The problem of evil in my opinion is the best argument against omnipotent belief systems such as the Abrahamic religions. It seems deductively airtight, all the counter arguments are terrible, and it's the most "human" argument. It's so good that I almost think that everyone who understands it but still rejects it or doesn't care is either coping with hard shit in their life (which is understandable and tolerable), sadomasochistic, or have a bit of an evil nature themselves (which isn't tolerable).

>>17817365 (OP)
>all the counter arguments are terrible
You know perfectly well that omnipotence inherently rapes the problem of evil and every criticism of it invariably attempts to remove it in effect.

>>17817365 (OP)
>The problem of evil in my opinion is the best argument against omnipotent belief systems such as the Abrahamic religions.
Let me guess: You don't have a philosophy degree from Princeton.

>>17817804
How? An omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would have created a perfect reality filled with perfect beings that are happy, joyous, and content and it would always remain this way. That makes far more sense than creating a flawed reality that might eventually be perfect.

>>17817890
Do you? Do you mind enlightening us with a counterargument to the problem of pain, dissatisfaction, suffering, evil, or "bad thing happen", or whathever you want to call it from Princeton?

>>17817365 (OP)
>It seems deductively airtight, all the counter arguments are terrible
These are both false claims
>have a bit of an evil nature themselves
What's evil?

>>17818123
>An omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would have created a perfect reality filled with perfect beings that are happy, joyous, and content and it would always remain this way
Why?

>>17818127
>These are both false claims
How?
>What's evil?
Bad thing happen

>>17818130
Because definitionally no one wants problems and the only reason we sometimes do is because we live in a messed up reality where figuring out what's good or evil can be complicated or the bad things might sometimes be necessary. This reality we live in makes no practical sense.

>>17818148
>How?
Because they contain propositions which are not true
>Bad thing happen
Why is that evil?
>Because definitionally no one wants problems
And this is supposed to explain why God could not decree the first sin for His purposes?

>>17818152
>Because they contain propositions which are not true
Care to demonstrate?
>Why is that evil?
Unnecessary suffering is evil.
>And this is supposed to explain why God could not decree the first sin for His purposes?
What would be the purpose of decreeing sin?

>>17818194
>Care to demonstrate?
Sure.
>Unnecessary suffering is evil.
Why? Says who?
>What would be the purpose of decreeing sin?
That He may show His mercy in vessels of mercy and His wrath in vessels of wrath, to the praise of His glorious grace.

>>17818204
>Why? Says who?
Why would someone want to suffer unnecessarily?
>That He may show His mercy in vessels of mercy and His wrath in vessels of wrath, to the praise of His glorious grace.
Why would a being create something to fail rather than succeed?

>>17818293
>Why would someone want to suffer unnecessarily?
Why does it matter what they want?
>Why would a being create something to fail rather than succeed?
I don't see where you failed to understand me. God created the reprobate so they may be justly destroyed eternally in the fires of hell, as merited by their wicked sins, in order to demonstrate His holy wrath. He created the elect in order to show His gracious mercy in those who, though they were destined for the same end, were plucked from the fire and made righteous through the work of Jesus Christ.

>>17818314
>Why does it matter what they want?
You don't care whether you suffer unnecessarily? I find that highly unlikely.

>I don't see where you failed to understand me. God created the reprobate so they may be justly destroyed eternally in the fires of hell, as merited by their wicked sins, in order to demonstrate His holy wrath. He created the elect in order to show His gracious mercy in those who, though they were destined for the same end, were plucked from the fire and made righteous through the work of Jesus Christ.
Why would someone create someone to inflict wrath upon them, even if deserved, rather than create someone who didn't commit anything that deserves wrath? That makes no practical sense.

>>17818340
>You don't care whether you suffer unnecessarily?
I didn't say that, I questioned what my "wants" have to do with something called evil. What if you want to make others suffer unnecessarily, is that evil? Why? Says who?
>Why would someone create someone to inflict wrath upon them, even if deserved, rather than create someone who didn't commit anything that deserves wrath? That makes no practical sense.
Is this a serious question?

>>17817365 (OP)
>the best argument against omnipotent belief systems such as the Abrahamic religions.
Yes. Omnipotence is really the issue. Zoroastrianism as I understand it is "God will win eventually, but you are an active soldier in that struggle so he will win faster with your help". The
>Why worship god if he's not omnipotent
suggests a rather malicious view of power being the only reason to worship something, which then suggests nothing but brutality is why a child should obey their parent. One's parent is not all powerful and there are people more powerful than they (A king) in terms of power applied to the kid, yet the kid should still revere and respect the parent.

>>17817890
Philosophical or theological theories that can't appeal to or persuade us masses are functionally worthless unless backed up by the persuasion of the state's heavy handed club. In which case the power is just raw muscle, not any idea, so it's not an idea of any strength but rather is just the strength of man.

>>17818340
You're wasting your time arguing with someone who is either a larper, or is a sincere sadist who worships nothing but power, not justice or mercy or anything but power. Which is why they take such issue with the problem of evil and the solution being not omnipotence. Because they do not value anything but power. You see it in his replies to you right now: Nothing matters but god's power and that power is so great he can decide what is just and what is not by nothing but
>I will torture you forever and ever if you disagree
They worship power, nothing else.

>>17818351
meds

>>17817365 (OP)
Unfortunately its not airtight as proven time and time again because christcucks will sooner argue that nothing in this world is actually bad (including child cancer) than consider that their god might be full of hot air

I would love to see the tune these types sing when a loved one of theirs gets cancer because i very much doubt they will treat it like its not a bad thing

>>17818432
This is especially funny with regards to the perpetually angry types - constantly raging over shit that supposedly isn't even bad.

>>17817365 (OP)
The virgin Levantine
>lets entire cities get overrun by poofs
>takes an act of God to get rid of them

The chad Viking
>uses his common sense to work out what bogs are for

I'd call it the problem of constitutional psychopaths. Around 5% of men cannot possibly experience remorse, empathy or compassion. They're moral idiots. But it's only a philosophical/theological problem you've got a God that disavows and eschews evil. For non-Manicheans, the Source is everything, good and bad, and morals, ideally consistent with game theory, come up from men like Hammurabi, not down from God.

>>17818204
>That He may show His mercy in vessels of mercy and His wrath in vessels of wrath, to the praise of His glorious grace.
So the sky jew is bound by external constraints? If he wants to do X he must do Y?

>>17818123
>An omnipotent
would be able to do whatever the fuck it wants without losing any attribute
would be able to do evil neverending while omnibenevolent
would fuck logic and language in the ass

The problem of evil is logically undefeated. Anyone who thought about this reality will come to the same conclusion - that the creator must be some kind of evil ignorant asshole.

The only reason its not mainstream is because most of this planet is populated by NPCs for the exact purpose of keeping those with potential in the dark.

>>17817365 (OP)
I don't think the problem of evil is the best argument against God

I think the best argument against God is the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD

>>17817365 (OP)
>God's interpretations of "perfection" and "goodness" must necessarily be the same as that of mortal men
Anthropocentrism fallacy.
>God's interpretations of "power" and "totality" must necessarily be the same as that of mortal men
Another anthropocentrism fallacy.
>God's definitions of "evil" and "suffering" must necessarily be the same as those of mortal men
Yet another anthropocentrism fallacy.

OP is deliberately obfuscating an otherwise legitimate theological discussion by knowingly assigning self-contradictory definitions to important theological concepts.

>>17818932
>God's interpretations of "perfection" and "goodness" must necessarily be the same as that of mortal men
There is not "interpretation" of these things, they are objective. You are a heretic.

>>17818932
>special pleading

the last abrahamic cope

>>17819002
Special pleading would be if I assumed (without evidence) that the immaterial creator of our universe, who exists beyond space and time, is bound by the exact same physical and temporal laws as his material creations.
>>17818999
What if I told you that God's interpretation of such-and-such literally is the objectively-correct interpretation, and that it's fundamentally impossible for mortal men to understand the universe as God does? Would I be a heretic then, if I told you that all we can do is make an approximation of the objective truth using the scientific and theological information we actually have access to?

>>17819034
>God's interpretation
That combination of words alone is heresy

>>17817365 (OP)
It's a strong argument, but the actual best argument is that we've proved monism must be true and that the universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions and as such is uncreated and there's no God.

>>17819034
Something "oustide of space and time" exists nowhere and never i.e. it doesn't exist at all.

>>17819034
>that the immaterial creator of our universe, who exists beyond space and time

more special pleading

if one being can self-create and exist outside space and time why couldn't there be hundreds. you just admitted your god isn't unique

>>17818351
trvke

>>17818932
>made in the image of god
abrahamcucks, our response...?

>>17817365 (OP)
There, refuted.

That' was easy.

>>17819086
The only being that can self-create and exist outside space and time is The One. Every other being, no matter how significant, is in some way derived from The One. The One is defined as the source of all that exists, so your argument collapses under its own weight.
>>17819124
"In the image of" means it bears a metaphysical resemblance to the thing it was made to resemble. It doesn't mean that the two are literally identical.
>>17819041
If the creator of all that is true says "such-and-such is true", then is it not true? If it is, then the creator's interpretation is the objectively-correct interpretation. If it isn't, then the speaker is not the creator of all that is true.

>>17819166
Augustine really was the master of coping. It's have been quicker and better to just not suffer evil exist. There's absolutely no advantage to doing things the long way as an omnipotent, omniscient god.

Technically there are multiple problems of evil. The logical problem, which argues that the bare existence of any evil is formally incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good God; the probabilistic problem, which concedes logical compatibility but insists that the sheer quantity, intensity, and gratuitous distribution of natural disasters and moral atrocities make God’s existence conceptually problematic, and the existential problem, which centers on the lived, affective anguish of sufferers who struggle to reconcile their personal pain with faith, not the existence of evil but the subjective feeling. There are also issues of moral evil (human wrongdoing) and natural evil (suffering caused by diseases, earthquakes, et.), and the problem of animal suffering (why animals suffer and why they seem to exist in ways that make them cause more suffering and suffer) .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrTw4M-Wato

>>17819712
>It's have been quicker and better to just not suffer evil exist.
No, God has judged otherwise, it is better to bring good out of evil than evil not existing at all.

I'm going with God's judgement.

>>17819713
These problems all exist if one subscribes to classical theism. Generally, at minimum both theists and atheists end up rejecting divine voluntarism because of it, or the claim that God wills everything individually or orders some single order to everything. That view really is only accepted because some religions have theologies that state believers have to accept that. However, what is debated is whether the problems in total lead to rejecting any classical theism.

>>17819721
It would, and that's proof that Christianity is false. Clearly it is not a gods judgements and is just a human cope to justify flawed theology.

>>17819741
Is God omniscient?
>Yes
Is God omnibenevolent?
>Yes

Therefore we must conclude that He knew perfectly well of all the good and evil that would come from creating humanity, and saw that it would still be a net good. Therefore He created humanity.

>>17819777
That would mean he created evil, which would contradict being omnibenevolent. If you create something capable of evil, then you inherently create evil otherwise without creating that possibility evil wouldn't exist.

>>17819786
>That would mean he created evil
No, we did.
> which would contradict being omnibenevolent.
Omnibenevolent means that everything He does is towards good.
>If you create something capable of evil,
He didn't though, man was free from evil in the beginning.

>>17819786
It also creates the problem that he scrwed people over on purpose and coudl have done otherwise.

>>17819804
If you make a being capable of something, you inherently create the thing it's capable of doing. Evil would not exist if he did not make it possible, thus inherently created evil. All through downstream from god and all.

>>17819811
All things downstream*

>>17819811
>If you make a being capable of something
He didn't.

>>17819813
You're contradicting yourself now. You said he made people capable of evil, how you're saying he didn't? If he didn't make people capable of evil then evil wouldn't exist logically.

>>17819818
>You said he made people capable of evil
Where?

>>17819825
>Therefore we must conclude that He knew perfectly well of all the good and evil that would come from creating humanity
>Therefore we must conclude that He knew perfectly well of all the good and evil that would come from creating humanity
Implies he knew his creation was capable of evil, being omniscient and all.

>>17819832
>Implies he knew his creation was capable of evil
Just because He knew that they would cause evil doesn't mean that He created them with the capacity for evil, that happened later and not by God's command.

>>17819841
If he made them, then he inherently had to make them with the ability to do evil, especially so if he was omniscient. You can't have it both ways even if it was be philosophically conveniently for you to do so.

>>17819851
So does God get credit for all the good we've made?

>>17819995
He'd be responsible for both. Your problem is he's supposed to be all good, thus incapable of evil and only good, yet created evil. If he's omnibenevolent then there should be no evil at all as he'd never create it or even make it possible.

>>17820016
>He'd be responsible for both.
And does He get credit if the good outweights the evil.

>>17820030
This is basically irrelevant, your claim is OMNIbenevolence, not "capable of some benevolence and some malevolence". The OMNI part is important.

The flaw is in the premise that a world without suffering is inherently more desirable.
Consider the kids movie WALL-E. The people in the spaceship suffer much less than we do, perhaps not at all, but it isn't clear that it's a more desirable life than what we have.

>>17818148
>Because definitionally no one wants problems and the only reason we sometimes do is because we live in a messed up reality where figuring out what's good or evil can be complicated or the bad things might sometimes be necessary. This reality we live in makes no practical sense.
You sometimes fantasize about murder and bad things. Why do you fantasize about such things? Why don't you make the creations in your head experience 100% joy 24/7?
Because who cares? Why would an omnipotent being give a single fuck about you, if he can snap his finger and create infinite yous?

An omnipotent god doesn't owe you a worthy and "right" life.

>>17820103
>Why would an omnipotent being give a single fuck about you
This is literally the entire premise of Abrahamic religion, that god does care about his creation. Maybe you should try actually learning the theology of the religion you're going to larp as being part of.

>>17820281
I'm not a christian and i'm not any of the original people you talked to.
God's love is conditional, even in the Bible.

best argument against a good + omnipotent god is that Germany lost ww2

>>17821788
exactly. one main condition is not getting in the way of US oligarchs for example

>>17817365 (OP)
Hate to burst your bubble, but what you call "evil" is entirely a matter of opinion. Sorry kiddo.