>someone murders a child >"I feel that this is evil" >"how do you know? do you have anything to base that on?" >"I have this book that says what is evil and what isn't. you just happen to be correct this time"
Opposing lowering infant mortality sounds like the evilest thing ever, right?
"Of course pre-modern levels of infant mortality are awful."
And yet without said levels of infant mortalityl, dysgenics begin to rampant. That leads to a competency crisis and eventually to a total downfall. Said downfall further ruins and burthens the lives of many more.
Apparently, sometimes things we as humans deem as evil, seem to contribute to very complex systems in a way we fail to comprehend.
Using cheap gotchas that pull on one's heartstrings is nothing but dishonest and childish.
>And yet without said levels of infant mortalityl, dysgenics begin to rampant. That leads to a competency crisis and eventually to a total downfall.
This is so stupid and detached from reality that I don't even know how to comment. Take your meds, as the kids say.
not the other anon
anyway, let's hypothesize instead that God created all possible worlds/universes/etc., every possible branch, every permutation, every possible arrangement of physical laws, etc.
the only possible alternative to this is non-being and self-annihilation/negation for God; this would obviously not be in keeping with The Good because existence is required for values to exist in the first place
Furthermore, God's idea of The Good need not correspond to ours; as the Absolute Infinite, He is ineffable to us, admits of no finite description, etc.
>As an aside, I've always liked the cute old saying 'it is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us'
> God isn’t good because I, a human, can’t wrap my head around his divine will and he has to agree with what I think is good because…he just has to ok?
Religion paved the ground where good and evil are constituted.In this sense, it's very much possible for a human to find out what is good and what isn't. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be a reason to punish them for their sins.
not the other anon
anyway, let's hypothesize instead that God created all possible worlds/universes/etc., every possible branch, every permutation, every possible arrangement of physical laws, etc.
the only possible alternative to this is non-being and self-annihilation/negation for God; this would obviously not be in keeping with The Good because existence is required for values to exist in the first place
Furthermore, God's idea of The Good need not correspond to ours; as the Absolute Infinite, He is ineffable to us, admits of no finite description, etc.
>As an aside, I've always liked the cute old saying 'it is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us'
>God's idea of The Good need not correspond to ours;
this create a huge theological problem, if god is beyond our comprehension then we can't know his will, god is something copletly alien to us, so in that sense is like god don't exist,he functionally doesn't exist, saying that we can't understand it don't solve the problem, just make it worse
To add on to your second point, if God is somehow incompatible with our notion of good, then he is not available as an objective measure of good that we can turn to. Further, there is not even a reason why we would want to be aligned with God if his idea of good is our idea of suffering. Perhaps heaven is hell
A universe with free will must have evil, if someone cannot commit evil deeds they have no free will, it's that simple, please give me a scenerio in which all of humanity is free but also unable to do anything evil, you cant, because it is impossible
can you imagine anything outside reality? so why do you think you can understand creation?
8 months ago
Anonymous
if you can't understand creation then you have no basis to accept any religion as true how can you recognize god as the lord of creationif you don't know what that evenmeans?, the moment you accept creation is something outside your reach the logical conlusion is to become agnostic
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm talking about how he did it, not if he did.
8 months ago
Anonymous
that oesn't matter, if your answer to this problem is that god is beyond our understanding of existence, you're selling god as somethign useless for us since we can't understand his will, we canonly place blind faith on institutions that we have no guarantee are really conected with the divine, the most logical conclusion then is being agnostic
Also as a concept on its own does not exist. What we call "evil" is just the absence of the Good. >$current_year >Manichaeism still taking gullible souls
>why God chose
God cannot "choose" >and let it's absence exist?
Free will. I am not a big fan of it either; but, that's not my call to make.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>God cannot "choose" >god cannot
then he's not omnipotent >Free will
a ssaid before if he can't create a world were free will can't be excercise without creating evil, then he's not all powerful
8 months ago
Anonymous
God is the logos. Omnipotence does not permit breaking logic.
8 months ago
Anonymous
no, god created the logos,in the biblical sens elogos just mean verb, "action" as in he's the creator, the one who did acted and created existence, the logos as logic is a greek notion more related with Heraclitus or even the buddhis dharma,god (should be) above logic, and omnipotence by deffinition must be above anything
saying that god is the logos is crypto-atheism, at that point you're just seeing god as a bannal set of rules of the universe, you're n longer doing theology but metaphysics, naming the first principles of existence, when god is the logos then he' sn longer god, you're admiting that the universe jsut wqorks thanks to some tarscendnetal rules(like truth or causality, in that sense you'0re no different than an atheist) without any entity or will that could change things at any moment,making the whole existence a mere machine, you should read the critics of Jacobi to the deist philosophers like Fichte or spinoza
8 months ago
Anonymous
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
8 months ago
Anonymous
word=logos, but logos also can mean verb or action, in this context the correct translation is, "in the beggining was the verb" as in the pure action of creation, it's fancy way to said that god is the creator, that has nothing to do with god being logic and logic being god
8 months ago
Anonymous
>you should read the critics of Jacobi
This seems quite interesting. Thanks for the pointer.
The best of all possible worlds includes the evils we commonly see in this world which complement its greater glory as it proceeds to infinity. Therefore God could not create another universe, not because he can't, but because he wouldn't want to, because that world would be inferior to the one he has already made, and why would God choose to create an inferior world if he is perfectly good? Basic theodicy.
The terms god and evil can't apply to god given that thoose concepts depend on good. The judge can't be judged and so on. Does the shipmaster not caring about the rats on his ship make him a bad shipmaster?
Plug in your own definition - do you think that something God judges as evil exists in this world?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Whoops you blew it. Apparently your definition is "things God judges as evil.". God doesn't judge things as evil. Evil is the absence of God.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Why does God allow any absence of himself to exist then
8 months ago
Anonymous
See
Evil cannot exist without God.
Love cannot exist without free will.
Virtue cannot exist without suffering.
God wants to give us the opportunity to love. Love cannot exist without free will. Free will cannot exist without the possibility for evil.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Why should God preserve free will unless free will? Is free will "good"? How can it be good when you have said that it is incompatible with the full presence of God, as I suggested, unless you mean Good in some sense other than it that defined by the presence of God?
8 months ago
Anonymous
You turned your brain into soup
If you believe that free will is good enough to justify allowing the absence of God (evil) then you believe in a sense of Good that is not identical with the presence of God and thus undercuts your own definition of Good.
U wot
God is goodness. God is not a person bound to good and bad morals like us.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You told me that free will could not exist if God did not allow his absence - i.e. if he did not allow evil by your definition. Therefore free will, under your own definition, requires the absence of God and is this itself evil, as evil is the absence of God. Thus you must either believe that Free will is evil and God ought to eliminate it, or you have another definition of Good aside from the presence of God.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Your premise is false. Free will is necessary for true love. A side effect of free will is the ability to not choose God. It is what it is. You're the one trying to say "X is evil, Y results in X, therefore Y is evil too." Sorry, I reject your flawed premise.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Under your own definition of Good, free will is evil since you have stated that it requires the absence of God. You are being incoherent. Why is True Love good? Is it Good because it is the presence of God? If so, then it shouldn't require permitting evil, as you believe it does since evil is the absence of God. If its Good for some other reason then you have two contradictory definitions of Good.
Look, either do the Free Will Theodicy or do the Evil-is-mere-negation theodicy, you can't do both at the same time.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Clown boy. I'm talking about from human point of view. God is always present everywhere for all existence, even in hell. "Separation from God" doesn't mean actual separation. God sustains all existence, including hell.
Separation from God means in our spirit or heart.
God permits free will in order to allow us to Love. Simple as.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Why does God allow our spirit or heart to separate from him even in a nominal sense. You're just shifting the question around moron. Either say evil doesn't exist or say it does but is justified by some greater good.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That anon is rejecting your premise and demonstrating that he has reason to do so. You have to reframe it in the context he has provided or demonstrate why he can't reject it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Define evil
8 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but free will isn't inherently evil. On the contrary, it is good, as it was made by God and he in fact possesses free will. In theory, free will would have promoted more good in the world as anyone would realize the absence of God (or more precisely the refusal to recognize Him as authority) doesn't result in anything pleasant.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If you believe that free will is good enough to justify allowing the absence of God (evil) then you believe in a sense of Good that is not identical with the presence of God and thus undercuts your own definition of Good.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Free will is meaningless when you add God to the equation. Everything is determined just by virtue of the existence of an omniscient being. Might as well not give humans free will and the results will be as determined as they are now. And, of course, the idea or God having an overarching goal is quite nonsensical; but theists always have good answers for that, something like: "we cannot fully understand God's true nature" type of bullshit
8 months ago
Anonymous
Sounds like you just don't want to open your heart. That's fine. Sad, but that's your choice. Likely you are afraid that you'll need to be accountable for your life so you try to rationalize away your sinful behavior in a vain attempt to find inner peace. But the spiritual dissonance will eat at you for your entire life. You'll either break down one day and humble yourself before God, or you will double down into a meaningless pit of anxiety and despair.
Protip: you can rationalize yourself into or out of anything. There is no rational answer to life.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But the spiritual dissonance will eat at you for your entire life.
Yes, that might be true.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>There is no rational answer to life.
But the Bible is written accounts of men and women who were self-aware. Not everyone is born self-aware, and that makes them a israelite.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>religion is the opiate of the masses
Got it
8 months ago
Anonymous
Marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Evil is the absence of God.
So the child on the shipwrecked island is evil? Everyone in the country on the other side of the world is evil because they haven't heard of your God before?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Dude lol. You are bringing 8th grade arguments. Are you for real?
You do not have a proper understanding of the concept of God. That's your problem.
Doesn't matter - the point is that if you believe something evil by your own definition exists in this world, which you also believe is ruled by an all-powerful God, then your belief is incoherent. Even if I didn't believe in evil or had no definition, your belief could still be incoherent.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Nice dodge
Evil is the absence of God. Move along.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Creating evil and letting the evil things be is a GOOD THING because it was done by a ultimately virtuous thing - the god. The rest are details.
The argument immediately fails if you do not accept voluntarist theism. >Can God Prevent Evil?
Only by not creating the world. But the creation of the world is an added good, which overshadows the evil it must entail. >Then God is not all powerful
This would be true if Creation did not necessarily entail evil. But it does, because if it didn't God would have created a perfect being: but God is by definition the perfect being, and one of its attributes is absolute unity, meaning that he logically cannot create a God, not because he is incapable of doing so, but because what is being talked about is meaningless, since "creating another perfect being" entails a contradiction (in this sense, it is akin to asking wether God "can axdfhgaysn547!;hgyjiYgb").
Another way to put it, is that for something to be all powerful, that something must have every form of powerfulness that is conceivable; but contradictory forms of powerfulness are not conceivable, and as such are a priori irreal: so God, by not having contradictory forms of powerfulness, can still possess all the forms of powerfulness that are needed to truly be all powerful.
>Only by not creating the world.
if that's the case then he's not omnipotent
>This would be true if Creation did not necessarily entail evil.
being omnipotent means that you define what's necessary, if god needs to bend the knee to the "rules of creation" then he's not really god but a demiurge >meaning that he logically cannot
if he's bond bythe laws of logic he's not omnipotent >but contradictory forms of powerfulness are not conceivable,
then he's bond by the law of non contradiction and again not omnipotent, logic is above him >can still possess all the forms of powerfulness that are needed to truly be all powerful.
that's not trully all powerful, is a power relative to logic, so a contradiction in terms, "his ilimited power is limited by logic"
and that's why the whole concept of god doesn't make any sense
>being omnipotent means that you define what's necessary, if god needs to bend the knee to the "rules of creation" then he's not really god but a demiurge
This is not the case if the rules of creation, as you call them, are just a consequence of his own essence. Same for when you say >if he's bond bythe laws of logic he's not omnipotent
In that case he would simply bound directly by his essence, and only indirectly by the laws of logic.
If God cannot overcome his essence then he is limited and not all-powerful
8 months ago
Anonymous
Dunno how you could possibly talk about limitation, since here would be external to him, meaning that there would be no limiting factor. Moreover, if God could "overcome his essence" there would be an unactualized potential in him, and this would in fact be a genuine limitation.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The same refutations can be made if God can only act according to his essence. The only valid answer that maintains his lack of limitation is that he can literally just do everything, including the contradictory and nonsensical
8 months ago
Anonymous
I have already shown why a) the same refutation cannot be made (since there is no external limiting factor) and b) why your position actually entails a limitation in God
The solution is that there is no evil. In the end, everything will be shown to be not only forgivable but justified. Everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is perfect. That is what you have to believe if you believe in an all-powerful, all-good God.
>evil exists
No, we deem certain forces of the world evil by ourselves, ultimately they are what they are. Greed, selfishness, sin, apathy whatever we deem evil is a result of certain forces and attributes of the world. Our conception of what is evil can change with time, ultimately there cannot be good without evil, it is a part to the whole. I see god as an omnipotent diety, that represents truth. I do not see him as an active being, so I do not hold expectations for him to take any sort of action.
>I know more than God when it comes to manufacturing all of creation
It's automatically refuted when you take the fact that this is a hidden premise in the argument. So you get: >I know God could have made a better universe where we still have everything we do now because: >appeal to the nature of omnipotence (while assuming you both understand the nature of such) and assuming one has the ability to envision a greater version of creation than an omnipotent entity
So I can reject the hidden premise as well as question your understanding of omnipotency by demonstrating that whoever is making the argument is limited. The argument can then be that the limitations of whoever is asserting the problem of evil entail that he can't actually demonstrate the full nature/scale of the supposed problem. From there the person arguing has to make a smaller scale arguments that can be taken out in detail.
What’s evil, OP? In this world, where is the evil? Where on the doll did God touch you? Is the ideal world just hedonistic pleasure, like the Islamic “Heaven”?
Free will without the capacity to will evil makes no sense. > can God make thing without [fundamental and necessary attribute of thing in order to be thing]
Is an incoherent question.
>Free will without the capacity to will evil makes no sense.
If he isn't capable of doing so, then his omnipotence quality should be questioned. That is the problem with creating absurd concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience; you will always end up creating avenues for paradoxes and absurdities. When things gets too absurd theists will eventually resort to circular reasoning.
you have a middle schoolers understanding of religion. this questions has been answered for a long time and you are moronic if you think it's never been addressed. you contradict yourself over and over in your own explanations. it's honestly pathetic, I have been telling the answer for this to atheist when I was 19, it's time to grow up moron, I mean have you even tried to look up an answer for your question from religious leaders, have you ever done anything other then postulate?
So you actually don’t have an answer? No philosopher or theologian has managed to give an answer. They just resort to your empty “you just don’t get it maaan” when it gets difficult. Actually try
8 months ago
Anonymous
you are a self made idiot.
8 months ago
Anonymous
At least I'm not like you, wilfully ignorant in fear of the knowledge that if you actually investigate the truth you will find the God you fear to be a scarecrow
8 months ago
Anonymous
read
frick it, 3 am and will give an answer anyway. if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey. this does not mean things could not be difrent, it just means this is what was intended. your prediction that God is evel because evil can just as easily be reversed, if God can good, then good. you don't actually add anything to the discussion, you just basicly make a mute point and pick a side you prefer. we think him to be omnipotent and such because he is the creator, just as a inventor makes his bobble, he understands the ins and outs of it perfectly and how to use it. very simple, very stupid question.
you absolute teenager
8 months ago
Anonymous
frick it, 3 am and will give an answer anyway. if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey. this does not mean things could not be difrent, it just means this is what was intended. your prediction that God is evel because evil can just as easily be reversed, if God can good, then good. you don't actually add anything to the discussion, you just basicly make a mute point and pick a side you prefer. we think him to be omnipotent and such because he is the creator, just as a inventor makes his bobble, he understands the ins and outs of it perfectly and how to use it. very simple, very stupid question.
8 months ago
Anonymous
> if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey
Why should I think that free will exists? If God relinquishes control he is no longer all-powerful, so we have an immediate contradiction
8 months ago
Anonymous
so God can't be all powerfully and let things do what they wish? if he was not all powerfully then he could not do that. please, please lurk before posting you mental midget
8 months ago
Anonymous
> so God can't be all powerfully and let things do what they wish?
Obviously, if he does not have control over all beings, he is not all-powerful
> please, please lurk before posting you mental midget
Insults make you look scared. You have nothing to be fearful of here
8 months ago
Anonymous
why are you assuming he can't be in control if he chooses? I don't think you have a grasp of the concepts you want to talk about
8 months ago
Anonymous
> why are you assuming he can't be in control if he chooses?
If he chooses to let humans do evil then he's not omnibenevolent
PS I've noticed it's better if one just ignores the strange, emotionally inappropriate second half of your comments. Perhaps you should try not posting them?
8 months ago
Anonymous
but if good, then good, remember? you just want to pick your side, you are adding nothing. understand that this question was answer by greater men then me for thousands of years and you could easily read what they had to say on the topic, for fricks sake this same post was made hundreds of times on this board alone, you could have just went to the archive
8 months ago
Anonymous
> but if good, then good, remember?
Okay, and? If evil, then evil. Therefore no God > you just want to pick your side
Yes, I want to pick the side of good, against evil. > understand that this question was answer by greater men then me for thousands of years and you could easily read what they had to say on the topic
None of them came up with a good answer > for fricks sake this same post was made hundreds of times on this board alone, you could have just went to the archive
The weirdly emotional final part of your comment to ignore yet again
>he can't do nonsensical thing therefore he doesn't have all power
The ability to control our free will doesn't make sense, free will is where he chooses not to control by definition. Could he control us? Yes if he didnt create free will. Could he vanish the universe? Yes. Does that mean we don't have free will within it? No.
Let's say you made a videogame and the characters acted in a way you couldn't control because you made their actions reliant on some RNG. Does that somehow mean you aren't all powerful over them? You could recode things, you could shut off the game but you choose not to because you think the RNG is good, just like God thinks free will is good.
Like I really don't understand your definition of all powerful, you are really requiring that something can do nonsensical things like create an object heavier than they can lift to be all powerful?
>>he can't do nonsensical thing therefore he doesn't have all power
Like I really don't understand your definition of all powerful, you are really requiring that something can do nonsensical things like create an object heavier than they can lift to be all powerful?
Literally yes. Inability to do nonsensical things means you are not all-powerful.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Literally yes. Inability to do nonsensical things means you are not all-powerful.
You really think this isn't sillier than believing in God?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Of course I think it's far less silly than believing in God. Believing that God can't do nonsensical things means that there could be a being greater than him that does have such an ability, therefore, it leads to a contradiction of God's primacy. You've just given a proof against God
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Believing that God can't do nonsensical things means that there could be a being greater than him that does have such an ability
This is a huge logical leap
8 months ago
Anonymous
>obvious mental gymnastics >self contradiction
can't wait for this thread in a few days again
8 months ago
Anonymous
Define evil? Is it something worth avoiding if the existence of it allows greater good to flourish? Why do you just assume the evil that exists in the world isn't for a greater purpose?
8 months ago
Anonymous
This is vague as to be entirely useless. God may have a use for children suffering or beings suffering endlessly in Hell but I don't really care. I don't think that any end he could have could justify the means of even one person suffering in hellfire forever.
I don't know why or how he could have made it, it's just the way it is. honestly not hard to be good or evil, there is relief in knowing where ever you go, it was your own choice, that alone makes God blameless
Is a parent that allows their child to touch a hot stove blameless? Is a parent that leaves the hot stove on blameless? I'm not sure why you are giving God special excuses
8 months ago
Anonymous
>there is no purpose for it because there is no purpose for it
8 months ago
Anonymous
is no purpose for it because there is no purpose for it
Wrong. If there is a purpose for it, God is still morally wrong to do so, regardless of the purpose.
>obvious mental gymnastics >self contradiction
can't wait for this thread in a few days again
It's not mental gymnastics, it's completely clear. A being who is not constrained by such notions as logical coherency and reason can do more things than a being that is constrained. If God is constrained by reason and logic then he is not all-powerful
>Believing that God can't do nonsensical things means that there could be a being greater than him that does have such an ability
This is a huge logical leap
How? It's obvious
Not religious and don't care to be but I've never understood this idea of God as "want(ing) to prevent evil." Isn't God more like the totality, the unity of good and evil, light and dark, form and void? I believe in God but not in an omnibenevolent God, as if human beings even know what "good" is... and I guess Epicurus is only addressing those who believe in an omnibenevolent God, though those people are kinda moronic anyway. So what's the point of making an argument about a bunch of idiots?
Christians usually posit God to be omnibenevolent, or even to be pure good itself
8 months ago
Anonymous
I was saying he's not, and that is exactly the reason you are wrong
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Wrong. If there is a purpose for it, God is still morally wrong to do so, regardless of the purpose.
According to you, sure. Objectively? No
8 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, and? None of us have any objective standard of morality that we can point to. I think it's wrong to torture children. If you think otherwise, go for it
8 months ago
Anonymous
I think It's wrong too. We cant know for sure if God agrees but we know he thinks the universe is overall a 'better' place with free will existing so child torture comes with that.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>no objective measure of morality >Heres a moral quandary that proves God le evil
it's like a sit com almost, like I'm watching seinfeld.
8 months ago
Anonymous
but you think there is no real measure of wrong, what could you possibly blame him for?
God is only evil according to most people's idea of evilness. I never claimed that God is somehow "objectively evil". I don't think such a thing exists
8 months ago
Anonymous
great so you just admitted your question was dishonest. thanks for playing op. never post again
8 months ago
Anonymous
Ok then now you can understand how this so called 'paradox' falls apart at the first step. You learn something new eveeyday
8 months ago
Anonymous
Sam Harris's oh so complex school of thought based on doing things that don't "suck."
8 months ago
Anonymous
>it's obvious
No
8 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, why not? Explain to me how a being who is constrained by logic and reason is as powerful and great as a being that is not
great so you just admitted your question was dishonest. thanks for playing op. never post again
Nothing I said implies that I believe in objective morality. Also, I'm not OP
Ok then now you can understand how this so called 'paradox' falls apart at the first step. You learn something new eveeyday
Nothing I said implies that I believe in objective morality or depends on it. God is totally consistent for someone who believes that torturing babies is fine
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Explain to me how a being who is constrained by logic and reason is as powerful and great as a being that is not
By your logic an all powerful being couldn't possibly create a universe where their power is limited, therefore a God which can (like ours) create free will has more power in a way.
8 months ago
Anonymous
> By your logic an all powerful being couldn't possibly create a universe where their power is limited, therefore a God which can (like ours) create free will has more power in a way.
If God has created a universe where he is not all-powerful then he is no longer all-powerful
>God is totally consistent for someone who believes that torturing babies is fine
You are misusing words, it's consistent even if you think it's not 'fine', you can think it's not 'fine' but a necessary byproduct of the existence of freewill (and the ability for good and love to exist)
> (and the ability for good and love to exist)
Why isn't God powerful enough to create good and love without torturing babies? Why does he have to make a blood sacrifice for good to exist?
You may or may not accept this argument, but I would suggest that “Christian Doctrines” are mostly bullshit, and that the bible is a corrupted document written by men.
You may also dismiss this notion, however my faith guarantees me that there is no struggle, that everything is already solved, already complete and perfect. Nobody can stray from god; there is literally nowhere else to stray toward, god encompasses everything including nothing. There is no hell, nor is there a heaven. Morality emerges based on our experiences of pain and suffering, joy and pleasure, but to imagine that god is using pain and suffering to prod us into acting a certain way seems unholy to me.
I don't really care about that. I'm taking the Christian view as a premise and arguing against it
Now you are being disingenuous. You know those Christians say to that: pain of cancer is temporary and doesn't compare to the endless joys of heaven.
Why is it you cannot at least "refute" Christianity honestly? Maybe because it's impossible?
That's not what they say, because they don't claim that the child will go to heaven. They say that even if the child has painful cancer and goes to hell, that's still good
8 months ago
Anonymous
>If God has created a universe where he is not all-powerful then he is no longer all-powerful
Only within that universe, what is your point? >Why isn't God powerful enough to create good and love without torturing babies? Why does he have to make a blood sacrifice for good to exist?
He doesn't make the blood sacrifice, it's a byproduct of free will and free will despite baby torture is 'better' than a universe without free will
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Only within that universe, what is your point?
My opponents in this thread are claiming that such a God is limited by such a universe. >it's a byproduct of free will and free will despite baby torture is 'better' than a universe without free will
I don't think it's better, I think it's worse
>I think It's bad therefore it's bad
Nobody asked your opinion on morality
Yes they did though, this entire thread is about the fact that God's so-called objective morality conflicts with all sensible morality. If God's objective morality were truly good and objective it should not even be possible to disagree
8 months ago
Anonymous
>what is your point?
that he's not powerful, you just prove his point right >it's a byproduct of free will and free will despite baby torture is 'better' than a universe without free will
if he's all powerful he should be able to create a world were killing babies is not a byproduct of free will
8 months ago
Anonymous
>that he's not powerfu
No, you are saying that God can only be all powerful if he can't create universes where he doesn't have complete power but then he wouldn't have complete power. Your threshold and definition of all powerful is nonsensical. He has all power that can be had, he doesn't have impossible levels of power.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>he doesn't have impossible levels of power.
Why not?
I have already shown why a) the same refutation cannot be made (since there is no external limiting factor) and b) why your position actually entails a limitation in God
If there is no external limiting factor then God is not limited and can therefore create good without evil, light without darkness, etc.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>being omnipotent means that you define what's necessary, if god needs to bend the knee to the "rules of creation" then he's not really god but a demiurge
This is not the case if the rules of creation, as you call them, are just a consequence of his own essence. Same for when you say >if he's bond bythe laws of logic he's not omnipotent
In that case he would simply bound directly by his essence, and only indirectly by the laws of logic.
8 months ago
Anonymous
As I already proved irrefutably, if God is limited by his own essence, that is still a limitation, even if there is nothing external
8 months ago
Anonymous
You don't have a window on omnipotence that would allow you to set a mandate for it. The hidden premise is that you assume you can envision the complexity of all creation and then specify how things should be changed in order to make it suit your superior vision. The entire crux of your argument depends on both understanding the nature of omnipotency as well as personally possessing the omniscience able to create a better world than an omnipotent being.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If we are all ignorant of what omnipotence is then Christians can't argue that God is omnipotent either, so we are in a deadlock.
"The being is omnipotent but what omnipotent means is totally undefined and cannot be understood" means that the word omnipotent is literally meaningless and can be replaced by any string of characters. "God is 912312908490" would be just as valid if you claim that only God knows what "912312908490" means.
I am right as long as omnipotent means infinitely powerful, if we can't understand what it means, neither of us can say anything about it
8 months ago
Anonymous
>If we are all ignorant of what omnipotence is then Christians can't argue that God is omnipotent either
No. Omnipotency still conceptually stands and one of the key aspects of it is that it's beyond understanding. You can posit an omnipotent being but you can't dictate to it according to inherently limited human understanding. >means that the word omnipotent is literally meaningless
No, it means its beyond your ability to comprehend. You can make philosophical arguments that attempt to illucidate aspects of it but you can't stand over it and define it from above by definition. >can be replaced by any string of characters
No. Those characters would have to entail whatever limited understanding of omnipotency the human mind is able to experience/understand. Again, it's not meaningless just because it entails something above your intellect, anon. >I am right as long as omnipotent means infinitely powerful, if we can't understand what it means, neither of us can say anything about it
No, it means you can't dictate terms to it. The concept of the sublime also exists. If you experience it you know it's the opposite of meaninglessness. I'm a different anon by the way.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Are you claiming that it's only my intellect which is too small to understand omnipotence and that yours is big enough? If not, then I don't see how you can extract more meaning from it than I can. If so, then please tell us exactly in what way God is omnipotent and prove to us that you have special access to this knowledge
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Are you claiming that it's only my intellect which is too small to understand omnipotence and that yours is big enough?
No. But you seem to be coming from a place of pride/arrogance so your projection here makes sense.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>you seem to be coming from a place of pride/arrogance
And?
Returning to actual discussion, I've yet to see how your point doesn't just demolish the defence as well as the prosecution by claiming that we can't "stand over omnipotence". If I can't say anything about omnipotence, then the Christians defending God's omnipotence can't either. Either we can both make claims about what omnipotence means, or neither of us can. It's just a conversation killer
8 months ago
Anonymous
You're filtered and digging your heels in, anon. One can illucidate aspects of omnipotency but one can't define let alone dictate its mandate. When it comes to the problem of evil this means that you don't possess the omniscience necessary to dictate how reality should be. If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything." You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Again, everything you say applies to those people who claim that "God is omnipotent but can't do X or Y"
> If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything."
Yes that is literally what you are claiming
> You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
What has your religious experience got to do with me? If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in personal experiences
8 months ago
Anonymous
>"God is omnipotent but can't do X or Y"
No. My argument is that you can't dictate the mandate of an omnipotent being when it comes to creation. You don't possess omniscience. >Yes that is literally what you are claiming
"No you." You're filtered by the discussion, anon. It's ok--you don't have to be smarter than strangers on the internet let alone God. One day you'll learn pride holds you back. >What has your religious experience got to do with me?
Did I say anything about a personal religious experience? No. I made a point earlier that the concept of the sublime exists, which is beyond understanding by its definition, and built on it by saying that just because everyone who has had such an experience can't communicate it in one single way so that it's understood by all people doesn't mean the concept of the sublime is meaningless. Get it now? Get out of your own way, anon. >If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion
I am communicating it using words, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. It's experiential entails the idea of "beyond comprehension." I'm using it as an example because you seem to have a lot of ideological baggage when it comes to religion. >I have no interest in personal experiences
Good thing I'm speaking generally. Again, get out of your own way.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>No. My argument is that you can't dictate the mandate of an omnipotent being when it comes to creation. You don't possess omniscience.
Neither can you >"No you." You're filtered by the discussion, anon. It's ok--you don't have to be smarter than strangers on the internet let alone God. One day you'll learn pride holds you back.
This is a retreat. Try and engage >Did I say anything about a personal religious experience?
Yes, here: > You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless. > I made a point earlier that the concept of the sublime exists, which is beyond understanding by its definition, and built on it by saying that just because everyone who has had such an experience can't communicate it in one single way so that it's understood by all people doesn't mean the concept of the sublime is meaningless.
The concept of the sublime is meaningless if it can't be communicated in a conversation where one person is claiming one thing about the sublime and another claiming the other. >I am communicating it using words, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. It's experiential entails the idea of "beyond comprehension." I'm using it as an example because you seem to have a lot of ideological baggage when it comes to religion. >Good thing I'm speaking generally. Again, get out of your own way.
See above.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Neither can you
I'm not attempting to do so. >This is a retreat.
You did a "no you" instead of engaging. >The concept of the sublime is meaningless if it can't be communicated in a conversation where one person is claiming one thing about the sublime and another claiming the other.
Not necessarily. The idea was that the concept of the sublime exists and it isn't invalidated because it can't be encapsulated by language. What you're describing is defining the same word two different ways instead of actually engaging with the argument. One can have a meaningful discussion of the sublime and one can even reproduce aspects of it via art. It's experiential and can be personal but if we go into a slide where you insist it has to be atomized you're just demonstrating you're missing the point. >See above.
Nice engagement.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not attempting to do so.
Okay but the people I'm responding to are >You did a "no you" instead of engaging.
Where did I do that? >Not necessarily. The idea was that the concept of the sublime exists and it isn't invalidated because it can't be encapsulated by language. What you're describing is defining the same word two different ways instead of actually engaging with the argument. One can have a meaningful discussion of the sublime and one can even reproduce aspects of it via art. It's experiential and can be personal but if we go into a slide where you insist it has to be atomized you're just demonstrating you're missing the point.
Again, none of that is relevant to the fact that if you claim that one cannot convey the concept at hand then both sides of the argument are unable to discuss whether or not God obeys it. >Nice engagement.
I can copy and paste my responses if you would prefer
Summary: it seems you have deviated quite far from the topic. If you really wish to say that we cannot convey omnipotence in words then we can just ignore that point and move on, because it does not further the discussion in any way other than to deny it. If you have anything else to add, then we will patiently await your contributions.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Okay but the people I'm responding to are
I haven't read all of their posts but going by how you've misunderstood and mischaracterized my posts I have to say I doubt you're being fair with them. >Where did I do that?
"Yes that is literally what you are claiming." (
Again, everything you say applies to those people who claim that "God is omnipotent but can't do X or Y"
> If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything."
Yes that is literally what you are claiming
> You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
What has your religious experience got to do with me? If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in personal experiences
) >Again, none of that is relevant to the fact that if you claim that one cannot convey the concept at hand
You're digging you heels in and not engaging with the actual argument being made, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. By definition it's beyond language. That doesn't make the concept meaningless or mean people are unable to discuss it (one can even convey it through art). The same is true when it comes to omnipotency. It's beyond human understanding. By definition you can't dictate terms to it on how it should behave (aside, notice how wanting the word "behave" seems in this sentence--it reflects limitation of human experience). You can illucidate aspects of it through discussion. >I can copy and paste my responses if you would prefer
It would be better if you were on the level to have this conversation but it seems you aren't. >Summary: it seems you have deviated quite far from the topic.
In your own words: that's a retreat. Just accept you're filtered by the actual argument being made. Let go of your arrogance and stop getting in your own way.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I haven't read all of their posts but going by how you've misunderstood and mischaracterized my posts I have to say I doubt you're being fair with them.
Okay, so it was irrelevant. > "Yes that is literally what you are claiming." (
Again, everything you say applies to those people who claim that "God is omnipotent but can't do X or Y"
> If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything."
Yes that is literally what you are claiming
> You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
What has your religious experience got to do with me? If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in personal experiences (You))
I'm not seeing how that is a "no u" > You're digging you heels in and not engaging with the actual argument being made, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. By definition it's beyond language. That doesn't make the concept meaningless or mean people are unable to discuss it (one can even convey it through art). The same is true when it comes to omnipotency. It's beyond human understanding. By definition you can't dictate terms to it on how it should behave (aside, notice how wanting the word "behave" seems in this sentence--it reflects limitation of human experience). You can illucidate aspects of it through discussion.
Again, none of that is irrelevant if both sides are claiming that they can define omnipotence and set limits on it. Both me and the Christians I'm arguing against are claiming this. > It would be better if you were on the level to have this conversation but it seems you aren't. >In your own words: that's a retreat. Just accept you're filtered by the actual argument being made. Let go of your arrogance and stop getting in your own way.
Also irrelevant to the discussion.
8 months ago
Anonymous
* none of that is relevant
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Okay, so it was irrelevant.
You wrote it. >I'm not seeing how that is a "no u"
I made an point about something entailed by your argument and you wrote "that's what you are claiming." Instead of engaging the point and explaining why I'm incorrect while reframing your argument you wrote "no you." Seriously, you can't see that? I'm starting to think you're not just misguided by actually dumb. >Again, none of that is irrelevant if both sides are claiming that they can define omnipotence and set limits on it.
That's what the Epicurean paradox does and prideful ideologues like yourself don't recognize it. Anyway, you're sidestepping the actual argument again. Concepts of things beyond comprehension exist. Just because they're beyond comprehension doesn't mean they're meaningless. Your faculties are limited but you can experience the sublime or have a discussion about what the sublime entails but by its very nature, and as implied by the concept itself, language will fail you. Just like the sublime you can have a discussion about omnipotency and even make arguments, metaphysical or empirical and personal or communal, that illucidate it. >Also irrelevant to the discussion.
Again, get out of your own way.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes, here
P.S. That isn't about a personal religious experience.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>you can't dictate the mandate of an omnipotent being when it comes to creation
as said before, that argument renders God as something outside of human comprehensionm if God will/omnipotence is in no way related to our forms of knowledge,that makes god completly uncognocible, at that point is like he doesn't exist, since he doesn't exist to us, your argument is functionally anatheist position
8 months ago
Anonymous
If God couldn't limit themselves then that itself would be a limitation. A limitation is the inability to do something that is possible to do, it's impossible to not be constrained by the own constraints God created for themselves, it's not a limitation, it's just the nature of the universe that God created for us.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If God created constraints for himself he is no longer all-powerful
8 months ago
Anonymous
No you haven't, but I don't think you're intelligent (or in good faith) enough to understand my refutation, so I'll leave it at that
8 months ago
Anonymous
Because that's impossible by definition, having impossible powers is something different than being all powerful (having all the possible power)
8 months ago
Anonymous
I don't see how God is all-powerful if he's limited to just things that are possible. Also, we return to a previous argument I made: if God is working within some pre-existing categories of what is possible and not possible, then that implies that there is something external and prior to him that determines him, so he is not God, but just a lesser deity
8 months ago
Anonymous
When we talk about what is possible we are talking about possible within our universe. He defined what would be possible here and not possible, if he wasn't able to define what is possible and not possible then you would get upset over him not having the power to do that either. Basically your whole definition of "all powerful" is meaningless. When we talk about all powerful its constrained to the rules of this universe, that is all we can comprehend and speak about. Within this universe there is no evidence he can't be all powerful but he can't do things that he can't do by definition, it's nonsensical. Sure there is no evidence he is all powerful either but your take is not some sort of gotcha that you think it is and basically is "if things weren't like they are then they wouldn't be how they are"
8 months ago
Anonymous
I agree, but the people I am arguing against are claiming that it is not possible for God to create good without evil. If we simply say for whatever reason that good without evil is impossible in our universe, then that begs the question "why did God make it so that such a thing is impossible in our universe"
> "if things weren't like they are then they wouldn't be how they are"
That's literally my argument, yes.
>Okay, so it was irrelevant.
You wrote it. >I'm not seeing how that is a "no u"
I made an point about something entailed by your argument and you wrote "that's what you are claiming." Instead of engaging the point and explaining why I'm incorrect while reframing your argument you wrote "no you." Seriously, you can't see that? I'm starting to think you're not just misguided by actually dumb. >Again, none of that is irrelevant if both sides are claiming that they can define omnipotence and set limits on it.
That's what the Epicurean paradox does and prideful ideologues like yourself don't recognize it. Anyway, you're sidestepping the actual argument again. Concepts of things beyond comprehension exist. Just because they're beyond comprehension doesn't mean they're meaningless. Your faculties are limited but you can experience the sublime or have a discussion about what the sublime entails but by its very nature, and as implied by the concept itself, language will fail you. Just like the sublime you can have a discussion about omnipotency and even make arguments, metaphysical or empirical and personal or communal, that illucidate it. >Also irrelevant to the discussion.
Again, get out of your own way.
> You wrote it. > I made an point about something entailed by your argument and you wrote "that's what you are claiming." Instead of engaging the point and explaining why I'm incorrect while reframing your argument you wrote "no you." Seriously, you can't see that? I'm starting to think you're not just misguided by actually dumb.
We are like four layers of response deep now so I both can't remember and don't care anymore. > That's what the Epicurean paradox does and prideful ideologues like yourself don't recognize it. Anyway, you're sidestepping the actual argument again. Concepts of things beyond comprehension exist. Just because they're beyond comprehension doesn't mean they're meaningless. Your faculties are limited but you can experience the sublime or have a discussion about what the sublime entails but by its very nature, and as implied by the concept itself, language will fail you. Just like the sublime you can have a discussion about omnipotency and even make arguments, metaphysical or empirical and personal or communal, that illucidate it.
I agree but I just don't see how it doesn't annihilate the Christian responses as well as my own. > Again, get out of your own way.
You keep saying this but I don't know what it means
8 months ago
Anonymous
8 months ago
Anonymous
¯(°_o)/¯
8 months ago
Anonymous
8 months ago
Anonymous
You're trying to ask two things at once and conflate the two.
Is it possible for God to create a universe with our 'good' but not our evil? Sure God can do that but it won't have free will, many would argue losing free will would be 'worse' than the elimination of evil.
Is it possible for God to create our universe without the evil? No because he created free will for us and a lot of the good in our universe is intricately linked to free will and its relation to evil.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I don't see the value of free will personally
8 months ago
Anonymous
>God is totally consistent for someone who believes that torturing babies is fine
You are misusing words, it's consistent even if you think it's not 'fine', you can think it's not 'fine' but a necessary byproduct of the existence of freewill (and the ability for good and love to exist)
8 months ago
Anonymous
why are you pretending you don't know better? the few things outside our control are just punishment, death is just going somewhere else, it means nothing. you don't have to be a pussy about it anon
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not pretending anything. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at here
I was saying he's not, and that is exactly the reason you are wrong
Okay but who cares if you think God is not benevolent? The point of the thread is that *if he is*, there are contradictions. Negating the premise means your point isn't really relevant to the thread
8 months ago
Anonymous
all people understand right from wrong at birth, they just pick what they want to do
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes but God consistently allows or even supposedly directly does things that basically everyone agrees is wrong
8 months ago
Anonymous
but you think there is no real measure of wrong, what could you possibly blame him for?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Is it something worth avoiding if the existence of it allows greater good to flourish? Why do you just assume the evil that exists in the world isn't for a greater purpose?
god could make that only pleasant things lead to the greater purpose, but in this framework he didn't thus he's evil
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I think It's bad therefore it's bad
Nobody asked your opinion on morality
8 months ago
Anonymous
i didn' tgive it tho, i just made an objective observationof the mechanics of purpose, between a god that creates a world where anyone can access a greater purpose trought pleasure and a god that create a world where the only way to access a greater purpose is trought pain, the first god is good and the second one is evil, simple as
8 months ago
Anonymous
Ok but it doesn't matter to the universe or God what you think is good
8 months ago
Anonymous
again is not what "i" think, is a logical articulation established in how humans undesrtand existence, what you're syaing with your arument is taht we can't understan dgod, but if we can''t understand god then religion can't no guarantee for it's porpouse on this world, and we can't develop any proof of god existence, so fucntionally he doesn't exist
8 months ago
Anonymous
You are getting insulted because you've spent an entire thread arguing in bad faith and thus provoking people. Either bring willingly obtuse and difficult or actually mentally limited, but your posting style implies that's not the case.
So why do you have a beef with religion, Which forces you to engage with it with such vitriol? What is it you didn't process that God has to answer to you for?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>God can't make 2+2=5, therefore He's not all powerful! >Checkmate theists!
The brain of an atheist
8 months ago
Anonymous
>>God can't make 2+2=5, therefore He's not all powerful!
theists!
Literally yes. If God can't make 2+2=5 then he's not all powerful. Thank you for summarising my argument succinctly and compellingly
8 months ago
Anonymous
you fricking idiot, you just made his argument for him
8 months ago
Anonymous
>if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey
Why though? That's only a contradiction because God made the world this way. If God is omnipotent then it should be possible for him to create a world where free will does not require the possibility of damnation. To believe otherwise is to state that God is subservient to the rules of formal logic.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know why or how he could have made it, it's just the way it is. honestly not hard to be good or evil, there is relief in knowing where ever you go, it was your own choice, that alone makes God blameless
8 months ago
Anonymous
Free will is a concept that does not corraborate well with the idea of omnipotence. We've been through this already, you're just regurgitating the same "arguments" with self verifiable premises. Why God needs to give humans free-will if he already knows everything that ever and will ever exist? And he knows that this will allow evil to exist? He wants to test us? For what purpose? An omniscient being does not need to test things, because the concept of a test can only exist when there is a point when the answer isn't known yet; this state isn't coherent with the idea of a omniscient god. Next you will say how evil is totally not real and that God needs free will to exist even though it's a pointless because "you can't understand God bro!"
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I can't read ops image
realy, you should be embarrassed.
>this questions has been answered for a long time and you are moronic if you think it's never been addressed
I didn't said it wasn't adressed, you illiterate frick. I said that these answers will always falls down to circular reasoning, something that you weren't able to refute, instead you threw a pathetic tantrum of how "these things were already solved broo it is not like i can't answer these questions with valid arguments, ok?! you just don't get it!"
8 months ago
Anonymous
My rule of thumb is that if someone really knows the answer to your question then humans usually jump at the opportunity to tell you in order to brag or prove you wrong. If someone insults you and says that a thing is already solved, it means that they don't actually understand well enough to explain it to you
8 months ago
Anonymous
>this much a newbie
leave nig
8 months ago
Anonymous
You are getting insulted because you've spent an entire thread arguing in bad faith and thus provoking people. Either bring willingly obtuse and difficult or actually mentally limited, but your posting style implies that's not the case.
So why do you have a beef with religion, Which forces you to engage with it with such vitriol? What is it you didn't process that God has to answer to you for?
I really don't care
8 months ago
Anonymous
8 months ago
Anonymous
Would be convincing if it this were your thrid, not thrity-third post.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I care about the discussion, but I don't care about being considered a "newbie" or if people feel triggered by my "posting style"
8 months ago
Anonymous
haha, newbie, newbie, you a dumb homosexual newbie!
8 months ago
Anonymous
You need to go back.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Go back to what?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Holy shit you are new.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not a boomer, I don't care about board etiquette or "lurking". I see a thing, I respond to it. Not interested in some implicit social structure
This is a childish idea of what god is. If you think this covers all the logic youre not even fricking close. On another tangent what if the bible is just made up mythology by man and good and evil isnt even a thing god has anything to do with? What if it just is what it is? What if you are living in and surrounded by god right now?
The Christian response I usually get given is “it’s actually good that God tortures children with bone cancer because good is defined by him”. Basically, they are totally psychotic
>Now you are being disingenuous. You know those Christians say to that: pain of cancer is temporary and doesn't compare to the endless joys of heaven.
living a happy life and then going to heaven is even better, a person that punch you in the face you and then gives you a candy is more evil than the person that only gives you the candy, he chose the first option so he has evil on him
All powerful doesn't mean the ability to do impossible things such as create an object heavier than themselves or remove free will, it means all the power possible within a coherent system
If we assume that it leads to a contradiction: if God is all-powerful and created everything, he created everything then he also created the rules of the coherent system, therefore he also created the rules which limit himself, so he is no-longer all-powerful. On the other hand, if God did not create everything and there was a coherent system that is only all-powerful relative to, then there is something outside of and greater than him that was the cause of that coherent system.
>he can't do nonsensical thing therefore he doesn't have all power
The ability to control our free will doesn't make sense, free will is where he chooses not to control by definition. Could he control us? Yes if he didnt create free will. Could he vanish the universe? Yes. Does that mean we don't have free will within it? No.
Let's say you made a videogame and the characters acted in a way you couldn't control because you made their actions reliant on some RNG. Does that somehow mean you aren't all powerful over them? You could recode things, you could shut off the game but you choose not to because you think the RNG is good, just like God thinks free will is good.
Like I really don't understand your definition of all powerful, you are really requiring that something can do nonsensical things like create an object heavier than they can lift to be all powerful?
This board talks about God all the time, yet they don't bring up the Bible in 2017 IQfy. I wonder why? I wonder why giving up on a creation is considered godly.
Not religious and don't care to be but I've never understood this idea of God as "want(ing) to prevent evil." Isn't God more like the totality, the unity of good and evil, light and dark, form and void? I believe in God but not in an omnibenevolent God, as if human beings even know what "good" is... and I guess Epicurus is only addressing those who believe in an omnibenevolent God, though those people are kinda moronic anyway. So what's the point of making an argument about a bunch of idiots?
“Pain” and “suffering” are among the holiest experiences we can have. What makes you think that real evil exists at all? Because the sensation you’re experiencing is “unpleasant” or that “it hurts”? In those moments god is revealing to you the true nature of the universe, a universe in which you are most certainly and unequivocally involved, to which you are so thoroughly attached. Pain and suffering immediately demonstrate just how present god really is. One might argue that pleasure distracts you from what’s actually happening here, just how holy all this really is.
You may or may not accept this argument, but I would suggest that “Christian Doctrines” are mostly bullshit, and that the bible is a corrupted document written by men.
You may also dismiss this notion, however my faith guarantees me that there is no struggle, that everything is already solved, already complete and perfect. Nobody can stray from god; there is literally nowhere else to stray toward, god encompasses everything including nothing. There is no hell, nor is there a heaven. Morality emerges based on our experiences of pain and suffering, joy and pleasure, but to imagine that god is using pain and suffering to prod us into acting a certain way seems unholy to me.
>“Pain” and “suffering” are among the holiest experiences we can have.
God could make the holiest experience a pleasant one, but he chose not to, thus he's evil
No, evil does not have independent existence. Your dumb graph doesn't consider this possibility. Evil is a movement of the will away from the good, towards a delusion, a false good, a false opinion, made possible by limitation on knowledge. The devil made Eve "look at the tree and see that it was good to eat", though it was not.
>Isaiah 45:9 >Romans 9:19-24 >applying literal 1d microbe earthly ""logic"" compared to the mightiness of God
Debooked by Alvin Planting. Also, Epicurus didn't even invent this btw.
"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."
Except, both of these are false
Evil is not a real thing. It exists based upon authoritative claims. Bible itself defind what an evil is.
People of the past had no idea what utilitarianism or deontology is. Virtue ethics was the dominant outlook.
God by definition had the virtue of being, well, good. Period.
It doesn't really matter what he did do or create.
Reminder that Kant decisively refuted “privatio boni” cope and showed that evil is a real positive force. From there, mature people can only proceed to some form of Gnosticism or Kabbalah (like Schelling did)
I'm a brainlet when it comes to philosophy and theology but I saw a talk a while back saying that man's relationship to God is similar to a dog's relationship to a human.
The human loves and cares for the dog and that care sometimes necessitates pain, such as taking it to a vet to get a shot or giving it medication that tastes bad. Yes the human has inflicted pain on the dog but it does it for the larger good of the dog's health and well being. Likewise, God may inflict or let pain in our lives for the betterment of our soul and/or character.
Look at Joseph in the Bible. He gets sold into slavery and treated terribly even though he was given a gift by God of interpreting dreams. All that pain led to him being able to forgive his brothers and ultimately serve God in a much larger way than if he would have only lived with his family until death, iirc.
It's not a perfect metaphor but I figured it may contribute somewhat to the discussion
The REAL answer:
God is the Absolute.
The Absolute must not have any shortcomings, otherwise it isn't absolute.
If something exists outside of the Absolute, then God wouldn't be absolute.
Therefore, the Absolute contains every single possibility, including the ones which are not absolute by themselves, but relative.
Therefore, even the worst possibilities must exist.
Therefore, evil exists but the Absolute is still infinite good since its essence is not impacted by its different modalities.
>God set standards upon himself
how do you distinguish "standards" from "inability"?
also >assumes all evil is the result of a choice and the existence of free will
if evil don't exist, then morals don't exist, if orals don't exist we don't need God to guide our lifes, atthat point God is an useless concept, there's no need to believe in god or practice a spiritual path
How does the presence of G*d un-subjectify morality? Christcucks always throw this shit in thinking they got one over and never bother to explain the logic.
Morality is decided by humans, it serves human needs. G*d cannot be moral nor can he be a source of morality, since morality from a singular source is no different from tyranny. If tomorrow Jesus Christ Himself arisens, appears before you, and declares that he's been thinking and now he decided that eating infants alive is morally right, would you shrug and find a nearby infant to eat? What the frick does presence of all-powerful creator and his decisions change about morality? How is God commanding you to perform in a certain manner any different from State commanding you to perform in a certain manner? Both are no more than entities that are unimaginably powerful compared to you.
Objection 2. Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.
Reply to Objection 2. It is otherwise with one who has care of a particular thing, and one whose providence is universal, because a particular provider excludes all defects from what is subject to his care as far as he can; whereas, one who provides universally allows some little defect to remain, lest the good of the whole should be hindered. Hence, corruption and defects in natural things are said to be contrary to some particular nature; yet they are in keeping with the plan of universal nature; inasmuch as the defect in one thing yields to the good of another, or even to the universal good: for the corruption of one is the generation of another, and through this it is that a species is kept in existence. Since God, then, provides universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live, if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): "Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil." It would appear that it was on account of these two arguments to which we have just replied, that some were persuaded to consider corruptible things—e.g. casual and evil things—as removed from the care of divine providence.
>If God is all knowing there would be no need to test us
This is just a long-winded way of some gay asking "why is there something rather than nothing?"
Seems sorta question-begging tbh. We're talking about God, right? Infinitely intelligent, infinitely wise. If you start with those premises there's no second guessing his decisions, he just understands something you don't. Your reasoning or morality are wrong somehow, no need to explain how.
This thread made me realize the utility of analytic philosophy. When you try to write this argument down in first-order logic you actually need to define what you mean when you say a lot of the words like "evil" or "all good".
That's because I'm using normal language, and you can probably understand what I meant by define, but not defining things like evil clearly you get a lot of discussion like in this thread.
The godless don't even know what good or evil is to begin with.
>someone murders a child
>"I feel that this is evil"
>"how do you know? do you have anything to base that on?"
>"I have this book that says what is evil and what isn't. you just happen to be correct this time"
>someone neuters a child
>"I feel that this is good"
Who are you quoting?
Cause it cannot be me.
newborn children have an innate sense of morality
>thousands of kids get raped every day
>define good and evil bro
Opposing lowering infant mortality sounds like the evilest thing ever, right?
"Of course pre-modern levels of infant mortality are awful."
And yet without said levels of infant mortalityl, dysgenics begin to rampant. That leads to a competency crisis and eventually to a total downfall. Said downfall further ruins and burthens the lives of many more.
Apparently, sometimes things we as humans deem as evil, seem to contribute to very complex systems in a way we fail to comprehend.
Using cheap gotchas that pull on one's heartstrings is nothing but dishonest and childish.
Listen to yourself. Your answer is dishonest and delusional.
>And yet without said levels of infant mortalityl, dysgenics begin to rampant. That leads to a competency crisis and eventually to a total downfall.
This is so stupid and detached from reality that I don't even know how to comment. Take your meds, as the kids say.
Note that you had to switch the conversation from child rape to child mortality.
>Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?
Yes
>Then why didn't he?
He chose not to.
Simple.
>choses to create a world where evil does not exist
>choses not to, just because
>gets mad that people are evil and sends them to hell
God is love!
You don't seem to have a coherent definition of the word evil, like all heathens
It's impossible to give a definition of evil that doesn't violate God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence
Then God is not good.
not the other anon
anyway, let's hypothesize instead that God created all possible worlds/universes/etc., every possible branch, every permutation, every possible arrangement of physical laws, etc.
the only possible alternative to this is non-being and self-annihilation/negation for God; this would obviously not be in keeping with The Good because existence is required for values to exist in the first place
Furthermore, God's idea of The Good need not correspond to ours; as the Absolute Infinite, He is ineffable to us, admits of no finite description, etc.
>As an aside, I've always liked the cute old saying 'it is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us'
> God isn’t good because I, a human, can’t wrap my head around his divine will and he has to agree with what I think is good because…he just has to ok?
Religion paved the ground where good and evil are constituted.In this sense, it's very much possible for a human to find out what is good and what isn't. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be a reason to punish them for their sins.
God is beyond good and not good. It is merely a human thing.
>He chose not to.
then he's evil
>God's idea of The Good need not correspond to ours;
this create a huge theological problem, if god is beyond our comprehension then we can't know his will, god is something copletly alien to us, so in that sense is like god don't exist,he functionally doesn't exist, saying that we can't understand it don't solve the problem, just make it worse
To add on to your second point, if God is somehow incompatible with our notion of good, then he is not available as an objective measure of good that we can turn to. Further, there is not even a reason why we would want to be aligned with God if his idea of good is our idea of suffering. Perhaps heaven is hell
A universe with free will must have evil, if someone cannot commit evil deeds they have no free will, it's that simple, please give me a scenerio in which all of humanity is free but also unable to do anything evil, you cant, because it is impossible
If God is all-powerful he can make one, it's not up to me to figure it out.
>A universe with free will must have evil
Based on what? Your observations about physical reality? So God is bound by the laws of physics then?
can you imagine anything outside reality? so why do you think you can understand creation?
if you can't understand creation then you have no basis to accept any religion as true how can you recognize god as the lord of creationif you don't know what that evenmeans?, the moment you accept creation is something outside your reach the logical conlusion is to become agnostic
I'm talking about how he did it, not if he did.
that oesn't matter, if your answer to this problem is that god is beyond our understanding of existence, you're selling god as somethign useless for us since we can't understand his will, we canonly place blind faith on institutions that we have no guarantee are really conected with the divine, the most logical conclusion then is being agnostic
>chose
Stop anthropomorphizing God. He is the logos.
He's not a human who gets to "choose" things.
>He's not a human who gets to "choose" things.
>be omnipotent
>does not have the ability to choose
Also as a concept on its own does not exist. What we call "evil" is just the absence of the Good.
>$current_year
>Manichaeism still taking gullible souls
>What we call "evil" is just the absence of the Good
why God chose to take away good and let it's absence exist?
>why God chose
God cannot "choose"
>and let it's absence exist?
Free will. I am not a big fan of it either; but, that's not my call to make.
>God cannot "choose"
>god cannot
then he's not omnipotent
>Free will
a ssaid before if he can't create a world were free will can't be excercise without creating evil, then he's not all powerful
God is the logos. Omnipotence does not permit breaking logic.
no, god created the logos,in the biblical sens elogos just mean verb, "action" as in he's the creator, the one who did acted and created existence, the logos as logic is a greek notion more related with Heraclitus or even the buddhis dharma,god (should be) above logic, and omnipotence by deffinition must be above anything
saying that god is the logos is crypto-atheism, at that point you're just seeing god as a bannal set of rules of the universe, you're n longer doing theology but metaphysics, naming the first principles of existence, when god is the logos then he' sn longer god, you're admiting that the universe jsut wqorks thanks to some tarscendnetal rules(like truth or causality, in that sense you'0re no different than an atheist) without any entity or will that could change things at any moment,making the whole existence a mere machine, you should read the critics of Jacobi to the deist philosophers like Fichte or spinoza
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
word=logos, but logos also can mean verb or action, in this context the correct translation is, "in the beggining was the verb" as in the pure action of creation, it's fancy way to said that god is the creator, that has nothing to do with god being logic and logic being god
>you should read the critics of Jacobi
This seems quite interesting. Thanks for the pointer.
The best of all possible worlds includes the evils we commonly see in this world which complement its greater glory as it proceeds to infinity. Therefore God could not create another universe, not because he can't, but because he wouldn't want to, because that world would be inferior to the one he has already made, and why would God choose to create an inferior world if he is perfectly good? Basic theodicy.
Evil cannot exist without God.
Love cannot exist without free will.
Virtue cannot exist without suffering.
God is not powerful enough to transcend the human understanding of dualisms? Doesn't sound that "all powerful" to me
Well he might be, but we don't know that, because it's beyond our fricking comprehension.
The terms god and evil can't apply to god given that thoose concepts depend on good. The judge can't be judged and so on. Does the shipmaster not caring about the rats on his ship make him a bad shipmaster?
So evil doesn't exist in the world (under the Godly definition) or it does?
Define evil
Plug in your own definition - do you think that something God judges as evil exists in this world?
Whoops you blew it. Apparently your definition is "things God judges as evil.". God doesn't judge things as evil. Evil is the absence of God.
Why does God allow any absence of himself to exist then
See
God wants to give us the opportunity to love. Love cannot exist without free will. Free will cannot exist without the possibility for evil.
Why should God preserve free will unless free will? Is free will "good"? How can it be good when you have said that it is incompatible with the full presence of God, as I suggested, unless you mean Good in some sense other than it that defined by the presence of God?
You turned your brain into soup
U wot
God is goodness. God is not a person bound to good and bad morals like us.
You told me that free will could not exist if God did not allow his absence - i.e. if he did not allow evil by your definition. Therefore free will, under your own definition, requires the absence of God and is this itself evil, as evil is the absence of God. Thus you must either believe that Free will is evil and God ought to eliminate it, or you have another definition of Good aside from the presence of God.
Your premise is false. Free will is necessary for true love. A side effect of free will is the ability to not choose God. It is what it is. You're the one trying to say "X is evil, Y results in X, therefore Y is evil too." Sorry, I reject your flawed premise.
Under your own definition of Good, free will is evil since you have stated that it requires the absence of God. You are being incoherent. Why is True Love good? Is it Good because it is the presence of God? If so, then it shouldn't require permitting evil, as you believe it does since evil is the absence of God. If its Good for some other reason then you have two contradictory definitions of Good.
Look, either do the Free Will Theodicy or do the Evil-is-mere-negation theodicy, you can't do both at the same time.
Clown boy. I'm talking about from human point of view. God is always present everywhere for all existence, even in hell. "Separation from God" doesn't mean actual separation. God sustains all existence, including hell.
Separation from God means in our spirit or heart.
God permits free will in order to allow us to Love. Simple as.
Why does God allow our spirit or heart to separate from him even in a nominal sense. You're just shifting the question around moron. Either say evil doesn't exist or say it does but is justified by some greater good.
That anon is rejecting your premise and demonstrating that he has reason to do so. You have to reframe it in the context he has provided or demonstrate why he can't reject it.
Define evil
NTA but free will isn't inherently evil. On the contrary, it is good, as it was made by God and he in fact possesses free will. In theory, free will would have promoted more good in the world as anyone would realize the absence of God (or more precisely the refusal to recognize Him as authority) doesn't result in anything pleasant.
If you believe that free will is good enough to justify allowing the absence of God (evil) then you believe in a sense of Good that is not identical with the presence of God and thus undercuts your own definition of Good.
Free will is meaningless when you add God to the equation. Everything is determined just by virtue of the existence of an omniscient being. Might as well not give humans free will and the results will be as determined as they are now. And, of course, the idea or God having an overarching goal is quite nonsensical; but theists always have good answers for that, something like: "we cannot fully understand God's true nature" type of bullshit
Sounds like you just don't want to open your heart. That's fine. Sad, but that's your choice. Likely you are afraid that you'll need to be accountable for your life so you try to rationalize away your sinful behavior in a vain attempt to find inner peace. But the spiritual dissonance will eat at you for your entire life. You'll either break down one day and humble yourself before God, or you will double down into a meaningless pit of anxiety and despair.
Protip: you can rationalize yourself into or out of anything. There is no rational answer to life.
>But the spiritual dissonance will eat at you for your entire life.
Yes, that might be true.
>There is no rational answer to life.
But the Bible is written accounts of men and women who were self-aware. Not everyone is born self-aware, and that makes them a israelite.
>religion is the opiate of the masses
Got it
Marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals
>Evil is the absence of God.
So the child on the shipwrecked island is evil? Everyone in the country on the other side of the world is evil because they haven't heard of your God before?
Dude lol. You are bringing 8th grade arguments. Are you for real?
You do not have a proper understanding of the concept of God. That's your problem.
Doesn't matter - the point is that if you believe something evil by your own definition exists in this world, which you also believe is ruled by an all-powerful God, then your belief is incoherent. Even if I didn't believe in evil or had no definition, your belief could still be incoherent.
Nice dodge
Evil is the absence of God. Move along.
Creating evil and letting the evil things be is a GOOD THING because it was done by a ultimately virtuous thing - the god. The rest are details.
The argument immediately fails if you do not accept voluntarist theism.
>Can God Prevent Evil?
Only by not creating the world. But the creation of the world is an added good, which overshadows the evil it must entail.
>Then God is not all powerful
This would be true if Creation did not necessarily entail evil. But it does, because if it didn't God would have created a perfect being: but God is by definition the perfect being, and one of its attributes is absolute unity, meaning that he logically cannot create a God, not because he is incapable of doing so, but because what is being talked about is meaningless, since "creating another perfect being" entails a contradiction (in this sense, it is akin to asking wether God "can axdfhgaysn547!;hgyjiYgb").
Another way to put it, is that for something to be all powerful, that something must have every form of powerfulness that is conceivable; but contradictory forms of powerfulness are not conceivable, and as such are a priori irreal: so God, by not having contradictory forms of powerfulness, can still possess all the forms of powerfulness that are needed to truly be all powerful.
>Only by not creating the world.
if that's the case then he's not omnipotent
>This would be true if Creation did not necessarily entail evil.
being omnipotent means that you define what's necessary, if god needs to bend the knee to the "rules of creation" then he's not really god but a demiurge
>meaning that he logically cannot
if he's bond bythe laws of logic he's not omnipotent
>but contradictory forms of powerfulness are not conceivable,
then he's bond by the law of non contradiction and again not omnipotent, logic is above him
>can still possess all the forms of powerfulness that are needed to truly be all powerful.
that's not trully all powerful, is a power relative to logic, so a contradiction in terms, "his ilimited power is limited by logic"
and that's why the whole concept of god doesn't make any sense
>being omnipotent means that you define what's necessary, if god needs to bend the knee to the "rules of creation" then he's not really god but a demiurge
This is not the case if the rules of creation, as you call them, are just a consequence of his own essence. Same for when you say
>if he's bond bythe laws of logic he's not omnipotent
In that case he would simply bound directly by his essence, and only indirectly by the laws of logic.
If God cannot overcome his essence then he is limited and not all-powerful
Dunno how you could possibly talk about limitation, since here would be external to him, meaning that there would be no limiting factor. Moreover, if God could "overcome his essence" there would be an unactualized potential in him, and this would in fact be a genuine limitation.
The same refutations can be made if God can only act according to his essence. The only valid answer that maintains his lack of limitation is that he can literally just do everything, including the contradictory and nonsensical
I have already shown why a) the same refutation cannot be made (since there is no external limiting factor) and b) why your position actually entails a limitation in God
>filtered by the indefinite dyad/demiurge
ngmi
The solution is that there is no evil. In the end, everything will be shown to be not only forgivable but justified. Everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is perfect. That is what you have to believe if you believe in an all-powerful, all-good God.
Christians would never accept something like this because they are pessimists. The world is essentially bad for them; and i very much agree.
No, that's the opposite. Christians fully trust that God sustains all reality, and God is good, therefore everything will be for good in the end.
>evil exists
No, we deem certain forces of the world evil by ourselves, ultimately they are what they are. Greed, selfishness, sin, apathy whatever we deem evil is a result of certain forces and attributes of the world. Our conception of what is evil can change with time, ultimately there cannot be good without evil, it is a part to the whole. I see god as an omnipotent diety, that represents truth. I do not see him as an active being, so I do not hold expectations for him to take any sort of action.
>I know more than God when it comes to manufacturing all of creation
It's automatically refuted when you take the fact that this is a hidden premise in the argument. So you get:
>I know God could have made a better universe where we still have everything we do now because:
>appeal to the nature of omnipotence (while assuming you both understand the nature of such) and assuming one has the ability to envision a greater version of creation than an omnipotent entity
So I can reject the hidden premise as well as question your understanding of omnipotency by demonstrating that whoever is making the argument is limited. The argument can then be that the limitations of whoever is asserting the problem of evil entail that he can't actually demonstrate the full nature/scale of the supposed problem. From there the person arguing has to make a smaller scale arguments that can be taken out in detail.
What is good for one person can be evil for another.
What’s evil, OP? In this world, where is the evil? Where on the doll did God touch you? Is the ideal world just hedonistic pleasure, like the Islamic “Heaven”?
Free will without the capacity to will evil makes no sense.
> can God make thing without [fundamental and necessary attribute of thing in order to be thing]
Is an incoherent question.
>Free will without the capacity to will evil makes no sense.
If he isn't capable of doing so, then his omnipotence quality should be questioned. That is the problem with creating absurd concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience; you will always end up creating avenues for paradoxes and absurdities. When things gets too absurd theists will eventually resort to circular reasoning.
you have a middle schoolers understanding of religion. this questions has been answered for a long time and you are moronic if you think it's never been addressed. you contradict yourself over and over in your own explanations. it's honestly pathetic, I have been telling the answer for this to atheist when I was 19, it's time to grow up moron, I mean have you even tried to look up an answer for your question from religious leaders, have you ever done anything other then postulate?
So you actually don’t have an answer? No philosopher or theologian has managed to give an answer. They just resort to your empty “you just don’t get it maaan” when it gets difficult. Actually try
you are a self made idiot.
At least I'm not like you, wilfully ignorant in fear of the knowledge that if you actually investigate the truth you will find the God you fear to be a scarecrow
read
you absolute teenager
frick it, 3 am and will give an answer anyway. if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey. this does not mean things could not be difrent, it just means this is what was intended. your prediction that God is evel because evil can just as easily be reversed, if God can good, then good. you don't actually add anything to the discussion, you just basicly make a mute point and pick a side you prefer. we think him to be omnipotent and such because he is the creator, just as a inventor makes his bobble, he understands the ins and outs of it perfectly and how to use it. very simple, very stupid question.
> if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey
Why should I think that free will exists? If God relinquishes control he is no longer all-powerful, so we have an immediate contradiction
so God can't be all powerfully and let things do what they wish? if he was not all powerfully then he could not do that. please, please lurk before posting you mental midget
> so God can't be all powerfully and let things do what they wish?
Obviously, if he does not have control over all beings, he is not all-powerful
> please, please lurk before posting you mental midget
Insults make you look scared. You have nothing to be fearful of here
why are you assuming he can't be in control if he chooses? I don't think you have a grasp of the concepts you want to talk about
> why are you assuming he can't be in control if he chooses?
If he chooses to let humans do evil then he's not omnibenevolent
PS I've noticed it's better if one just ignores the strange, emotionally inappropriate second half of your comments. Perhaps you should try not posting them?
but if good, then good, remember? you just want to pick your side, you are adding nothing. understand that this question was answer by greater men then me for thousands of years and you could easily read what they had to say on the topic, for fricks sake this same post was made hundreds of times on this board alone, you could have just went to the archive
> but if good, then good, remember?
Okay, and? If evil, then evil. Therefore no God
> you just want to pick your side
Yes, I want to pick the side of good, against evil.
> understand that this question was answer by greater men then me for thousands of years and you could easily read what they had to say on the topic
None of them came up with a good answer
> for fricks sake this same post was made hundreds of times on this board alone, you could have just went to the archive
The weirdly emotional final part of your comment to ignore yet again
>>he can't do nonsensical thing therefore he doesn't have all power
Like I really don't understand your definition of all powerful, you are really requiring that something can do nonsensical things like create an object heavier than they can lift to be all powerful?
Literally yes. Inability to do nonsensical things means you are not all-powerful.
>Literally yes. Inability to do nonsensical things means you are not all-powerful.
You really think this isn't sillier than believing in God?
Of course I think it's far less silly than believing in God. Believing that God can't do nonsensical things means that there could be a being greater than him that does have such an ability, therefore, it leads to a contradiction of God's primacy. You've just given a proof against God
>Believing that God can't do nonsensical things means that there could be a being greater than him that does have such an ability
This is a huge logical leap
>obvious mental gymnastics
>self contradiction
can't wait for this thread in a few days again
Define evil? Is it something worth avoiding if the existence of it allows greater good to flourish? Why do you just assume the evil that exists in the world isn't for a greater purpose?
This is vague as to be entirely useless. God may have a use for children suffering or beings suffering endlessly in Hell but I don't really care. I don't think that any end he could have could justify the means of even one person suffering in hellfire forever.
Is a parent that allows their child to touch a hot stove blameless? Is a parent that leaves the hot stove on blameless? I'm not sure why you are giving God special excuses
>there is no purpose for it because there is no purpose for it
is no purpose for it because there is no purpose for it
Wrong. If there is a purpose for it, God is still morally wrong to do so, regardless of the purpose.
It's not mental gymnastics, it's completely clear. A being who is not constrained by such notions as logical coherency and reason can do more things than a being that is constrained. If God is constrained by reason and logic then he is not all-powerful
How? It's obvious
Christians usually posit God to be omnibenevolent, or even to be pure good itself
I was saying he's not, and that is exactly the reason you are wrong
>Wrong. If there is a purpose for it, God is still morally wrong to do so, regardless of the purpose.
According to you, sure. Objectively? No
Okay, and? None of us have any objective standard of morality that we can point to. I think it's wrong to torture children. If you think otherwise, go for it
I think It's wrong too. We cant know for sure if God agrees but we know he thinks the universe is overall a 'better' place with free will existing so child torture comes with that.
>no objective measure of morality
>Heres a moral quandary that proves God le evil
it's like a sit com almost, like I'm watching seinfeld.
God is only evil according to most people's idea of evilness. I never claimed that God is somehow "objectively evil". I don't think such a thing exists
great so you just admitted your question was dishonest. thanks for playing op. never post again
Ok then now you can understand how this so called 'paradox' falls apart at the first step. You learn something new eveeyday
Sam Harris's oh so complex school of thought based on doing things that don't "suck."
>it's obvious
No
Okay, why not? Explain to me how a being who is constrained by logic and reason is as powerful and great as a being that is not
Nothing I said implies that I believe in objective morality. Also, I'm not OP
Nothing I said implies that I believe in objective morality or depends on it. God is totally consistent for someone who believes that torturing babies is fine
>Explain to me how a being who is constrained by logic and reason is as powerful and great as a being that is not
By your logic an all powerful being couldn't possibly create a universe where their power is limited, therefore a God which can (like ours) create free will has more power in a way.
> By your logic an all powerful being couldn't possibly create a universe where their power is limited, therefore a God which can (like ours) create free will has more power in a way.
If God has created a universe where he is not all-powerful then he is no longer all-powerful
> (and the ability for good and love to exist)
Why isn't God powerful enough to create good and love without torturing babies? Why does he have to make a blood sacrifice for good to exist?
I don't really care about that. I'm taking the Christian view as a premise and arguing against it
That's not what they say, because they don't claim that the child will go to heaven. They say that even if the child has painful cancer and goes to hell, that's still good
>If God has created a universe where he is not all-powerful then he is no longer all-powerful
Only within that universe, what is your point?
>Why isn't God powerful enough to create good and love without torturing babies? Why does he have to make a blood sacrifice for good to exist?
He doesn't make the blood sacrifice, it's a byproduct of free will and free will despite baby torture is 'better' than a universe without free will
>Only within that universe, what is your point?
My opponents in this thread are claiming that such a God is limited by such a universe.
>it's a byproduct of free will and free will despite baby torture is 'better' than a universe without free will
I don't think it's better, I think it's worse
Yes they did though, this entire thread is about the fact that God's so-called objective morality conflicts with all sensible morality. If God's objective morality were truly good and objective it should not even be possible to disagree
>what is your point?
that he's not powerful, you just prove his point right
>it's a byproduct of free will and free will despite baby torture is 'better' than a universe without free will
if he's all powerful he should be able to create a world were killing babies is not a byproduct of free will
>that he's not powerfu
No, you are saying that God can only be all powerful if he can't create universes where he doesn't have complete power but then he wouldn't have complete power. Your threshold and definition of all powerful is nonsensical. He has all power that can be had, he doesn't have impossible levels of power.
>he doesn't have impossible levels of power.
Why not?
If there is no external limiting factor then God is not limited and can therefore create good without evil, light without darkness, etc.
As I already proved irrefutably, if God is limited by his own essence, that is still a limitation, even if there is nothing external
You don't have a window on omnipotence that would allow you to set a mandate for it. The hidden premise is that you assume you can envision the complexity of all creation and then specify how things should be changed in order to make it suit your superior vision. The entire crux of your argument depends on both understanding the nature of omnipotency as well as personally possessing the omniscience able to create a better world than an omnipotent being.
If we are all ignorant of what omnipotence is then Christians can't argue that God is omnipotent either, so we are in a deadlock.
"The being is omnipotent but what omnipotent means is totally undefined and cannot be understood" means that the word omnipotent is literally meaningless and can be replaced by any string of characters. "God is 912312908490" would be just as valid if you claim that only God knows what "912312908490" means.
I am right as long as omnipotent means infinitely powerful, if we can't understand what it means, neither of us can say anything about it
>If we are all ignorant of what omnipotence is then Christians can't argue that God is omnipotent either
No. Omnipotency still conceptually stands and one of the key aspects of it is that it's beyond understanding. You can posit an omnipotent being but you can't dictate to it according to inherently limited human understanding.
>means that the word omnipotent is literally meaningless
No, it means its beyond your ability to comprehend. You can make philosophical arguments that attempt to illucidate aspects of it but you can't stand over it and define it from above by definition.
>can be replaced by any string of characters
No. Those characters would have to entail whatever limited understanding of omnipotency the human mind is able to experience/understand. Again, it's not meaningless just because it entails something above your intellect, anon.
>I am right as long as omnipotent means infinitely powerful, if we can't understand what it means, neither of us can say anything about it
No, it means you can't dictate terms to it. The concept of the sublime also exists. If you experience it you know it's the opposite of meaninglessness. I'm a different anon by the way.
Are you claiming that it's only my intellect which is too small to understand omnipotence and that yours is big enough? If not, then I don't see how you can extract more meaning from it than I can. If so, then please tell us exactly in what way God is omnipotent and prove to us that you have special access to this knowledge
>Are you claiming that it's only my intellect which is too small to understand omnipotence and that yours is big enough?
No. But you seem to be coming from a place of pride/arrogance so your projection here makes sense.
>you seem to be coming from a place of pride/arrogance
And?
Returning to actual discussion, I've yet to see how your point doesn't just demolish the defence as well as the prosecution by claiming that we can't "stand over omnipotence". If I can't say anything about omnipotence, then the Christians defending God's omnipotence can't either. Either we can both make claims about what omnipotence means, or neither of us can. It's just a conversation killer
You're filtered and digging your heels in, anon. One can illucidate aspects of omnipotency but one can't define let alone dictate its mandate. When it comes to the problem of evil this means that you don't possess the omniscience necessary to dictate how reality should be. If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything." You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
Again, everything you say applies to those people who claim that "God is omnipotent but can't do X or Y"
> If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything."
Yes that is literally what you are claiming
> You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
What has your religious experience got to do with me? If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in personal experiences
>"God is omnipotent but can't do X or Y"
No. My argument is that you can't dictate the mandate of an omnipotent being when it comes to creation. You don't possess omniscience.
>Yes that is literally what you are claiming
"No you." You're filtered by the discussion, anon. It's ok--you don't have to be smarter than strangers on the internet let alone God. One day you'll learn pride holds you back.
>What has your religious experience got to do with me?
Did I say anything about a personal religious experience? No. I made a point earlier that the concept of the sublime exists, which is beyond understanding by its definition, and built on it by saying that just because everyone who has had such an experience can't communicate it in one single way so that it's understood by all people doesn't mean the concept of the sublime is meaningless. Get it now? Get out of your own way, anon.
>If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion
I am communicating it using words, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. It's experiential entails the idea of "beyond comprehension." I'm using it as an example because you seem to have a lot of ideological baggage when it comes to religion.
>I have no interest in personal experiences
Good thing I'm speaking generally. Again, get out of your own way.
>No. My argument is that you can't dictate the mandate of an omnipotent being when it comes to creation. You don't possess omniscience.
Neither can you
>"No you." You're filtered by the discussion, anon. It's ok--you don't have to be smarter than strangers on the internet let alone God. One day you'll learn pride holds you back.
This is a retreat. Try and engage
>Did I say anything about a personal religious experience?
Yes, here:
> You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
> I made a point earlier that the concept of the sublime exists, which is beyond understanding by its definition, and built on it by saying that just because everyone who has had such an experience can't communicate it in one single way so that it's understood by all people doesn't mean the concept of the sublime is meaningless.
The concept of the sublime is meaningless if it can't be communicated in a conversation where one person is claiming one thing about the sublime and another claiming the other.
>I am communicating it using words, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. It's experiential entails the idea of "beyond comprehension." I'm using it as an example because you seem to have a lot of ideological baggage when it comes to religion.
>Good thing I'm speaking generally. Again, get out of your own way.
See above.
>Neither can you
I'm not attempting to do so.
>This is a retreat.
You did a "no you" instead of engaging.
>The concept of the sublime is meaningless if it can't be communicated in a conversation where one person is claiming one thing about the sublime and another claiming the other.
Not necessarily. The idea was that the concept of the sublime exists and it isn't invalidated because it can't be encapsulated by language. What you're describing is defining the same word two different ways instead of actually engaging with the argument. One can have a meaningful discussion of the sublime and one can even reproduce aspects of it via art. It's experiential and can be personal but if we go into a slide where you insist it has to be atomized you're just demonstrating you're missing the point.
>See above.
Nice engagement.
>I'm not attempting to do so.
Okay but the people I'm responding to are
>You did a "no you" instead of engaging.
Where did I do that?
>Not necessarily. The idea was that the concept of the sublime exists and it isn't invalidated because it can't be encapsulated by language. What you're describing is defining the same word two different ways instead of actually engaging with the argument. One can have a meaningful discussion of the sublime and one can even reproduce aspects of it via art. It's experiential and can be personal but if we go into a slide where you insist it has to be atomized you're just demonstrating you're missing the point.
Again, none of that is relevant to the fact that if you claim that one cannot convey the concept at hand then both sides of the argument are unable to discuss whether or not God obeys it.
>Nice engagement.
I can copy and paste my responses if you would prefer
Summary: it seems you have deviated quite far from the topic. If you really wish to say that we cannot convey omnipotence in words then we can just ignore that point and move on, because it does not further the discussion in any way other than to deny it. If you have anything else to add, then we will patiently await your contributions.
>Okay but the people I'm responding to are
I haven't read all of their posts but going by how you've misunderstood and mischaracterized my posts I have to say I doubt you're being fair with them.
>Where did I do that?
"Yes that is literally what you are claiming." (
)
>Again, none of that is relevant to the fact that if you claim that one cannot convey the concept at hand
You're digging you heels in and not engaging with the actual argument being made, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. By definition it's beyond language. That doesn't make the concept meaningless or mean people are unable to discuss it (one can even convey it through art). The same is true when it comes to omnipotency. It's beyond human understanding. By definition you can't dictate terms to it on how it should behave (aside, notice how wanting the word "behave" seems in this sentence--it reflects limitation of human experience). You can illucidate aspects of it through discussion.
>I can copy and paste my responses if you would prefer
It would be better if you were on the level to have this conversation but it seems you aren't.
>Summary: it seems you have deviated quite far from the topic.
In your own words: that's a retreat. Just accept you're filtered by the actual argument being made. Let go of your arrogance and stop getting in your own way.
>I haven't read all of their posts but going by how you've misunderstood and mischaracterized my posts I have to say I doubt you're being fair with them.
Okay, so it was irrelevant.
> "Yes that is literally what you are claiming." (
> If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion you're basically saying "anything goes because no one can understand anything."
Yes that is literally what you are claiming
> You can have a sublime experience and just because it can't be put into words and expressed in one form that makes sense to absolutely everyone doesn't mean it's meaningless.
What has your religious experience got to do with me? If it can't be communicated in this philosophical discussion using words, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in personal experiences (You))
I'm not seeing how that is a "no u"
> You're digging you heels in and not engaging with the actual argument being made, anon. The concept of the sublime exists. By definition it's beyond language. That doesn't make the concept meaningless or mean people are unable to discuss it (one can even convey it through art). The same is true when it comes to omnipotency. It's beyond human understanding. By definition you can't dictate terms to it on how it should behave (aside, notice how wanting the word "behave" seems in this sentence--it reflects limitation of human experience). You can illucidate aspects of it through discussion.
Again, none of that is irrelevant if both sides are claiming that they can define omnipotence and set limits on it. Both me and the Christians I'm arguing against are claiming this.
> It would be better if you were on the level to have this conversation but it seems you aren't.
>In your own words: that's a retreat. Just accept you're filtered by the actual argument being made. Let go of your arrogance and stop getting in your own way.
Also irrelevant to the discussion.
* none of that is relevant
>Okay, so it was irrelevant.
You wrote it.
>I'm not seeing how that is a "no u"
I made an point about something entailed by your argument and you wrote "that's what you are claiming." Instead of engaging the point and explaining why I'm incorrect while reframing your argument you wrote "no you." Seriously, you can't see that? I'm starting to think you're not just misguided by actually dumb.
>Again, none of that is irrelevant if both sides are claiming that they can define omnipotence and set limits on it.
That's what the Epicurean paradox does and prideful ideologues like yourself don't recognize it. Anyway, you're sidestepping the actual argument again. Concepts of things beyond comprehension exist. Just because they're beyond comprehension doesn't mean they're meaningless. Your faculties are limited but you can experience the sublime or have a discussion about what the sublime entails but by its very nature, and as implied by the concept itself, language will fail you. Just like the sublime you can have a discussion about omnipotency and even make arguments, metaphysical or empirical and personal or communal, that illucidate it.
>Also irrelevant to the discussion.
Again, get out of your own way.
>Yes, here
P.S. That isn't about a personal religious experience.
>you can't dictate the mandate of an omnipotent being when it comes to creation
as said before, that argument renders God as something outside of human comprehensionm if God will/omnipotence is in no way related to our forms of knowledge,that makes god completly uncognocible, at that point is like he doesn't exist, since he doesn't exist to us, your argument is functionally anatheist position
If God couldn't limit themselves then that itself would be a limitation. A limitation is the inability to do something that is possible to do, it's impossible to not be constrained by the own constraints God created for themselves, it's not a limitation, it's just the nature of the universe that God created for us.
If God created constraints for himself he is no longer all-powerful
No you haven't, but I don't think you're intelligent (or in good faith) enough to understand my refutation, so I'll leave it at that
Because that's impossible by definition, having impossible powers is something different than being all powerful (having all the possible power)
I don't see how God is all-powerful if he's limited to just things that are possible. Also, we return to a previous argument I made: if God is working within some pre-existing categories of what is possible and not possible, then that implies that there is something external and prior to him that determines him, so he is not God, but just a lesser deity
When we talk about what is possible we are talking about possible within our universe. He defined what would be possible here and not possible, if he wasn't able to define what is possible and not possible then you would get upset over him not having the power to do that either. Basically your whole definition of "all powerful" is meaningless. When we talk about all powerful its constrained to the rules of this universe, that is all we can comprehend and speak about. Within this universe there is no evidence he can't be all powerful but he can't do things that he can't do by definition, it's nonsensical. Sure there is no evidence he is all powerful either but your take is not some sort of gotcha that you think it is and basically is "if things weren't like they are then they wouldn't be how they are"
I agree, but the people I am arguing against are claiming that it is not possible for God to create good without evil. If we simply say for whatever reason that good without evil is impossible in our universe, then that begs the question "why did God make it so that such a thing is impossible in our universe"
> "if things weren't like they are then they wouldn't be how they are"
That's literally my argument, yes.
> You wrote it.
> I made an point about something entailed by your argument and you wrote "that's what you are claiming." Instead of engaging the point and explaining why I'm incorrect while reframing your argument you wrote "no you." Seriously, you can't see that? I'm starting to think you're not just misguided by actually dumb.
We are like four layers of response deep now so I both can't remember and don't care anymore.
> That's what the Epicurean paradox does and prideful ideologues like yourself don't recognize it. Anyway, you're sidestepping the actual argument again. Concepts of things beyond comprehension exist. Just because they're beyond comprehension doesn't mean they're meaningless. Your faculties are limited but you can experience the sublime or have a discussion about what the sublime entails but by its very nature, and as implied by the concept itself, language will fail you. Just like the sublime you can have a discussion about omnipotency and even make arguments, metaphysical or empirical and personal or communal, that illucidate it.
I agree but I just don't see how it doesn't annihilate the Christian responses as well as my own.
> Again, get out of your own way.
You keep saying this but I don't know what it means
¯(°_o)/¯
You're trying to ask two things at once and conflate the two.
Is it possible for God to create a universe with our 'good' but not our evil? Sure God can do that but it won't have free will, many would argue losing free will would be 'worse' than the elimination of evil.
Is it possible for God to create our universe without the evil? No because he created free will for us and a lot of the good in our universe is intricately linked to free will and its relation to evil.
I don't see the value of free will personally
>God is totally consistent for someone who believes that torturing babies is fine
You are misusing words, it's consistent even if you think it's not 'fine', you can think it's not 'fine' but a necessary byproduct of the existence of freewill (and the ability for good and love to exist)
why are you pretending you don't know better? the few things outside our control are just punishment, death is just going somewhere else, it means nothing. you don't have to be a pussy about it anon
I'm not pretending anything. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at here
Okay but who cares if you think God is not benevolent? The point of the thread is that *if he is*, there are contradictions. Negating the premise means your point isn't really relevant to the thread
all people understand right from wrong at birth, they just pick what they want to do
Yes but God consistently allows or even supposedly directly does things that basically everyone agrees is wrong
but you think there is no real measure of wrong, what could you possibly blame him for?
>Is it something worth avoiding if the existence of it allows greater good to flourish? Why do you just assume the evil that exists in the world isn't for a greater purpose?
god could make that only pleasant things lead to the greater purpose, but in this framework he didn't thus he's evil
>I think It's bad therefore it's bad
Nobody asked your opinion on morality
i didn' tgive it tho, i just made an objective observationof the mechanics of purpose, between a god that creates a world where anyone can access a greater purpose trought pleasure and a god that create a world where the only way to access a greater purpose is trought pain, the first god is good and the second one is evil, simple as
Ok but it doesn't matter to the universe or God what you think is good
again is not what "i" think, is a logical articulation established in how humans undesrtand existence, what you're syaing with your arument is taht we can't understan dgod, but if we can''t understand god then religion can't no guarantee for it's porpouse on this world, and we can't develop any proof of god existence, so fucntionally he doesn't exist
You are getting insulted because you've spent an entire thread arguing in bad faith and thus provoking people. Either bring willingly obtuse and difficult or actually mentally limited, but your posting style implies that's not the case.
So why do you have a beef with religion, Which forces you to engage with it with such vitriol? What is it you didn't process that God has to answer to you for?
>God can't make 2+2=5, therefore He's not all powerful!
>Checkmate theists!
The brain of an atheist
>>God can't make 2+2=5, therefore He's not all powerful!
theists!
Literally yes. If God can't make 2+2=5 then he's not all powerful. Thank you for summarising my argument succinctly and compellingly
you fricking idiot, you just made his argument for him
>if you think free will exsist, then for that to be you have to have an option to disobey
Why though? That's only a contradiction because God made the world this way. If God is omnipotent then it should be possible for him to create a world where free will does not require the possibility of damnation. To believe otherwise is to state that God is subservient to the rules of formal logic.
I don't know why or how he could have made it, it's just the way it is. honestly not hard to be good or evil, there is relief in knowing where ever you go, it was your own choice, that alone makes God blameless
Free will is a concept that does not corraborate well with the idea of omnipotence. We've been through this already, you're just regurgitating the same "arguments" with self verifiable premises. Why God needs to give humans free-will if he already knows everything that ever and will ever exist? And he knows that this will allow evil to exist? He wants to test us? For what purpose? An omniscient being does not need to test things, because the concept of a test can only exist when there is a point when the answer isn't known yet; this state isn't coherent with the idea of a omniscient god. Next you will say how evil is totally not real and that God needs free will to exist even though it's a pointless because "you can't understand God bro!"
>I can't read ops image
realy, you should be embarrassed.
btfo
>this questions has been answered for a long time and you are moronic if you think it's never been addressed
I didn't said it wasn't adressed, you illiterate frick. I said that these answers will always falls down to circular reasoning, something that you weren't able to refute, instead you threw a pathetic tantrum of how "these things were already solved broo it is not like i can't answer these questions with valid arguments, ok?! you just don't get it!"
My rule of thumb is that if someone really knows the answer to your question then humans usually jump at the opportunity to tell you in order to brag or prove you wrong. If someone insults you and says that a thing is already solved, it means that they don't actually understand well enough to explain it to you
>this much a newbie
leave nig
I really don't care
Would be convincing if it this were your thrid, not thrity-third post.
I care about the discussion, but I don't care about being considered a "newbie" or if people feel triggered by my "posting style"
haha, newbie, newbie, you a dumb homosexual newbie!
You need to go back.
Go back to what?
Holy shit you are new.
I'm not a boomer, I don't care about board etiquette or "lurking". I see a thing, I respond to it. Not interested in some implicit social structure
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Don't lurk more. Go back.
Alright close the thread. Atheists take another big fat L. Try again tomorrow night.
Theists/Deists can only argue with circular reasoning. They are not supposed to be taken seriously, do not engage with them.
This is a childish idea of what god is. If you think this covers all the logic youre not even fricking close. On another tangent what if the bible is just made up mythology by man and good and evil isnt even a thing god has anything to do with? What if it just is what it is? What if you are living in and surrounded by god right now?
The Christian response I usually get given is “it’s actually good that God tortures children with bone cancer because good is defined by him”. Basically, they are totally psychotic
Now you are being disingenuous. You know those Christians say to that: pain of cancer is temporary and doesn't compare to the endless joys of heaven.
Why is it you cannot at least "refute" Christianity honestly? Maybe because it's impossible?
>Now you are being disingenuous. You know those Christians say to that: pain of cancer is temporary and doesn't compare to the endless joys of heaven.
living a happy life and then going to heaven is even better, a person that punch you in the face you and then gives you a candy is more evil than the person that only gives you the candy, he chose the first option so he has evil on him
All powerful doesn't mean the ability to do impossible things such as create an object heavier than themselves or remove free will, it means all the power possible within a coherent system
If we assume that it leads to a contradiction: if God is all-powerful and created everything, he created everything then he also created the rules of the coherent system, therefore he also created the rules which limit himself, so he is no-longer all-powerful. On the other hand, if God did not create everything and there was a coherent system that is only all-powerful relative to, then there is something outside of and greater than him that was the cause of that coherent system.
>he can't do nonsensical thing therefore he doesn't have all power
The ability to control our free will doesn't make sense, free will is where he chooses not to control by definition. Could he control us? Yes if he didnt create free will. Could he vanish the universe? Yes. Does that mean we don't have free will within it? No.
Let's say you made a videogame and the characters acted in a way you couldn't control because you made their actions reliant on some RNG. Does that somehow mean you aren't all powerful over them? You could recode things, you could shut off the game but you choose not to because you think the RNG is good, just like God thinks free will is good.
Like I really don't understand your definition of all powerful, you are really requiring that something can do nonsensical things like create an object heavier than they can lift to be all powerful?
This board talks about God all the time, yet they don't bring up the Bible in 2017 IQfy. I wonder why? I wonder why giving up on a creation is considered godly.
Evil exists —-> No
Not religious and don't care to be but I've never understood this idea of God as "want(ing) to prevent evil." Isn't God more like the totality, the unity of good and evil, light and dark, form and void? I believe in God but not in an omnibenevolent God, as if human beings even know what "good" is... and I guess Epicurus is only addressing those who believe in an omnibenevolent God, though those people are kinda moronic anyway. So what's the point of making an argument about a bunch of idiots?
>what's the point
It's all atheists do, strawman endlessly
>Evil exists?
No
“Pain” and “suffering” are among the holiest experiences we can have. What makes you think that real evil exists at all? Because the sensation you’re experiencing is “unpleasant” or that “it hurts”? In those moments god is revealing to you the true nature of the universe, a universe in which you are most certainly and unequivocally involved, to which you are so thoroughly attached. Pain and suffering immediately demonstrate just how present god really is. One might argue that pleasure distracts you from what’s actually happening here, just how holy all this really is.
This conflicts the Christian doctrine that one can stray from God's light
You may or may not accept this argument, but I would suggest that “Christian Doctrines” are mostly bullshit, and that the bible is a corrupted document written by men.
You may also dismiss this notion, however my faith guarantees me that there is no struggle, that everything is already solved, already complete and perfect. Nobody can stray from god; there is literally nowhere else to stray toward, god encompasses everything including nothing. There is no hell, nor is there a heaven. Morality emerges based on our experiences of pain and suffering, joy and pleasure, but to imagine that god is using pain and suffering to prod us into acting a certain way seems unholy to me.
>t.
>“Pain” and “suffering” are among the holiest experiences we can have.
God could make the holiest experience a pleasant one, but he chose not to, thus he's evil
No, evil does not have independent existence. Your dumb graph doesn't consider this possibility. Evil is a movement of the will away from the good, towards a delusion, a false good, a false opinion, made possible by limitation on knowledge. The devil made Eve "look at the tree and see that it was good to eat", though it was not.
Why does God allow the will to move away from the good? Why does he allow the existence of a false good, or ignorance of good?
>Isaiah 45:9
>Romans 9:19-24
>applying literal 1d microbe earthly ""logic"" compared to the mightiness of God
Debooked by Alvin Planting. Also, Epicurus didn't even invent this btw.
"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."
Except, both of these are false
The epicureans will always tell you evil exists, but they will never tell you why.
Evil is not a real thing. It exists based upon authoritative claims. Bible itself defind what an evil is.
People of the past had no idea what utilitarianism or deontology is. Virtue ethics was the dominant outlook.
God by definition had the virtue of being, well, good. Period.
It doesn't really matter what he did do or create.
good can't exist without evil because otherwise it would be just regular thing
The worst part about Christianity is that not only is it false, but it would even be absolutely awful if it were true
Evil doesn't exist.
Done. Refuted.
Ripe for a blackpilling
>Nooooo you dont understand!!! When you’re a pathetic emotional b***h then the imagined notion of “evil” seems real!
Epicuren Paradox refuted in one simple step!
Epicuran Paradox: Evil exists
Me: No, it doesn’t
Me: rape and behead your mother right in front of you
Reminder that Kant decisively refuted “privatio boni” cope and showed that evil is a real positive force. From there, mature people can only proceed to some form of Gnosticism or Kabbalah (like Schelling did)
>guys how cani become a magician
>guys how can i channel the occult
>guys how do i cast a spell
>why is barbie so popular?
I'm a brainlet when it comes to philosophy and theology but I saw a talk a while back saying that man's relationship to God is similar to a dog's relationship to a human.
The human loves and cares for the dog and that care sometimes necessitates pain, such as taking it to a vet to get a shot or giving it medication that tastes bad. Yes the human has inflicted pain on the dog but it does it for the larger good of the dog's health and well being. Likewise, God may inflict or let pain in our lives for the betterment of our soul and/or character.
Look at Joseph in the Bible. He gets sold into slavery and treated terribly even though he was given a gift by God of interpreting dreams. All that pain led to him being able to forgive his brothers and ultimately serve God in a much larger way than if he would have only lived with his family until death, iirc.
It's not a perfect metaphor but I figured it may contribute somewhat to the discussion
Plantinga's free will defense refuted the logical problem of evil as admitted by nontheist philosophers
>Fanfic thread
The REAL answer:
God is the Absolute.
The Absolute must not have any shortcomings, otherwise it isn't absolute.
If something exists outside of the Absolute, then God wouldn't be absolute.
Therefore, the Absolute contains every single possibility, including the ones which are not absolute by themselves, but relative.
Therefore, even the worst possibilities must exist.
Therefore, evil exists but the Absolute is still infinite good since its essence is not impacted by its different modalities.
OP ignores this post because he knows it's true (in other words, i'm a shameless samegay).
evil DOESN'T exist. ever notice how it is the only claim without a second option?
>Evil exists
>Yes
prove it
It was refuted 800 years ago already moron
Evil doesn't exist, only absence of God's love
God is a dick, that's kind of his thing
>if god real then why bad thing happen
Well if said god's theology is about how good and anti-evil he is then yeah, bad thing happen refutes the religion. It's apparently a different god.
You can't even define evil
>evil doesnt exist
>he says, smugly , as he is stabbed to death
And why is that wrong? Without God, nothing matters.
Yep
Christgoys and israelites seething as always
If evil doesn't exist then I will bring it into being.
>God set standards upon himself
how do you distinguish "standards" from "inability"?
also
>assumes all evil is the result of a choice and the existence of free will
how could you set "inability" on the creator of all things?
Simple, god isn't all powerful. "paradox" solved.
>thinking God is constrained by mere logic
God lets humans have free will, deal with it
This is all based on the assumption that "Evil exists".
if evil don't exist, then morals don't exist, if orals don't exist we don't need God to guide our lifes, atthat point God is an useless concept, there's no need to believe in god or practice a spiritual path
Sorry atheistsisters
How does the presence of G*d un-subjectify morality? Christcucks always throw this shit in thinking they got one over and never bother to explain the logic.
Morality is decided by humans, it serves human needs. G*d cannot be moral nor can he be a source of morality, since morality from a singular source is no different from tyranny. If tomorrow Jesus Christ Himself arisens, appears before you, and declares that he's been thinking and now he decided that eating infants alive is morally right, would you shrug and find a nearby infant to eat? What the frick does presence of all-powerful creator and his decisions change about morality? How is God commanding you to perform in a certain manner any different from State commanding you to perform in a certain manner? Both are no more than entities that are unimaginably powerful compared to you.
>How does the presence of G*d
Spotted the israelite.
Shalom.
>"Christcuck" poster also types God "G*d"
bros...is there a hidden meaning here...I don't get it...
More likely people don't understand the systems they live in and thus cannot form meaningful questions
Free will is the ultimate good.
Here is Aquinas's response:
Objection 2. Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.
Reply to Objection 2. It is otherwise with one who has care of a particular thing, and one whose providence is universal, because a particular provider excludes all defects from what is subject to his care as far as he can; whereas, one who provides universally allows some little defect to remain, lest the good of the whole should be hindered. Hence, corruption and defects in natural things are said to be contrary to some particular nature; yet they are in keeping with the plan of universal nature; inasmuch as the defect in one thing yields to the good of another, or even to the universal good: for the corruption of one is the generation of another, and through this it is that a species is kept in existence. Since God, then, provides universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live, if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): "Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil." It would appear that it was on account of these two arguments to which we have just replied, that some were persuaded to consider corruptible things—e.g. casual and evil things—as removed from the care of divine providence.
why read this when i can skip all the way to my next drink?
not reading that + you're probably israeli
>Evil needs to exist to define good
Did I understand it correctly?
>If God is all knowing there would be no need to test us
This is just a long-winded way of some gay asking "why is there something rather than nothing?"
Seems sorta question-begging tbh. We're talking about God, right? Infinitely intelligent, infinitely wise. If you start with those premises there's no second guessing his decisions, he just understands something you don't. Your reasoning or morality are wrong somehow, no need to explain how.
this is how to get triumph of the will
we had two of these yesterday. the student dismantled it immediately, laughed at me, and then i just saw a shirt
This thread made me realize the utility of analytic philosophy. When you try to write this argument down in first-order logic you actually need to define what you mean when you say a lot of the words like "evil" or "all good".
>doesn't define "define"
You lose.
That's because I'm using normal language, and you can probably understand what I meant by define, but not defining things like evil clearly you get a lot of discussion like in this thread.