent possibilities to be realizable. Yet this necessary existent must be sufficient to supply the conditions for every possible future actuality, which ascribes to it the godlike property of omnipotence. Personally I'm not interested in theological arguments preoccupied with God's omniscience or omnibenevolence. The minimum necessary condition for God's existence is omnipotence. It stands to reason that it is literally impossible for the initial condition of the universe not to contain all potential future possibilities. The Proof of the Truthful adequacy addresses this minimum condition. God must be omnipotent before it is anything else.
      <Verification not required

      >prime mover or uncaused cause
      And similarly, it seems that it's just a bunch of generalizations and assertions out of nowhere.
      >everything must have something outside itself that causes it to exist
      How do you know that?
      >the cosmos as a whole must have something outside itself that causes it to exist
      How do you know that?
      >If the entire collection of contingent things is not contingent, then it must be necessary
      Why? This is all just word salad built on a made-up dichotomy that we're just supposed to accept.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the most simplest, beautiful logical terms, there must be something that cannot *not* exist. Whatever it is otherwise, that is God.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This creates a lot of problems as Jacobi brilliantly point out, first and foremoat nothing prevents me to say that, this thing that must exist is matter/hyle thus making a materialist/atheist theology, from there even.if i pose something that is not matter or the imanent world, that necessary thing still could be just a mechanism or fundamental law (deist
      position) if god is not somethi g beyond that, then you're not different than an atheist since they also believe in trascendental principles like beauty or truth, god must be somwthing beyond that and worthy of worship or in other words with a will of his own, if not he's only a spiritual mechanism, a form of crypto-atheism

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you can babble all you like, but a necessary existent can’t be material because it must be defacto non contingent and eternal.
        >atheists always believe in beauty and truth
        incoherently, yes

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That still don't prove tbe existence of god, only articulates the existence of a world beyond time, god must have a will not being a mere timeless and partless realm of existence

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There's no proof that material existence is contingent, and the idea that something self-sufficient created something contingent is a contradiction in terms, and creates and unecessary second order ontology

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > there must be something that cannot *not* exist.
      nah, wrong

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God exists and he's a fricking c**t, that's my take.
    Heard me demiurge? FRICK YOU

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frick you! Maimonides and Aristotle have already covered this! I refuse to engage with this post!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick youuuuu!!! India is a beautiful country! We will be super power by 2025! We only shit in designated shitting streets!!!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually, they will. India supports genetic engineering far more than any other country, except China maybe. Westcucks will be left in the dust as India becomes a superpower of superhumans

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is one very simple explanation to this: there is a God, he just has some limitations, like everything else in the world. This isn't even that niche of a view, some people have tried to develop it, like David Hume.

    Unfortunately, "my God is bigger than your God" bullshit has lead to this obvious possibility being suppressed and declared a heresy.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bye kid

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >leftist-tier wordsalad and pointless quips
      >ifunny watermark
      the absolute state of this board

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        glad you don't like it :^)

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God shows his goodness through the punishment of evildoers that he created to do evil.
    >But God can't do that to someone!
    Yes he can. He's God. You don't have any say in it and your opinion doesn't matter. God can use you for whatever purpose he wants.
    >But that would make God evil!
    God defines what is good because God defines all of creation. Again you don't have any say in it and your opinion doesn't matter.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God did create a world entirely without evil. some of his creatures introduced evil into the world by willfully disobeying God. God, being perfectly blessed and sufficient unto himself, had no need or obligation to redeem these creatures and take their evil away from them. but God is so loving and gracious that he chose to offer us a way to salvation anyway, though we don't deserve it and have no right to demand it of him. simple as.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      taak another good look at the chart, dumbass.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        name your specific objection to what i said and i'll give you my answer to it.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What is good or evil in the first place? What's the standard by which we ought to judge the gods, and from where it comes from?

    This argument takes morality for granted and that's stupid.

    >inb4 but the Bible says good and evil exists

    Christianity works within a framework in which evil doesn't have ontological existence, but is rather the description of an absence. With this in mind, is quite literally impossible for God to be evil, and why evil is present in creation already has several answers. Simply put, it doesn't actually work as an argument.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      material facts don't cease to exist just because you play around with the words with your peanut brain subhuman.

      the argument is very simple, a child gets raped and an innocent person gets jail in prison, why the omnipotent god does not stop these bad things from happening? there is no rational explanation. you can only defend it by saying it is for the greater good(spook) or that lord works in mysterious ways which is another way of saying I don't know, which is akin to admitting everything is fricked up and there is no trace of god where he is most needed.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > you can only defend it by saying it is for the greater good(spook) or that lord works in mysterious ways which is another way of saying I don't know
        I think it's really lame how almost none of these people follow all of this to its logical conclusion and just drop the assumption that God is 'maximum good'. It reflects this really soft liberal view that has permeated religion, they aren't able to contend with the likely possibility that if there is actually a God, he is mixed in his ways (and/or has some limitations on his power), and we can't trust that everything is really under control.

        As a fedora-tipper, I would find it much more compelling if that sort of model was pushed, it would make some intuitive sense. Unfortunately, we keep being shilled this inherently contradictory view that just comes off as childish babble.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          a defender of god cannot compromise an ounce from his stance because then his moronation crumbles under its weight. it's easy to make the argument if something is not maximum good it is not god. refer back to the two thousand year old meme in OP, if he is not all powerful why call him god?

          Anon this is stupid: While "God work in mysterious ways" might bother you, there is no less substance in the answer than in the stupid assumption that evil exists "just because". You attempting to use a basic b***h shock argument of "child gets raped" thinking that I would automatically give you the right to do unjustified moral claims is just as stupid.

          The first premise of the argument is that something called "evil", something that exists outside the gods, a moral standard by which they can be judged, is in fact real. Show me how that can be and then we can let you vent about how not knowing why God do things means he doesn't exist.

          >subhuman
          Ironic when your entire response is a emotionally charged chimpout.
          >no trace of God
          I see traces of God everywhere, and I affirm that explaining reality without God is in fact impossible. No idea what are you even talking about.

          your post is literal nothing. I think I am moronic to talk to religious people still after all these years. this is like the first time I answered to a religious person in a decade concerning god and got a response that is equally worthless and moronic as any response in my life I've ever got concerning this topic from a religious person.

          it's a mistake on my part.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a wordy way of saying that you can't answer my post because you literally don't know how to justify your own morality.

            Don't worry, I accept your concession.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, there is a very simple answer here: culture and common sense. Most morality has nothing to do with philosophy or cosmology, it is developed from our upbringing and real life experiences. You come from a culture that sees stealing as wrong, your mother enacts this by spanking you when you steal a candy bar, if the lesson is effectively taught then you take it with you even after the direct enforcement is no longer in effect and it becomes second nature, you don't need to be scared in order to not steal.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, if morality is decided by a subjective cultural perception then the initial argument makes even less sense: OP would be condemning God for allowing this specific cultural perception of evil to happen instead of this other one.

            The premise of the argument presupposes the objective existence of universal evil. That's what so far no one has justified.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon this is stupid: While "God work in mysterious ways" might bother you, there is no less substance in the answer than in the stupid assumption that evil exists "just because". You attempting to use a basic b***h shock argument of "child gets raped" thinking that I would automatically give you the right to do unjustified moral claims is just as stupid.

        The first premise of the argument is that something called "evil", something that exists outside the gods, a moral standard by which they can be judged, is in fact real. Show me how that can be and then we can let you vent about how not knowing why God do things means he doesn't exist.

        >subhuman
        Ironic when your entire response is a emotionally charged chimpout.
        >no trace of God
        I see traces of God everywhere, and I affirm that explaining reality without God is in fact impossible. No idea what are you even talking about.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA

          This kind of bullshit is why I think we (as a website and as a generation) should get over the idea of trying to have "debates" about things, we just get so far up our own asses trying to postulate models that we don't really believe. I unironically think that most of the time, a straight forward "I think X is true, allow me to attempt to explain some of the details", "Okay. Well I think Y is true, allow me to attempt to explain some of the details" exchange is way more fruitful than trying to "compel" people to accept your beliefs with 'A, B, therefore C' style reasoning.

          I can tell you almost for sure that this weird kind of "evil cannot be precisely defined, therefore there is no issue with my model where an all powerful and all good being is in charge of a world filled with comical amounts of pain and destruction" reasoning is not going to persuade me. I would be more more impacted if you just sat down and tried to tell me something about how you legitimately view the world, without being confined to "arguments". I legitimately don't really get how most Christians perceive the world through this lens in an everyday sense, you could try to help me.

          In real life we're basically influenced by just finding out that other people think a certain way, and if we trust and respect that person then their ideas might take hold, if we find them to be compatible with our experiences.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I can tell you almost for sure that this weird kind of "evil cannot be precisely defined, therefore there is no issue with my model where an all powerful and all good being is in charge of a world filled with comical amounts of pain and destruction"

            The dilemma of evil is no less painful or difficult to accept within christianity anon, and as I said, there is further ellaborations and answers for it. What I was trying to do, however, and because this thread and all the posts above are dealing with this, is to show how the argument in the OP as presented doesn't make any sense as to attack christianity, and that it begs the question of what we even mean by evil and why it even exists. It tries to either:

            1-Work within the framework of christian morality, but within christian morality God can't possibly be evil.
            2-Work within some kind of universal moral standard that isn't justified and I frankly don't think it exists.

            And that's the thing: I do think evil can actually be precisely defined. I am not attacking the idea that there is some reality to the concept, but that OP doesn't bother to do so, and that because of it the argument crumbles.

            >I legitimately don't really get how most Christians perceive the world through this lens in an everyday sense, you could try to help me.

            I think you are fairly right on this issue, however, and the ultimate vanality of debates. What you described is reasonable to expect.

            While there is variations within christianity, with some (such as certain calvinists) affirming that God do in fact sustains evil or at least wills evil into existence, what the great majority believe is that evil describes the absence of God rather than a thing with ontological existence: Lust is the lack of chastity. Greed is the lack of charity. Pride is the lack of humility. Hate is the lack of love.

            God stands at the center of creation as the Being by which all that has existence recieves existence and substance. Free will in christian terms, the capacity to either love and embrace God or either reject Him and turn our backs on Him is a decision between being in communion with Him and his energies or closing ourselves to them... This later decision produces evil into creation, decay, death.

            Now, why God allows evil to occur within creation instead of just exterminating those who harm others (or themselves)? First thing first, within the christian paradigm humanity as a whole is wounded, carrying the weight of a nature that is actually tilted towards self-destruction. For protestants and catholics this is implies guilt, while for orthodox is more like a wound or an illness (which I tend to favor), but in both cases a process of transformation, of healings man's fatal flaw, is needed.

            We don't know why God allows every single evil thing that happens to happen, and no worldview can actually give you that, but we do think there is some explanations:

            cont.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >While there is variations within christianity, with some (such as certain calvinists) affirming that God do in fact sustains evil or at least wills evil into existence
            Obviously Calvin was on crack but I think the basic model makes a lot more sense. Apart from Abrahamic religions, no one else so seriously wrestles with this dilemma, it is obvious that there is evil in the world and of course the powers in charge of the world are okay with it being there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it is obvious that there is evil in the world and of course the powers in charge of the world are okay with it being there.

            But it isn't, anon. I mean, sure we can find some vague ideal of bad things, or evil, in every culture, and suffering seems to be also a universal experience, but the moral value we give to said suffering is not at all obvious. As a matter of fact while many cultures do seem to have literal values they also often disagree on certain taboos that for them are no less important than, say, not killing someone else or sleeping with his wife.

            Evil is tied to your worldview, and can't be separated from it. It needs to be justified before we can demand explanations for its existence.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That really doesn't do anything to address things like illness and natural disaster, humans hurting each other is just one part of the issue (the much easier one to attempt to explain away).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why natural disasters and suffering in general (not cause by humans) ought not to exist? in that assumption we are still making value judgements that require justification beyond "well, because we don't like them".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pick your justification, you're the one with a whole religion to work with.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't be so dense: Your initial claim was that evil is obvious. After I question that assumption, you turn and say that it doesn't matter because natural disasters still happen, implying the assumption that natural disasters ought not to happen.

            What I want is a justification for the claim that evil obviously exists apart from any worldview.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What I want is a justification for the claim that evil obviously exists apart from any worldview.
            >apart from any worldview
            lmao, this discussion has become a total waste of time again. Have fun, I'll probably have the misfortune of bumping into you again another time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, your initial claim was that "evil obviously exist". I am only asking you to prove me that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            cont.

            1-As a natural consequence of our actions when we turn our backs on Him.
            2-Because suffering and the consequences of evil, while undesirable in principle, may nevertheless throught pain be useful to cleanse a person and help healing the wound of evil and sin. Because hardship is often the only way of mending the vices and ill tendencies of our character and disposition.

            This later response creates the question: But isn't God all powerful? Why can't He heal man easily by his power instead of allowing suffering to break us? My answer would be that God won't compell anyone into forced servitude, thus the final decision must always be on man and man alone, and that while He can indeed do anything (within the bounds of logic), there is often no alternative but to allow suffering in order to mend our hearts. We do often put ourselves into positions in which only pain can be our teacher.

            3-Because he has a purpose (God work in mysterious ways). Yes, it seems ad-hoc and I won't pretend it's satisfactory as an answer, but if one accepts a christian paradigm it should be no surprise that God often operates without telling us why, and while those who object are right to affirm that (taking this anwer, without the doctrinal context, alone) we have no reason to assume that God actually has a good purpose in mind in the end, the assumption that he is therefore evil or that it has our pain as His end isn't less baseless.

            Finally, it's important to note that the christian eschaton, the end of all things, is not just some kind of consolation prize after ruining our chance for a perfect world. The promise of the eschaton is that even evil will be transformed and all the pain and suffering will in fact turned into good, the later stage far more glorious than anything that existed within Eden. From a christian POV, the temporal existence of evil is worth the later glories we will experience.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What do you have to say about this idea that the "good" God is working towards doesn't actually benefit the human race? Like we're all basically thrown to the wind and it's "good" for some purpose that is only relevant to God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, within the christian paradigm existence is, on principle, good, thus, there is no way the final endgoal towards which God is moving history can be harmful to humans. Whatever it may be, the extinction of evil (which is absence of God and his energies) garantees it's good for us.

            If you are talking about a more generic deity, then yeah, I mean, how can we even know? It depends on your own idea of God I guess.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, within the christian paradigm existence is, on principle, good, thus, there is no way the final endgoal towards which God is moving history can be harmful to humans.
            Here you're falling into your own trap. What is "good"? Why can't "good" be harmful to humans?

            In all of these threads, the posters raging against the paradox end up taking the position that God torturing the whole human population forever would still be "good" because, by definition, God is good. They explicitly reject the practical concept of good.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, yes? The practical concept of good may be useful in our day to day lives, but to assume some kind of self-proving, universal ideal of good that is obvious to everyone is nonsense, much like assuming the existence of a similar type of evil.

            Both are based on deeper metaphysical layer. I see "good" ultimately as communion with God and His energies, and I do believe that what we tend to understand as "practical good" often aligns with that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The bible really doesn't say that, that's philosophical thinking that has been superimposed on the bible after the fact. It's fairly clear in the OT that when they talk about 'good' they're talking about tangible, real life prosperity: good harvests, healthy families, etc. and when they talk about 'evil' they mean destruction and suffering. The narrative had nothing to do with with this abstract (circular) concept of good stemming from the assumption that God is good, so anything resulting from him is good. The narrative was just: good things will tend to happen to you and your country if you follow the law of God.

      In fact, the OT contains a lot of parts where people question whether God really is good, some of the passages suggest that he just has his own stuff going on and doesn't care much about morality or the state of humanity. It's one thing to accept that as a logical result of how much higher up God is, it's quite another to say that it's actually "good" that he is passively allowing bad things to happen.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the bible really doesn't say that

        Historical christiniaty doesn't work with Sola Scriptura and this seems like a typical protestant assumption to make. The Bible was compiled by the faith centuries after the Apostles were already dead, and what christianity understands and takes from the Bible and the framework that it uses to operate are largely based on recieved wisdom, tradition, dogma and doctrine. Do demean this answer merely because according to you a plain reading of the Bible doesn't seem that to be the case is dumb.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Without evil we would never improve the soul

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no light without dark, even a child can grasp this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so god could not solve a bifurcation and required mass murder and torture for "light"s existence? a rather cruel method, unfit for the godly grace.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This, and even if couldn't he could still do something about the ratio. I could accept it if we were just talking about stubbing your toe once a year or something.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    sage

    please jannies just give these morons their own board already, IQfy doesn't deserve this

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actions, personal responsibility, in no part of the bible it says punish the not sinners

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >evils exists
    it refutes itself in step 1

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist position
    >I am very smart and understand everything and if ~I~ made the universe nothing bad would ever happen
    Theist position
    >There are things beyond my understanding

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't be like that: The problem of evil and the existence of suffering is something even pious men often struggle with. To be concerned about it is only natural even if I feel that this specific line of argumentation is pointless.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No he summed it up pretty well

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Theist position
      >There are things beyond my understanding
      >But whatever they are, I am 100% sure it all comes back to me being right in my original position and I will burn you at the stake if you suggest otherwise

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is extremely funny but the important difference of course is "mummy has no power" versus "God is not all-powerful"

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If God is all-knowing, he would know what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us
    This doesn't make any sense. We could be tested for our own benefit, not God's.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just like worship and prayer.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And he could give us that benefit without testing us too, he is all-powerful. It really seems like you people just haven't sat down and thought about what being all-powerful would mean.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But would you still be you? Humans are limited little things, but have more than others. Thus is how it is here. Should not all creation know the divine or only that which is already perfect?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, I wouldn't still be me, but there's nothing important about that on a cosmological scale. Am I the best possible version of me? Can you not imagine a better existence for us, even in the most theoretical sense? Is this the best of all possible worlds? That's the fundamental question here.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are the only version of you. The other worlds probably also exist, probably all mathematically possible world exist, not that we can be sure. But this is the one we are in, the others are not relevant to our condition.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah that's cute and all but it's not at all relevant to the question.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The question is whether evil exists. And the answer is no. Thus there is no paradox.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >An all-knowing God could and would destroy Satan
    Not necessarily.

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Morality is a priori. Gods moral maxim is higher than a humans. God is omnipotent, all-knowing and for the sake of the argument, all-good. Since an all-knowing and all-good God created the world and all its laws, we can assume he created moral laws. Since God is the creator of everything, he can also create moral laws that are inherently good. This means that everything he deems as good must be good. Since Gods essence is all-good, we can say that a world where evil exists, and a world where he wouldn't destroy evil can exist and be created by an all-powerful, good god.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Morality being an a priori don't prove that god exist or that such a priori principle comes from him

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    We can all tell you won't believe any answer, but
    >god is omnipotent
    Even Christians have reservations about God being more powerful than logic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If logic is above god then god is just a logical concept and not a free being with a will, determination and self sufficiency, and if god is not omnipotent that opens the possibility of an even higher being above him more powerful than god

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Can God Prevent Evil?
    > No.
    > Then God is not all powerful.
    This is only true if it be assumed that there is the power to prevent evil.

    > Does God want to prevent Evil?
    > No.
    > Then God is not good.
    This assumes that there is a singular good and singular evil; I see no definition of "good" that can justify this assumption. For God to be good, He must fulfill His good not that of other beings. God could theoretically have created reality that no being could fulfill its end and yet be good.

    > If God is all-knowing, he would know what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us.
    First, "therefore" is not a conjunction. Second, some would pose free will as an argument hereagainst, for, in some theories thereof, the freedom of the will should prevent the prediction of the same. Third, it might be suggested that to modify one's creation on the basis of some action that they have yet to take is unjust, since they have yet to deserve the alteration, and many consider God just.

    > Then why is there Evil?
    > Satan.
    Many might posit a being or beings other than or alongside Satan, but your point applies equally to any such beings.

    > An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could and would destroy Satan.
    First, this assumes the possibility of annihilation, which I find doubtful, seeing not how it might be effected. Second, it is again assumed that there is a singular good.

    > Could God have created a universe without these [things that cause evil]?
    > No.
    > God is not all powerful.
    This assumes that there is a power to create such a universe.

    > Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?
    > No.
    > God is not all powerful.
    Vide supra.

    > Then why didn't he?
    Supposing He did, He did not will it; this seems a most elegant and meetest solution.

    > Does God want to prevent Evil?
    > No.
    > God is not loving.
    First, this seems an odd break with the all-x, all-y diction; it seems that God might love one being but not another. Second, it seems you assume the classical definition of "loving": willing the good of some object. Many posit that the perfection of persons requires some freedom on their part,of i.e. that one the qualifications of a person's good is to have chosen it for himself; thus, to love persons God should need to allow this choice, though He should have a preferred resolution of the choice.

    Also, are you attempting to disprove the existence of God, of evil or of both?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This is only true if it be assumed that there is the power to prevent evil.
      If such a power doesn't exist (even when i , a limited being,can imagine it and articulate it) then that means that tbere's a finite number of "powers" god have, thus god is not infinite, he's limited and then we can pose a being above god who actually has an ilimitated number of powers, any limitation imposed on god negate him as the unlimited absolute that is the fundament of the limited contigent existence

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does anyone else feel like this entire "paradox" rely on power wanking?

    Because omnipotence meaning "he can do literally anything you can possibly imagine and more" already is a paradox by itself and afaik most theologians don't think that God can do anything like let's say destroying itself or to sin. God at least in most religions can solve all our material problems, he's not above logic.

    btw I don't believe in God but I think that's a strawman.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If he's not above logic then he's not really a god, but the laws of natire on tbeir most fundamental form, a trascendental law, but not a god with a will, so you're pretty much an atheist, since atheist also believe in trascendental principles like beauty and truth

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >atheist also believe in trascendental principles like beauty and truth

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares? You're just debating about a fictional character.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *