Why do /pol/ Christians always handwave and dismiss the Problem of Evil? You just get smug condescending replies like "if god good why le bad", as if that makes up for a fundamentally unresolved. major issue with their conception of God.

>>507327310 (OP)
idk man christcucks are low IQ retarded nigge cattle

>>507327310 (OP)
Why is the Old Testament so gruesome?

>>507327510
It's the mishmash of confused stories written by an iron age people. It's the Jewish equivalent of if there was an attempt to compile ancient Greek polytheism into a cohesive book with an overarching narrative and not just random stories to explain specific things.

>>507327310 (OP)
Christkikes are beyond insane.

Why don't Atheist and Kikes larping as Atheists ever blame Judaism for things the Old Testament says? According to the Early Church, the Old Testament we have today has been corrupted by Kikes and is unreliable

>>507327310 (OP)
It's because it's an incredibly stupid argument so nobody is going to waste time with someone who actually parrots it.
>IF GOD GOOD WHY I HAVE TUMMY ACHE?????

lmao here comes the axe paganjeet

>>507327310 (OP)
yes, the god they worship is just a goat fucking Jew's wet dream, christcucks are subhuman.

>>507327660
we're on /pol/, everyone here already agrees jews are ontologically evil, and as such there is no reason to question the moral dilemmas in their religious beliefs.

>>507327310 (OP)
The gnostics solved this problem over 1000 years ago

>>507327310 (OP)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

>>507327792
if its an incredibly stupid question, why cant any christian ever answer it with a waterproof solution? lets ignore my tummy ache and instead ask the following: why does god allow a deer to suffer a torturous, slow death eaten away by parasites, covered in burns after a naturally occurring forest fire caused by lightning in a remote wilderness?

>>507327928
Sure kike. Become famous for using your trash memes to own kikes first. Instead of doing your dry run on Christians here.
>>507327972
No, they didn't. False-Gnostics were literally Kikes themselves trying psyop after psyop to subvert us.

>>507327310 (OP)
It's not an argument against the existence of God, it's an argument for the existence of God (you presuppose existence of Natural good) and you assert that you know better than the creator. It's juvenile.

>>507328149
imagine hiding behind a memeflag and calling others kikes. you are a jeet or israeli yourself.

>>507328293
Nothing left to say? Pathetic kike.

>>507327623
>>507327510
>>507327310 (OP)
The old testament is actually a coded bunch of stories centered around the lineage of Abraham. There is a group of religious fanatics obsessed with bloodlines of important figures such as King Solomon when it comes to controlling demons and who the coming messiah (or antichrist) will be.

>>507327310 (OP)
You can´t experience good without bad. You ever felt good? It´s a feeling that God needs to experience to understand all his aspects.

>>507328401
correct, i have nothing to say to a cowardly nonwhite.

>>507328654
Post a picture of a dead kike. It's illegal to demoralize the IDF in Israel, whether or not the person is hiding behind a Finnish VPN.

>>507328479
the christian god is omnipotent, he doesn't need to do anything beyond willing it to understand or allow us to understand something.

>>507327510
jews

>>507328716
It´s not doing in the sense of OP sucking dick. It´s a state of being.

>>507328710
ill do that if you remove your memeflag first and reveal a white nationality, or someone from a white country asks me to do it :^). like i said i have nothing else to say to a cowardly nonwhite.

>>507328081
Because none of that disproves God being good. Suffering does not disprove God being good, you just want the definition of good to conform to your biased perspective.

So no, cartels skinning someone alive doesn't disprove anything but YOUR definition of what "good" God should be. You have it the wrong way around anyway, it's not God being good, it's good being God. God being the omnipotent creator means good is whatever he is, if you disagree with it that's fine, but you're wrong.

>>507328876
>nope I won't post a picture of a dead kike unless you do something first
Pathetic faggot.

>>507327310 (OP)
It's because the Problem of Evil is like the core theme of the entire Bible. The answer to the problem is difficult and nuanced. The way atheists fling it at you like something they picked out of their nose and go "bet you never thought about that before, huh?" just shows their ignorance.

>>507328885
right, so your answer is that god being good is a tautology and god is god, therefore nothing is gained from this exchange and the problem of evil is entirely unanswered. good and evil lose all meaning in your "solution". itd just nihilism by another name. this was not enough for thomas aquinas and i wonder how many actual priests would be contented with it.

>>507327310 (OP)
the old testament god is the the new testament god. the old testament has very little to do with christianity. hope that clears things up

>>507329130
atheists probably fling it because its an unanswered question after 2000 years. why not go for the easiest criticism?

>>507327310 (OP)
the old testament god is not the the new testament god. the old testament has very little to do with christianity. hope that clears things up

>>507327310 (OP)
The Problem of Good is far more difficult. What kind of evil God allows such goodness to flourish in the world? Think about all the selfless, unconditional love, the friendship, camaraderie, the charity, the care and kindness happening every instant of the day. All the delicious foods, the sweet scents of flowers, the sound of birds in the morning, the glory of blazing sunsets over the sea. What kind of FUCKED UP EVIL GOD could allow such loveliness to go on unchecked????

>>507327310 (OP)
> Problem of Evil
This far predates Christianity. Also, when you say the "Problem of Evil" you actually mean the "Problem of Things I Don't Like". Because if I asked you to demonstrate that evil exists in an absolute sense that might concern a divine creator, as opposed to merely some relative human sense, you would probably try to deflect.

>>507329246
christianity justifies itself woth the old testament, jesus very clearly exists to fulfill the premise of the messiah and his lineage from david is underlined. in any case, that doesnt answer >>507328081

>>507327310 (OP)
The old testament is literally just the isrealites saying "it's ok when we do it". And the funny parts about selling your children into slavery for heckin sweet moneys

Genocide baked into their religion

>>507329284
yes indeed, god is so good when he feeds a predator delicious deer time after time. clearly the enjoyment of the predator outweighs the suffering of the countless prey animal that feed him.

>>507329467
Predators also die horrible deaths too. Everything suffers.

>>507327310 (OP)
Christkikes and abrahamoid in general are all brainless goy cattle.
The west is a worshiping a tribal desert jewish God. How did we come to this point?

>>507327310 (OP)
alvin plantinga destroyed the logical/intellectual problem of evil on a scholarly level, mostly in his dialogues against mackey.

the emotional problem of evil is important to address, but typically, the recognition of the existence of evil and suffering and trying to find meaning in it is one of the things that drives people toward theistic views rather than being a stumbling block.
also, emotional problems are better solved with hugs than erudite pedagoguery.

>>507327310 (OP)
christians pretend to believe in god in order to receive eternal life. its no more complicated than that.

>>507329467
>“They blaspheme the All, though it is beautiful and the work of a good cause.” - Plotinus
Check Plotinus. Even non christians think this gnostic hate of life is retarded

>>507329350
uh no? jews broke their covenant with god by rejecting jesus and so god cursed the jews and offered the covenant to the gentiles instead which became christianity. with this new covenant, the sacrifice and acceptance of jesus, god basically promised not to be an evil asshole like he used to be if you accepted the covenant. most of the shit in the old testament only has to do with the covenant between jews and god when god was an evil dick

>>507329678
aquinas already jusyified the logical problem of evil by explaining it allows greater good. but he did not answer the evidential problem of evil, did plantiga? the deer example is still unsolved.

>>507327310 (OP)
Old tests mentions about pedo yahweh

>>507329823
right, so you arent really debating the question, as you say, god is perfectly willing to be an evil asshole for no reason.

>>507329152
You're attempting to apply human/wordly logic to an almighty creator being. The trinity should already tip you off that attempting to comprehend any part of God let alone apply any logic we can comprehend on him is pointless.
>your answer is that god being good is a tautology and god is god, therefore nothing is gained from this exchange and the problem of evil is entirely unanswered.
Yes, exactly, there will never be a way to comprehend anything about God in any way shape or form other than perhaps through the creation we're part of, if there were he would not be truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
>Thomas Aquinas
That's the creation part I was talking about. As Aquinas says, there needs to be first mover. His proof(s) are the closest you can ever get to "proving" God. The fact that reality exists and we can think about this to begin with is the only real proof you're ever going to get, take it or leave it.

It doesn't make for good debate material but God never intended it to be. God never really wanted us to be able to prove him either, if he did he'd have made it easy, instead importance is placed on FAITH, not proof, for a reason.

Jesus Christ is the symbol of suffering
A suffering God we can connect to that Christians were mocked for
But he is also the solution for suffering, death is not the end it was defeated at cavalry

I got the answer with a spider in my bathroom. Fell on the lavabo, full od water puddles. there was less water on the tiles going up, and above the tiles no water at all. the spider didnt like the water so it tried going up along the tiles. harder to climb because its pretty flat and polished, and the spider had to avoid very small vertical water puddles along the way or it could fall. i wiped some of the water with toilet paper which scared the spider that stopped moving or tiehr panicked and ran maybe itno water or whatever. i tried to bring the spider on a piece of toilet paper to bring her above the tiles where it was dry but the spider fell, yet not on the lavabo as it was still attached to the paper through a thread attached to the paper. so i lifted it until the spider end up above the tiles where it was dry.

then my schizo brain started cooking and i tohught of an analogy. the spider was us, humans, and i was god. the water was evil, the lavabo earth, and above the tiles, heaven. the tiles along was the path to heaven. now you can draw all sorts of conclusion. the water makes you want to go up, where there is less water, where you can move freely. you learn to hate evil, and you want to lzave it so you go up, ther eis less evil but still some, and if you land on it you might fall back to the lavabo full of water. the thread was perseverance, if you cling, you wont fall and get back up. it pushes you to go up, to appreciate good, hate evil, pursue your path and end up in heaven, where there is no water (evil). of course you get scared when god removes evil before you. and you might fall, you have to pay arttention to dodge it.

anyway thats my understanding of why there is evil. im not religious btw just theist with a soft spot for christianity due to past adherence

>>507330051
>believe in me
>also I'll make it difficult to prove I am real
>also make sure you pick the right religion
>also make sure you pick the right denomination
>also make sure you are born in an area and time period where you have access to even learn about me
>otherwise you will suffer in unimaginable pain for eternity
>I am loving

>>507327310 (OP)
how does your framework deal with the problem of evil?

>>507330428
>implying evil exists

>>507329987
the jewish god in the old testament originally appeared because jews were a bunch of degenerates and needed their ways corrected. i suppose the way the old testament god went about things could be evil or just heavy handed

in the new testament evil is a consequence of free will, it has nothing to do with god. god died for your sins and if you're righteous no evil will harm your soul

>>507330051
if we cant apply human logic to god - who in christian theology gave us logic in the first place, if not to understand him better then i dont understand why - why even open this thread? if logic has no place in theology then we might as well throw away the entire subject. if god is fundamentally unknowable then why does faith even matter, you cannot possibly understand that he wills it if he is beyond human reasoning. why even acknowledge anything aquinas aquinas said when you then drop everything he stands for?

>>507330358
>believe
>prove
Gaythiests proving once again how stupid they are.

>>507330645
>gave us logic
You know what happened in the garden?

>>507327510
The bigger question is why is the new testament so pussy?

>>507330834
“He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’”
(Luke 22:36)

>>507327310 (OP)
>Why won't you guys have this argument with me that you've already had millions of times and has been thoroughly addressed by hundreds of scholars over thousands of years and has essentially been put to bed?
>Come debate me! GIVE ME ATTENTION! DEBATE MEEEEEEEEE!
Yeah no idea man but good luck with that

>>507330764
>no argument
thanks for playing

>>507330529
so if it doesn't, what's the problem?

>>507327310 (OP)
people who post this can't define evil

>>507329923
it hasn't been grounded into dust like the logical formulation, but there are easy ways to handle it.
the greater good sort of theodicies you'd mentioned work for the evidential problem, like a world with fixed natural laws (including fire and parasites) could be the only way to get a cosmos stable enough for any conscious life like deer humans and the beauty they're part of, tweak one variable and poof.
then there's the "skeptical theism" angle, we're not in a position to know whether or not the deer's suffering is pointless unless we're omniscient, so it sort makes it and argument from ignorance (like a child initially thinking being chucked into their pool by their parents to learn how to swim is pointless torture too)
then there's the defeater check. the objection hinges on "unjustified evil exists," which can't be proven without smuggling in moral realism, which naturalism can't ground
then there's the redemption arc to ocnsider, Christianity doesn't just handwave suffering, it claims God enters it (cross) and will ultimately crush it (rev 21:4.) the deer's agony is a temporary horror in a bigger story.

>>507330947
i have yet to see a throrough solution to it, only bad faith memeing. if it has been solved already why hasnt anyone pointed me to the solution already? why not you?

>>507331237
You've seen at least 3 in this thread already, you just ignore them because you're not a curious person.

>>507327310 (OP)
If your problem is not God is not a cuck, then please stay away from Christianity.

>>507331067
The problem is that OP is a faggot who fails to see how the concepts that make up a limited being's comprehension of the reality don't even apply in an omniscient deity's all-encompassing point of view.

>>507327310 (OP)
If god exists then he is certainly a villain

>>507331510
villain against who

>>507329823
>and so god cursed the jews
Nope, but understandably viewed as such. That position (God cursed all this race's children) violates Jeremiah 31's statement of the new covenant period. What God does not do is honor that which is rejecting of Jesus, which happens to include Talmudism, and the end result is living With The Curses of Adam anyway, death, pain, fights with nature and toil.
While the end result will look cursed, it is not what most people Want it to mean, or what many Rabbi who still believe you can curse the unborn, claim the New Testament must have meant to say.

>>507331225
1. why didnt an omnipotent god create a world with different rules that dont necessitate horrific suffering of animals who lack moral agency?

2. you seem to be returning to the "we cant possibly understand god with limited human logic" argument which was already criticised above

3. the problem of evil is bot about proving objective morality, it is simply a question of moral consistency aimed at theists.
4. "it will be redeemed later" still leaves god as the cause of horrific suffering and instead of answering the problem of evil at all, you try to postpone it. if anything its an admission that things are indeed fucked up and you just wait for a revelation to explain it because you have no explanation to give.

>>507330922
That was only because originally Jesus and the apostles were going to kick the shit out of Caesar and his henchmen but then God told him he wouldn't get spooky magical powers of he wasn't crucified.

>>507327310 (OP)
The problem of evil? This world is the devil's world (LORD God' world).

>>507331510
in the calvinist conception of god, yeah

>>507331376
point me to the ones that havent already been discussed by me in my other replies.

>>507331795
how would do you know It hasn't?
how would you know What is suffering?

>>507331797
We are still talking about him. seems like a good decision.

>>507327310 (OP)
The argument I heard that seemed sincere basically was one of
>God doesn't owe you an explanation any more than you owe a child an explanation for something you tell them to do or not do.
And of course they have this whole thing of
>Well it's free will and people choosing to do evil!
Funny that any exercise of free will is an evil act. Sure you can freely choose to do what God wants you to do but that's not free will that's basically compelled action.

So the whole ethos really boils down to a worship of power and the authority that power brings.
Sure they go on and on about objective morality and how every human has morality written on their hearts by God but when you show them instances of their God commanding people to do objectively evil shit they run back to
>Well we can't begin to know the reasons but if God said to do it the immoral thing would be to NOT follow the commands.

So don't bother confronting Christians with the problem of evil because in the foundations of their beliefs if they admit it to themselves or not is just a worship of authority.

Remember that the first sin humans ever committed in this religion was disobeying an order.

>>507327310 (OP)
Because you'd just be an automaton if you had no free will

Imagine being scared of the kike demon yahweh, just get yourself an iron chariot.

>>507332000
Nature als got authority, wether you like it or not.

>>507331795
>2. you seem to be returning to the "we cant possibly understand god with limited human logic" argument which was already criticised above
it was a poor criticism. your reduced it to the extreme (a trend among materialists, i've noticed). no serious religious person ever claimed you can know god fully using only human logic. likewise, even the apophatic christians and taoists asserted that you can know god (or the tao) though his/its energies/economy or actions in the world. but you can't, with logic much less western "empiricism", know the uncaused cause completely.
also, aquinas is said to have thrown out all of the theological texts after having a profound spiritual experience. the west needs mysticism and humility.

>>507327310 (OP)
The god described in the old testament is actually a demon-like creature known as the Demiurge which created a materialistic world of suffering and violence. The true God is a being of pure knowledge that those with the Divine Spark can aspire to become one with.

>>507331795
>why not different rules?
because maybe these rules are the only ones that get you deer (and us) in the first place. you're asking "why didn't God make a square circle?"
if free will, natural laws, and ecosystems require certain conditions, then "omnipotence" doesn't mean logically incoherent magic, it means He can do what's possible. and maybe a world without suffering means a world without life, or at least without the kind of life that leads to greater goods (love, courage, etc)
>skeptical theism is a copout
it's epistemic humility. your side is the one making a positive claim (this suffering is definitely pointless.) but unless you're omniscient, that's just an assertion.
if a 5-year old said "there's no need for this medicine it tastes yucky!" we wouldn't call that a knockdown argument, we'd say they lack context.
>it's about moral consistency, not objective morality
but your objection depends on objective moral horror.
if morality is just subjective, then the deer's suffering isn't really evil, it's just stuff you don't like. so yeah, you are smuggling in moral realism. if you're going to say "this is truly wrong," you need a basis for "truly." otherwise you're just complaining into the void.
>redeemed later? that's just postponing
it's not postponing, it's contextualizing.
if evil is temporary and justice is coming, then the question shifts from "why does God allow this?" to "Why does God allow this for now?" and the answer might be "because the story isn't over yet"
if you read Lord of the Rings and stopped at Helm's Deep you'd say "This is just gratuitous suffering!" but the payoff changes everything.
Christianity is the same, the cross already shows God doesn't ignore suffering, he enters it, and the resurrection means He wins over it.

>>507332027
>he doesn't manually breathe

Literal machine.

>>507331641

This problem isnt a christian one it affects any religion that has a benevolent god. Picrel posited by epicurus who lived 300 years before christianity

>>507327310 (OP)
Every tire needs a road. Is asphalt meant to be smooth? No, so get a grip.

>>507328885
>everything God does is inherently good by nature of him being God.

This completely contradicts "good" as being a real identifiable concept because it is hinged on the whims of God and can change at any moment based on his decree.
So no you can't argue with an atheist with this logic because good and evil would be based on what God desires. But you have no idea what God desires so you can't call any particular event good or evil.

I would argue if God is real then there must be no such thing as evil since he wills everything to happen the way it is. Seeing that he's all powerful and all knowing.
So actually by your logic evil does not exist

>>507327310 (OP)
Why is judeo-christianity so obsessed with killing children?

>>507332286
>Demiurge
>(in Gnosticism and other theological systems) a heavenly being, SUBORDINATE to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.

Seems like Christ took the position of the demiurge

>>507332408
>Picrel posited by epicurus who lived 300 years before christianity
epicurus believed in and taught about God that didn't give a shit about human affairs, he'd have never put an argument like this forth.
what it's from is a writing by a Christian named Lactantius, who strawmanned what he incorrectly understood epicurus taught, then immediately knocked down the garbage argument you just posted.
then a millennia and a half later, hume found it and thought the strawman was good and still kept its attribution to epicurus despite it being totally made up.

>>507332433
>if God is real then there must be no such thing as evil since he wills everything to happen the way it is.
It is within our power, our capacity as human BEINGS, to do good in the face of bad, for the sake of goodness itself. This is one of the ways that evil is defeated.

>>507327310 (OP)
Did you know that jews fuck toddlers and the holocaust never happened?

>>507329312
Evil is chaos and good is harmony

>>507332414
That pic reminds me of a Qlippoth. Which OP should at least read about once, if he really wants to know what thoughts there are on evil in a spiritual context.

>>507327310 (OP)
Because it’s a non-issue. It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of logic, christian theology. Evil existing does not mean God is personally commanding every evil person, nor did he invent evil. The problem is that you think of God’s creation sort of like ordering a burger and deciding what you do or don’t want on it. You think God was in some little workshop, or in the menu of a videogame selecting which factors he was going to have enabled or disabled for his sandbox playthrough

“Yeaahhhh, enable free will for humans, now for tinkering the settings… pedophilia enabled, manipulation enabled, hedonism enabled, rape enabled, murder enabled, enslavement and exploitation enabled, and yeah fuck it turn everything on. I want to see this fuckers suffer and torture each other, this will be so fun and entertaining to see them commit acts of evil, which I, God, invented, so that my little sea monkeys in a giant glass ball called the universe that I watch over which I created can do evil shit to each other and be subjected to evil by each other.”

>>507327310 (OP)
We Use Your Own Same Medicine To Kill You As You Kill You. Sort Of Doubles The Score Winner Takes All Don't You Think.

>>507332433
In this case that you presented Evil is simply disobeying the will of God whatever that may be at the time.
Remember that in the Christian religion God is all powerful, knowing, and good but can't do anything directly because of human free will.
But that free will is only exercised correctly when you freely decide to do what God wants you to do.

I'm telling you all that Christianity literally has no other moral and ethical considerations beyond obedience and it is important that such obedience is "freely" given.
Once you understand this you can then start to understand every answer to any other questions that arise here.

>>507332745
>and taught about God that didn't
gods**
nasty typo

Avrahamists autolose because they claim the world was perfect an death did not exist until man sinned. Indicating death and suffering was a punishment but it in no way explains natural death of animals and evolution

>>507332917
>Evil is chaos
Why is chaos evil?

>>507327510
From a purely story/fictional angle it describes the process of a violent, cruel god becoming human, experiencing the struggle of the human condition, and then becoming a more caring/benevolent god

>>507327623
100 years from now jews will create a religion based off Marvel and DC stories from this era. They will worship Thanos.

>>507333009
Because chaos is the natural state of the universe which is ruled by Satan. It's effortless to "be human" create chaos and challenging to create harmony. If 100% of able bodied humans can create chaos while only a small percentage can create harmony, that should tell you everything you need to know, shouldn't it?

>>507327310 (OP)
Why do faggots continue to make slide threads?

>>507332599
Christ is the Messiah of the True God. But there is no guarantee that the true God has infinite love or kindness, only that he is a state of total knowledge that is obtainable by those with the spark.

There's a book called Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy that chronicles what a Messiah of the Demiurge might be like (in the character of Judge Holden)

>>507332807
>God needs humans to defeat evil
He's not all powerful then.
>God makes innocent babies suffer because the parents still choosing to do his will after such an event tickles his fancy
Then he sounds like a narcissistic psychopath
>there is evil because it's necessary for free will
Is there freewill in heaven? Either the answer is "yes" which means it's possible for a reality to exist with freewill and no suffering. Or the answer is "no" in which case what's the purpose of giving us freewill here on earth then?

The problem of evil is a serious problem for an all powerful all knowing all good God.

>>507333254
Oh. Ok, schizo.

>>507327310 (OP)
How do atheists explain the Problem of Good?

>>507333657
It's literally just common sense. Virgin midwit npc vs Chad schizo retard

>>507327310 (OP)
the old testament isnt christian

>>507332407

>>507333758
There is no good or bad. They're just words to describe an individuals or societies opinion of certain things.
It's that simple

>>507331153
evil = jews
There you go.

>>507327623
That's literally every religion. Even science is like that to some degree. Even physics isn't a single unified theory.

>>507332288

1. you just assume those rules are the only way but that needs proving, saying “you want a square circle” doesnt cut it, an omnipotent god isnt limited by human imagination.


2. “we dont know if its pointless” isnt an answer, it's a dodge.

3. the problem of evil is about your chrisrian faiths own definition of good, not abstract moral realism. youre the one who claims god is good, so prove it fits with the suffering of the burned deer

4. “itll be redeemed later” just pushes the problem forward. if god is all good and all powerful why not stop the suffering now, instead of letting the deer burn and be eaten alive.

>>507333623
>Is there freewill in heaven?
Does your heart need a free will to beat?

>>507333973
The entire old testament is about the fragility of man's moral compass.

Man was made in the image of god, and the scriptures were made in the image of man.

>>507333623
The problem is the all good part.
Once you remove that the rest of it works.
>All powerful
>All knowing
Stop there and you just have a supreme authority and whatever is good or evil is dependent on the authority which is in line with everything in the religion.

>>507333758
You mean why do good things happen if there is no God? Why aren't we just killing and raping each other constantly?
Because I've heard this one before too.
>If there is no God why aren't we just killing each other and raping and stealing! Nothing matters!
And the answer is that if only the potential existence of God and hell is keeping you from doing this you're little better than any given animal.
Which once again brings me to Christianity being a worship of authority.
If you Christians don't have someone telling you what's good and bad you wouldn't know.
You fuckers don't even return your shopping carts.

>>507334277
The phrase “God is all good” does not appear in the Bible

The problem of EVIL should be the problem of SUFFERING.

Evil requires morality and as christcucks say the definition is subjective based on morality.
Fuffering does not require morality and has an objective definition. Suffering can be physical or psychological. Suffering being eliminated doesn't negate free will. Evil people can still do evil things. People simply do not suffer at the result of their evil acts.

A god that is:
>Benevolent
>Omnipotent
>Onmiscient
Would have the ability to eliminate suffering and would want to do so

>But how?
That's not for me to say. An all powerful god would know how to do it.

Therefore, considering suffering is part of daily life on this planet, the logical conclusion is that our god is not Benevolent, Omnipotent and Omniscient. The christkek god cannot exist.

>>507327310 (OP)
Because God needed villains for the server you fucking retard.

>>507333838
No it's not, it's retarded tier thinking because there are scenarios where chaos can be good and scenarios where people can order themselves into hell under the guise of peace. Chaos can be a gaurd rail preventing humanity from trapping themselves in their own hell too.

>>507334277
You're not separating the concept of an all knowing all powerful deity from the Abrahamic god in the old testament.

See>>507334149

Christcucks have no argument for this. If you're a christcuck, you are going to spend eternity with niggers, spics, gooks, and mutts, living in multi-cultural and multi-racial realm.

because you obviously need to throw one of them away if you want have any shred of logical integrity.

>>507334476
The entire point of the old testament is for god to figure out what is and isnt "good". As god is just god without the existence of the garden of eden and the fall of man from it.

>>507334657
I’m spending my eternity with God. Past, present, future. God has always been with Me.

>>507334578
Most of Bach's compositions have dissonance and tritones here and there to create tension and intrigue, but it always resolves in the end to a whole tone. Resolution is good

>>507334897
Sounds boring and gay.

The problem of evil is worse for atheists. Because according to atheism, there is no god who's made nature. Nature just is, and we humans are part of it. And nature is ruthless. Humans have slaughtered each other all through history, animals act like beasts to each other and so on. And that's it. We can't even call anything truly evil, as it's just nature being nature. You can only arbitrarily call something unnatural, as everything in nature is a consequence of nature. And when we die, we simply are not part of nature anymore, consciously that is - only our rotting material help sustain this cycle of life and death.

>>507334657
It sure beats living in Britain.

>Grown adults unironically believing in fairytales
really?

>>507334897
>>507334965
You are spending eternity in 'heaven' with billions of niggers, your fellow brothers in Jewsus! Enjoy.

>>507334277
>You mean why do good things happen if there is no God?

Yes, this is what I mean. You did not answer.

Instead, you did this….


>Why aren't we just killing and raping each other constantly? Because I've heard this one before too. If there is no God why aren't we just killing each other and raping and stealing! Nothing matters!
And the answer is that if only the potential existence of God and hell is keeping you from doing this you're little better than any given animal.

I asked you to tell me how atheists explain the Problem of Good, not to pull an amateur bait and switch like I wouldn’t fucking notice and switch to a rant about your musings on why people don’t do bad things.

Since you’re dense, let me simplify:

I asked you why there IS good.

I did NOT ask you why people DON’T do BAD.

Get it now?

>>507334476
Indeed it doesn't but Christians like to profess their God is all good. Because why ever would they admit to worshipping something that might be evil?
And so you end up with all the mental gymnastics of objectively evil directives and actions commanded or done directly by God in their own book.
Also their God has to be the only one. Not one of potentially many but the only one that actually exists and well fuck the only possible god can't be evil sometimes and so there's got to be good reasons we just can't fathom those reasons.

>>507335036
God is my Heaven.

>>507335036
And your spending right now on a prison island with pakis and hindus.

I genuinely hope jannies will start sending christcuck threads over to /bant/
How the FUCK is this political?

>>507335122
You are the most non-white degenerate country in world history. Only in heaven will you be around more mutts and niggers.

>>507335157
Politic is downstream from religion

>>507327310 (OP)
They deserved it

>>507334890
The Old Testament does not depict God as learning what is good, but rather presents Him as eternally knowing with the Garden of Eden serving to expose human capacity for choice, not divine uncertainty

>>507335103
It's a very evangelical take. Often times mirrored in catholicism. But thats the easiest way for preachers to fill the pews.

>>507327310 (OP)

Based God. He's just an awsm guy and we have so much in common but he is better then me. I wish i was him. He's clear as a day.

>>507333973
>prove these rules are the only way!
you're demanding proofs while handwaving omnipotence as "God can do anything."
can God create a married bachelor? a world where 2+2=5?
no, omnipotence doesn't mean logical nonsense.
maybe these laws ARE the only way to get free creatures, ecosystems, and the beauty of a functioning universe.
you're the one asserting God MUST have a better option, so it's on you to prove it's possible, otherwise it's just special pleading.
>skeptical theism is a dodge!
it's basic epistemology. you're claiming the deer's suffering is objectively pointless. but unless you're omniscient, that's just your limited human judgment. if a doctor says "trust me, this chemo has a purpose" the patient doesn't get to yell "dodge!" because they don't see the full picture. if you want to claim no possible greater good exists then you carry that burden, otherwise you're just begging the question.
>Christianity defines God as good, so justify the deer
yes. but Christianity also defines God as sovereign and redemptive. if the cross shows God enters suffering and the resurrection promises its defeat, then the question isn't "why is there evil?" but "why is evil allowed for now?" maybe the same laws permitting deer suffering also permit free will, moral growth, and a universe where love means something. if you demand a world where God zaps every parasite mid-air, you're asking for a puppet universe, no risks, no choices, no meaning.
>why not stop it now?
because now isn’t the end of the story. if God wiped out all evil right now, that might mean wiping out us (since we contribute to evil.) justice is coming, but patience allows for redemption. the deer’s suffering is horrific, but if nature is part of a fallen world (Romans 8:20-22,) then the question isn’t "why doesn’t God fix it?," it’s "why hasn’t He fixed it yet?" and the answer might be because He’s gathering more souls into His kingdom before the final renewal.

All answered by Job. But basically what you think is suffering isn’t. The only real suffering is Hell. So if cancer is eating your insides then take joy in it and pray for Heaven. Anyone who complains about “suffering” on earth is already lost. Your job is to alleviate the suffering of others as best you can. Nine times out of ten people complaining about the suffering of others aren’t doing anything to help or they’re causing suffering.

>>507335284
Explain the "dream" of Jacob wrestling with the "angel".
The entire old testament is about "G_d" being continuously swayed by the actions of men.

>>507327310 (OP)
because majority of modern Christians are followers of satan and not Christ.

>>507334476
So in genesis it doesn't say after creation that God saw it and it was good?

>>507335432
The book of job reads somewhat differently if you surmise that job is worshipping a false god the entire time.

>>507330834
old testament is by jews for jews.
new testament is for the goy.

>>507329246
christkikes a fucking LIARS

>>507327310 (OP)
Because religion means whatever people want it to mean. They take literally the parts they like and as allegory the parts they don’t, that’s why there are thousands of different denominations that all claim to be “Christian” while believing completely different things. All a religion is, at the end of the day, is a community of people who agree with each other’s ideas of morality. Because if they don’t agree with the church they just start a new church where God agrees with them.

>>507335428
>Logic
Who sets the rules of logic, golem?

>>507335694
That's the american way.

>>507329246
the new testament is literally about rabbi yeshua fulfilling all the prophecies from the old testament you dumb fucking mutt christuck

>>507334955
>We can't even call anything truly evil
The "natural evil" argument is just mentally retarded. Evil is a human concept that must apply exclusively to human behavior. A 100km wide asteroid obliterating human civilization isn't evil and neither is a wolf eating a deer alive. So let's forget about animals and nature. Evil doesn't apply to the act as much as it applies to the person that perpetrates it. Similar acts can be or not be evil depending on context. The best definition I've seen is, in a nutshell:

>a HUMAN being KNOWINGLY causing UNNECESSARY suffering when they HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO.

It tackles various issues with more broad definitions of evil. Including forced evil, unknowing evil, necessary evil. If you kill someone to defend yourself, it was necessary, you're not evil. If you're forced at gunpoint to do something evil, it was forced, you are not evil. If you do something without knowing it was evil, the act itself may be evil but you are not.

If you however decide to do something you know is evil just for the heck of it, you are evil.

>>507334955
You seem to think that atheists make moral judgements about nature or use the natural circle as basis for morality.
That doesn't make sense, morality in a naturalist sense is strictly about human behavior just like law only applies to humans and we aren't arresting wolves for eating deers.
Nobody claims that nature is moral just for being or that nature has any kind of authority.
Social codes are morals, personal codes are ethics. All try to stablish what's desirable (good) and what is not (evil) in function of the social needs.
Their desirability (of moral codes) is a good part of the reason why a society or faith triumphs or falls until it gets replaced by a society that lives more accordingly to the situation of the era

>>507335806
Which is funny because he literally doesn't fulfill a single one

>>507335428
>why hasn’t He fixed it yet?

Because he sent you here because he dont wana have you in his house? Not even i wanaq live with you people so i understand him 100%.

>>507327310 (OP)
You have no means to define evil.
Your approach is to say suffering, but there are plenty of things people suffer through just fine for reward. So you have to back from that.
Then you go to 'actual harm' and nevermind that you can't define that, but the pretzel bottom libshit providing chemical castration for children is hard-pressed to define harm in a way that doesn't destroy himself.
You haven't sufficiently demonstrated evil, and as a moral relativist, you won't be able to.

>>507335428
>can God create a married bachelor? a world where 2+2=5?
That's literally the world we live in right now.
G_d has created married bachelors and two plus two does equal five.

>>507335478
It´s how he shows his aspect of mercy

>>507335428
>maybe the same laws permitting deer suffering also permit free will, moral growth, and a universe where love means something.
That's retarded, you're making it more complex than it needs to be. Omnipotent god can remove all suffering without breaking other "rules". That's the definition of omnipotence. Nothing is beyond his reach. What the fuck even are rules to a being that's all powerful? He's the one that makes the rules. He could change them at will.

>>507335890
Whatever.
Go read more scripture or something.

>>507327310 (OP)
Actual "day of the lord":

THE PRE-EMPCOE phase will start at different times for everybody but the beginning is getting displaced by these events: by fire, by flood, by earthquake, by tornado, by hurricane, by rock, mud or landslide; or by a mandatory evacuation by the authorities under the guise of public safety

https://www.bitchute.com/video/YsxccERAYBQs/

>>507335806
Christ was before the rabbinical period

The man you're arguing with us a gnostic.

Gnostics question the normality of God as luciferians do. Just as pagans do

Both have zero percent chance of replacing Christianity and boy have they tried over that last 2000 years. Never came close.

>>507336046
Lol he literally doesn't. I know your abrahamic bullshit better than you. Let's play a game, you show me a fulfillment of prophecy and I'll show you the original text and how he literally doesn't

>>507335780
if logic is just human convention, then the objection is word salad. no "rules" = no argument against God.
if logic is real and necessary, then it points beyond materialism (since matter doesn't "prescribe" laws of thought) and welcome to theism, where mind grounds rationality.
if you're implying God is bound by logic, He's not, He IS logic. the same way He doesn't "obey" goodness, He IS good.

>>507335918
Evil is a purely human concept and becomes very easy to define when you understand that evil is an adjective that applies to human being exclusively.
>>507335825

>>507335636
The Hebrew word "tov", used in “God saw that it was good,” means not just morally good but also fitting, complete, and in harmony with its purpose.

>>507335649
But Job is an epic poem. It’s not presented as history and neither is it presented as if it’s possible it’s a false God. The prologue makes it clear it’s God. But here’s another point: most people complaining about “suffering” have never been crucified. God came to earth and the example He set for us was to be tortured to death. So why would we assume anything better for ourselves on earth?

>>507336196
Moral relativism. Turns out God is a better authority than some nigger leaf.
Next.

>>507327310 (OP)
Welcome to the real world. War is hell.
Yet you invite it by distancing yourself from God, who has told you exactly how to live that you and your people should prosper in peace.
The final redpill is that most people deserve a collar around their necks. You are not worthy of freedom.

>>507327310 (OP)

GOD SENT YOU HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE RIDICULOUS RETARDS AND ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE WITH YOU.

GO FUCKING KILL YOURSELF.

>>507328081
The problem of evil adapted to Christianity would be: If God is good, and therefore just, while I am wicked, why am I not being tormented in Hell right now? The answer is the cross.
>But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26 ESV)

>religious scholars itt
>omnipotent god creates everything perfectly
>you have to get a degree in religious studies to pretend to understand anything
Mission accomplished, "God".

>>507336188
You claim God is real and logic is real. The question was: "who sets the rules of logic", assuming your worldview

>>507327310 (OP)
Because they dont have an answer for it. It contradicts everything they think they know about their jewish god and they dont wanna think about it

>>507327660
>According to the Early Church, the Old Testament we have today has been corrupted by Kikes and is unreliable
Tell me about this. Exodus doesn't match up with historical records from Egypt, which show that greedy demon kikes ruled them from their capital of Avaris, literally the source of the English word avarice, meaning excessive greed, and were eventually overthrown and expelled.

>>507336253
There's nothing relative about it. Suffering is objective. Use this definition and try to find a case that doesn't apply:

>a HUMAN being KNOWINGLY causing UNNECESSARY suffering when they HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO

>jews worship the old testament god
>christians worship the old testament god
>jews are satanic
>christians are (not) satanic
how have crossniggers squared this circle for 2000 years? or are they just retarded?

>>507336411
You sound really butthurt. Have you considered killing yourself? Actual healthcare advice for a leaf btw

>>507336253
Also, jews are evil. If you need an objective metric for evil, think "is this something a jew would do?" if the answer is yes then it's evil.

>>507336447
Retroactively BTFO
>>507335918

You even qualified your suffering with 'unnecessary' because you think your moral relativist judgement even matters. You can't explain necessity or suffering.
Have you considered killing yourself? This is still medical advice.

>>507336006
If he showed mercy would he not have let Jacob go from the start?
Seeing it as a test? did Jacob not do something that changed the mind of an angel? If so then why would the "creator" in the garden of eden set Adam and eve away from the garden. Was that also a test or did the "creator" change his mind?
Is the world changing around "G_d" or is "G_d" simply reading from a script? And if so who wrote it? When god says "I am" what is he referring to?

Man changes his mind and man is made in the image of "G_d".

>>507336211
Ah the "words don't have meaning" argument. "Oh well ackshually, if I use this other language I can pretend words don't mean what they say!"
Abrahamists are liars

>>507335040
Oh because I've heard this before and I decided to head off your final bullshit before you had a chance to try it.

Anyway there is no problem of good. From an atheist/materialist point of view what is good is a matter of happenstance. In the case of humans what is good comes from a set of basic instinctual rules for existing as a social animal that requires a group for survival.

There is no problem here because there is no presuppositions about some magical conscious being that intentionally created everything.
There's only problems when there is an intentional design to it all.

This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

>>507336149
Um. Isaiah 53. Go verse by verse please.

>>507327510
Because niggers and their spawn are sub human.

>>507336312
>you have to get a degree in religious studies to pretend to understand anything
No, even children get the story.

>>507327310 (OP)
Explain to us, Finish homosexual, why do you always try to attack the believes with your strawman?

Don't you get it that this has never and will never work?
Can't you reason?

>>507336618
Great, this is the suffering servant. Did you know Israel is called the servant 31 times in Isaiah? Pretty obvious

>>507336595
>You even qualified your suffering with 'unnecessary' because you think your moral relativist judgement even matters
You seriously need a definition for the word unnecessary? How hard is it to understand?

>You can't explain necessity or suffering.
Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
Pretty clear cut definition.

>Necessary suffering = killing in self defense
>Unnecessary suffering = killing for fun

I'm pretty sure a 5yo child could have figured this one out lmao.

So, again, try to find a case that doesn't apply to the definition I provided for evil. If you can't do it, that just means the definition is accurate and probably applies to all possible scenarios.

Where in the Bible is rise up to kill the guy who’s going to kill you?

The book of Mossad ch 6 v 66?

>>507336213
In Abrahamic thought there is only but one G_d, but that doesn't necessarily mean job believes he himself is in contact or worshipping that particular "G_d" even if it is the "G_d" that is interacting with him.

>>507336600
God does not change His mind like a human. His interactions are not signs of indecision but expressions of a timeless, sovereign will that appears responsive within time yet always flows from the unchanging "I Am", meaning He is existence itself.

It's hilarious watching christcucks moving goalposts about the problem of evil to the "B-BUT EVIL ISN'T OBJECTIVE" as if an omniscient god doesn't know with 100% certainty what he means when he says something is evil lmfaooo

>>507336358
and i answered it.
God doesn't "set" logic, He IS logic.
logic isn't some arbitrary codex He scribbled down, it's the structure of His mind, the fabric of coherent reality.
this is why "Can God make 2+2=5?" is nonsense.
it's not because He's weak, but because nonsense stays nonsense even for omnipotence, His nature DEFINES rationality, not OBEYS it.

if you're assuming my worldview, then logic is grounded in God's nature, no "who set it?" needed.
if you're rejecting my worldview, then logic is either imaginary (then why argue?) or floating in space (good luck explaining that)
either logic requires a foundation (hello Logos) or stop pretending your objection has weight.
>>507336023
>omnipotence means no rules
no.
can God create a square circle? no, because words still have meanings.
can God "remove suffering without consequences?" only if those consequences themselves aren't necessary for greater goods (free will, love, etc)
you're basically asking "why doesn't God rewrite reality so "good" means nothing and "evil" means nothing," but then nothing means anything.
>he makes the rules!
yeah and "rules" include logical consistency because He's not a chaotic idiot.
if God made "suffering impossible," that might mean "love is impossible" (no risk, no sacrifice, no choice) or do you think a world where robots auto-pilot virtue is better?
>you're making it complex!
no, you're making it stupid by pretending reality is a sandbox game where God can toggle "SUFFERING: OFF" without collapsing the whole system.
if you can't think of a way to preserve free will, moral growth and love without suffering, maybe it's not a trivial problem.

God COULD snap his fingers and turn the universe into a frictionless puppet show where nothing bad ever happens, but that would also mean nothing good ever matters.

>you are born of sin
<why
>some dumb bitch ate an apple
<uh okay?
>but its okay god sent his son (who is somehow also himself) to get nailed to stick and so you don't have sin anymore
<alright great i guess
>nope, you gotta let me dunk your head into this bath of tepid water and then also give me 20% of your income else you'll still go to hell o algo
and we are supposed to believe this?

The universe is an enterprise. Some middle manager was put in charge of Earth and he's lying to his boss about what's going on to save his ass while profits keep dwindling thanks to his DEI policies.

>>507337107
Right, you claim logic is some magical thing that's part of God. I would simply asset logic is a descriptive system used by humans. How can paradoxes occur if God is logic?

>>507336609
>Ah the "words don't have meaning" argument.
I just told you the meaning. You are the one just taking your narrow minded defintion which contains of just on word "good".

>>507337269
I just showed that the word tov means moral good in Hebrew also so your argument doesn't hold water

>>507328716
Omnipotence is a paradox, and not really useful in describing God. Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? No.
It is good enough to realize that God is powerful beyond human comprehension yet subtle enough to destroy nations overnight without leaving a trace of his intervention.
Similarly, God can not force a stubborn person to do, think, or believe anything they don't want to while still allowing them free will. Only reveals the crazy stuff like giant angels to people with unshakable faith, and then only when it is important for him to do so.

>>507327510
Gotta use a carrot or stick.

If you're living thousands of years ago your life is already really shitty to begin with, so something like "famine", "your kids die in their sleep" or whatever is just par for the course. It's got to be fire and brimstone shit to have an impact

>>507335825
>>507335871
You are both missing the point. The fact that there is what you perceive as evil, that it is part of nature, nothing you can do anything about. You are doomed to live in a world where evil reigns supreme, and you should be thankful that you live in a pocket in the space time continuum in which your current leaders haven't yet made you enlist in the army to fight in a war in which you are sure to die. And that you are healthy enough to argue with idiots like me on the internet. See it as a blessing.

>>507335428

1.this is just semantics again. omnipotence means power over creation, not rewriting logic. nobody said 2+2=5, i asked why the natural order needs to include burning animals alive. if god is truly good and powerful he could have made a world without that kind of pain unless your god is stuck with one blueprint like a weak engineer.

2. skeptical theism just shifts the burden again, saying “you dont know if its pointless” is not the same as saying it isnt pointless, i never claimed omniscience. i’m pointing out the moral problem in your own system.
3. entering suffering doesnt solve it, god being present during agony HE allows doesnt answer why he allows it in the first place. it just makes it weirder.
4. saying now isn’t the end of the story doesn’t make the current horror go away. you just admit god lets it happen and you hope it’ll make sense later. that’s still choosing suffering where it isnt implicitly necessary.

>>507328081
I'm amazed nobody has given you the correct answer already, because it's incredibly fucking simple and this is something that even the Egyptians and Plato had figured out long before Augustine or Aquinas.

Evil is a privation. It owes its existence to the absence of something, it doesn't have self existence. In the same way that cold does not have self existence, cold is just the absence of heat. And darkness is just the absence of light. Now, God is the source of all goodness, so when a person does evil what's actually occurring is that they're acting with God absent in their minds. Blaming God for evil is like blaming the sun for darkness, it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Cause we deserve the fuKKKing worst. Have you seen the state of the world and the crimes that are committed daily everywhere? I'm not even xtian, I'm Satanist, in fact, it's just logic to hate humans.

>>507337245
if logic is just a "descriptive system" (ie, made up) then
>your argument against God is also made up
>paradoxes aren't "problems" they're just quirks of your arbitrary brain scribbles.
>actual consequences: science, math and reason collapse into opinion. enjoy solipsism.
if paradoxes do threaten logic's coherence (as you imply) then,
>you're admitting logic ISN'T descriptive, it's objective, and you're upset that it doesn't bend to your whims.
>actual consequences: you need an explanation for why logic exists as a real, universal standard. (theism provides on, materialism doesn't)

>how can paradoxes exist if God is logic?
false premise, paradoxes are APPARENT contradictions, not actual ones (eg, "can god make a buritto so big that he can't eat it?" is wordplay, not a real limit)
god's nature RESOLVES paradoxes (eg, Christ as fully God/fully man), not by magic, but by being THE ACTUAL GROUND OF REALITY.

you can't have it both ways, either:
logic is real: (and you lose, because it points to God), or
logic is fake (and you lose, because you forfeit all intellectual footing)

>>507337098
That's because they're trying hard to avoid the fact that they worship a powerful authority and every moral precept begins and ends there. They don't want to admit this because of all the implications of their faith that follows from that admission.

But I will remind everyone here, the first sin that damns all of the world is disobedience. The very first moral lesson in the Bible is that disobedience has grave consequences. This lesson is routinely reinforced over and over again...to the point that there is one supremely unforgivable sin even unforgivable by the sacrifice of Jesus and that is the sin of non-belief which is basically the sin of ignoring or otherwise known as insubordination.

>>507337064
So you would dehumanize G_d?
How is that the act of a loving G_d that is said to have made man in his image? Does G_d not give his image those characteristics of that which he himself possesses? Would you remove the humility of man as easily as you do from G_d and turn men into mere automata?

>>507337301
In hebrew thought, goodness includes fulfilling a purpose or function well, not merely ethical behavior. its specific meaning depends on the context in which it’s used.

>>507327660
Old testament and new testament are both Jewish poison, you're a retard if you believe any of that shit.

>>507336447
>a HUMAN being KNOWINGLY causing UNNECESSARY suffering when they HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO

There is nothing that says that if one wants to do this, he ought not do it. We have law based systems that produce consequences for doing deeds like this, but that's it. How many murderers, rapists and so on do you think are walking free?

>>507337595
>In the same way that cold does not have self existence, cold is just the absence of heat
So when does it get warmer? are we going to live in spiritual Antarctica forever?

>>507328479
>You can´t experience good without bad
Why not?Just separate good and bad, and delete the bad, and what you're left with is good. Why can't God do that?

>>507337707
It would mean both at all times, because every philosopher has already figured out that goodness and virtue are the same thing. It would also mean happiness. In order for any of those concepts to mean anything, they all have to mean the same thing. Only the good, wise and virtuous are happy.

>>507337644
>Full blown schizo rant
Logic is just a descriptive human system. How prove your desert cult is true. Show me your magical sky fairy

>>507336866
>You seriously need a definition for the word unnecessary?
It was necessary for a friend of mine to relieve some stress so he choked a kitten to death yesterday. This helped him not slaughter his own family, so it was actually a good thing.

>>507337549
> i asked why the natural order needs to include burning animals alive. if god is truly good and powerful he could have made a world without that kind of pain unless your god is stuck with one blueprint like a weak engineer.
>God had to kill animals to cover up Adam and Eve's nakedness with animal skin
>Sacrifice is now required for forgiveness of sins
>Jesus's death is final sacrifice needed as the innocent blood covers all of sin forever more

You stop posting once your thread is moved to /b/, which means you are only here for a dopamine hit.

>>507337707
>Pure cope
Next.

>>507337107
>can God create a square circle? no, because words still have meanings.
Anon, these words are 100% made up by human beings. There is no such thing as "circle" or "square" in the first place.

>can God "remove suffering without consequences?" only if those consequences themselves aren't necessary for greater goods (free will, love, etc)
Suffering doesn't need to exist for free will to exist anon. We're not talking about evil. We're talking about suffering. For example, god could remove diseases from the world and negate the suffering that comes from them. Diseases have no free will. Diseases cause suffering. Boom. Gone. Everyone still has free will.

How about getting stabbed? Ok, let the person who wants to stab you do it. That's their free will in action. But there's no suffering in the world. So it doesn't hurt and doesn't even injure you. The knife just slides in and out and the "wound" if you can even call it that just closes right back up. God is omnipotent. He could do it if he wanted.

>yeah and "rules" include logical consistency
a christkek using the term "logical consistency" is fucking hilarious. There's nothing logical about the christkek god.

>if God made "suffering impossible," that might mean "love is impossible"
That is literally retarded. A young child loves their newbord sibling even though they never made eachothers suffer or sacrifice or struggle or choose anything. The idea that love requires the existence of suffering is perhaps the most retarded thing you've said so far.

>you're making it stupid by pretending reality is a sandbox game where God can toggle "SUFFERING: OFF" without collapsing the whole system.
Why wouldn't he be able to do it? You definition of omnipotence and omniscience is quite pathetic desu. What makes you think the whole "system" would collapse? An all powerful god would just stop the system from collapsing lmao.

>preserve free will, moral growth and love without suffering
All can exist without suffering lol

>>507337749
You're the only one who can make yourself warmer, because your passageway to that warmth is through your own consciousness. If you want to become good, and thus happy and fulfilled, you have to make yourself good. Nobody else is responsible for your virtue. That's what's beautiful about it. No power on this earth can take your virtue away from you, if you've decided that you value virtue more than life itself. Virtue can only be taken away with your consent, through your own cowardice.

>>507337707
>not merely ethical behavior.
Ethical behavior is fulfilling a purpose well. That is in a sense all that goodness is. The only real purpose in Abrahamic thought.

>>507329284
>to go on unchecked????
But it doesn't go unchecked, it is being constantly opposed and prevented by evil. Imagine how good world could be without evil.

>>507337755
That´s like going to the gym without working out.

>>507337107
>God COULD snap his fingers and turn the universe into a frictionless puppet show where nothing bad ever happens, but that would also mean nothing good ever matters.

>"nooo you don't get it! God gave this 5 year old girl leukemia because... uhhh... her miserable life and death will make... uhhhhhhh... WELL SOMETHING GOOD THAT HAPPENED MEANINGFUL OKAY??? YES I SAID IT! SHE'S JUST A TOOL TO MAKE SOMETHING GOOD THAT HAPPENED TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON MEANINGFUL!!!"

>>507327510
jewish schizophrenia given form without optics in mind

>>507337549
>omnipotence isn't rewriting logic, but why burning animals?
you're still missing the point. if the natural order permits free will, moral growth, and a universe where actions have real consequences, then yes, pain is possible.
could God have made a world without it? maybe. but show me a SPECIFIC alternative where
>free will exists BUT no one abuses it
>ecosystems function BUT predation/suffering never occur
>love is meaningful BUT sacrifice is unnecessary
until you can describe this actual possible world (not just wave omnipotence like a magic wand) you're just whining that reality isn't a disney movie.

>skeptical theism shifts the burden!
the burden was always on you. your position is that the deer's suffering is objectively pointless.
if you say "there's no possible greater good here," you're claiming omniscience yourself, otherwise you're just admitting you personally don't see one, which is irrelevant.
>God entering suffering doesn't solve it!
it solves the accusation that He doesn't care. the cross proves He takes suffering seriously, more seriously than you do since he VOLUNTARILY endure it.
you're stuick on "why allow it" but ignore the answer: Because a world with real choices and real love is better than a puppet show.
if you reject that, fine, but then you're left with a universe where suffering is just random cruelty (which is way harder to justify)
>hope doesn't erase horror
yeah, but nothing "erases" horror, not even atheism. the question is "which worldview actually addresses it?"

yours: "suffering is meaningless, then you die"
mine: "suffering is tragic, but temporary, and will be redeemed"
>>507337898
retard

>>507327658
your common "X is anti-X" retardation on pol common among tribeman and gaytheists

>>507338114
It's good for the girl, too. She learns that life is temporary, that fortune doesn't bow to anyone, and that there are more important things in life than the banal shit that other people worry about. She also gets to witness the love and care she'll receive from her parents and the other adults around her, and catch a glimpse of virtue through them. Human consciousness can never be destroyed, so she's going to carry that lesson with her somewhere while also giving other people an opportunity to witness the same.

>>507337755
G_d already did that but that stupid bitch eve ate an apple and now here we are.

Don't blame G_d he tried to warn us.
Should have just stuck with Lilith and been happy with her, but for some reason she wasnt good enough for olde adam.

>>507337902
That was not necessary because he had other options. Necessary means there are NO other options. Killing in self defense is necessary if your life is in imminent danger. If you have the ability to NOT kill the other person and still do it, it was unnecessary. As for your example, he could have killed himself in a painless manner and prevented the slaughter of his own family for virtually zero amount of suffering. He could have relieved stress by punching a wall, smoking a joint, whatever.

>>507338114
Suffering in this life is as nothing compared to eternity.
Sorry, you just have to put up with it like a spoiled rich kid who is angry at his dad.

Abrahamists have been able to offer NO reason to believe their insane kike cult

>>507337736
>There is nothing that says that if one wants to do this, he ought not do it.
Right. And if one wants to do something that causes suffering when there is the option not to do it, that is evil.
Simple, right?

>>507337600
>satanist
>nazi flag
god you must be a fucking loser

>>507338435
And yet here you are posting under an American flag.

>>507337325
Yeah it's kind of cool how the all powerful being seems to do interventions that could be mistaken for natural disasters.
Also kind of cool how God goes from showing his power to everyone by parting a sea, bringing people back to life, walking on water, turning things into other things, plagues on demand, killing children of a specific birth order in one night, stopping the sun from setting to have more time for a flight....raining down fire in cities and turning a lady to salt...

All those examples to modern day where God reveals himself by burning his image in toast or shaping a cheeto like him or in ways that really seem like normal people did them like medical treatments being successful.

I was once told that miracles and proof of God is all around me but I'm just blind to them because I don't acknowledge them as miracles.
But there is a simpler answer that doesn't require me to listen and believe.
Either those big ticket item miracles really didn't happen the way described and attributed to God or maybe didn't happen at all...
Or maybe they did and your God actually just fucking abandoned this world. Or maybe he's just distracted.

>>507337736
>There is nothing that says that if one wants to do this, he ought not do it
Reason says he shouldn't want to do it in the first place. You're forgetting that the first role of reason is not merely to pursue goals, but also to establish goals. If you want something unreasonable, you don't suddenly become reasonable just because you used reason to chase the unreasonable. You're only reasonable, and thus only good, when your desires are in line with reason.

>>507327310 (OP)
Jews bombs, sniper shot and rape kids

>>507327310 (OP)
Why didn't Adam just make the right choice? Clearly there was something wrong with him otherwise he would have made the right choice. What was it? Why was he created in such a way? Was he created worse than he could have been on purpose? How can it be his fault?

>>507338436
>wants
What does that even mean?
Wants?
Desires? Is it about somebody's perogative? Do they yearn for it? Is it a necessity or a luxury that they wish to achieve?

>>507337444
That's not a blessing. That's the result of the actions of my ancestors

>>507337876
Good and virtue are not the same, as Plato says “There are many good things… but not all good things are virtues,”

>>507338311
>It's good for the girl, too.

>will never have a family of her own
>will never experience her teenage years
>will never experience romantic love
>leaves her entire family behind
>has to wait in heaven for decades for her family to die and hopefully join h-
>OOOPS! THE DEPRESSION TURNED THEM EVIL AND THEY'RE GOING TO HELL! BUT HEY AT LEAST YOU LEARNED SOMETHING RIGHT? HAVE FUN SPENDING ETERNITY ALONE IN HEAVEN I GUESS LMAO

You are literally fucking crazy.

>>507330808
Do tell. Apparently it was perfect, and then one moment it wasn't anymore. How can that be? Why didn't God make it properly, in such a way that it would be perfect and stay perfect?

>>507338785
>yes let me move the goalposts even further

>>507332027
Why can't we choose between two good things? What's wrong with that? Would we not be free to choose?

>>507338276
1.again youre just assuming this specific setup is the only way real love and free will can exist. pain and horror dont logically follow from love or freedom, unless you just define them that way. you're demanding i describe an alternate reality in full detail to even raise the question which is absurd. the point is that an all powerful god could have made one if he wanted, not that i or any other human has to be the architect.
2.i dont claim omniscience, i’m pointing out that allowing horrific suffering with no visible justification is morally questionable, even if a reason might exist. if a parent lets their kid get tortured and says “trust me theres a reason” thats not good parenting but abuse.
3.the cross is a story about god letting himself suffer one time. it doesnt explain the burning deer, it doesnt fix the problem and it doesn’t make it okay that he allows it every day for all creation.
4.no one said atheism erases suffering, stop pretending this is about opposing worldviews. the problem of evil is a critique of YOUR worldview claiming perfect goodness, while defending horrific natural evil. if you say “we dont understand but trust him anyway” then thats fine, just admit the problem isn’t solved.

>>507338866
I didn't think I needed to qualify it, but you're right. The Good is the source of all goodness, and virtue is the pursuit of and alignment towards the Good. But in practice, what this means it that all good people are virtuous and a person becomes good in no way other than through virtue. There are other things that are good, such as truth, but truth isn't a virtue rather honesty is the virtue that relates to truth.

>>507338114
It's even worse when you realize the Bible says that most people go to hell. So it's not like this reality has the least possible suffering.
Most people go to hell. How can an all powerful all loving all knowing God justify this?

benevolent jewgod narrative is simply incompatible with reality. the bible massively fails its own internal logic countless times

christianity being a jewish psyop against gentiles however..

>>507338684
One way to interpret it is that they're told they will die.
But do Adam and Eve know what death is at this point? What that means for them?
Likely not.
So if you take that route then there is the possibility that there is a whoopsie on the part of God here. He gave an instruction but didn't take into account that the people he's instruction are familiar with all the terms.
But then you have to ask what that tree is doing there in the first place.

And it all falls apart when you start asking these questions but if you consider that these are stories meant to impart a moral lesson on children and teens then it all holds up and this is the way it works out.

>Hey dad why do people die?
Because a long time ago the first people ate the apple of good and evil and that corrupted the world.
>Oh why did they do that?
They disobeyed God.
>Gosh why would they do that
They were tricked by the devil disguised as a snake
>Ohhh
Yeah and that's why you should clean your room when I tell you to and stop hanging around that shit ass liar kid from down the street.

>>507327310 (OP)
>read words in the bible
>this means god approves of these actions

>>507327510
>Why is the Old Testament so gruesome?

https://youtu.be/WZg6_eqczMI?si=FC5DqA9aHJ05M3Tr

>>507338538
Lol read the treaty of Tripoli

>>507339188
>this pic again
Oh, fuck, no...

>>507339188
>jewgod created satan
>jewgod put the tree right there
>jewgod put the weak willed woman
>jewgod made adam naive

Where was your heavenly father and his legions of angels when the snake came for his children?

Nowhere. He was jerking off in the bushes because he was about to gaslight humanity for his torture planet.

>>507338873
>will never have a family of her own
>will never experience her teenage years
>will never experience romantic love
That wouldn't have made her wise or happy or fulfilled.

>leaves her entire family behind
That shows her the value of family, the beauty of love and the pain of loss. All important lessons necessary in order for a person to become good. Even if she had managed to survive, those lessons would still be necessary at some point in order for her to not be a selfish narcicist.

>THE DEPRESSION TURNED THEM EVIL
Only through her own choices, would that ever be possible. Every individual is responsible for their own impressions. If you're capable of being made sad, depressed, angry or frustrated, that's your own fault for not living up to your responsibilities. The things we encounter in this life aren't valuable for their own sake, they're only valuable for the sake of something else. When you figure out what that something else is, and learn how to truly love it, that's when you've left Plato's cavern. But until then, you're just gnashing and wailing at shadows, blaming them for your sorry state.

>>507337945
>words are made up, circles don't exist
if you're a solipsist now, then your entire argument is also made-up nonsense and this is a waste of time.
but if you actually believe logic/math describe reality (which you do, or you wouldn't argue,) then you're admitting abstractions have objective grounding (which points straight to God)
>diseases don't need to exist
sure, God COULD make a world where viruses are harmless, but
maybe diseases ARE the side effect of a system that ALSO allows biological complexity, adaptation, and resilience.
maybe suffering ISN'T the point, maybe the RESPONSE to it (compassion, courage, healing) is the greater good.
you're assuming a world without disease is STRICTLY BETTER, but unless you've run the cosmic simulations, that's just a guess.
>knives don't need to hurt
if stabbing doesn't hurt, then free will is meaningless (actions have no weight) and morality is pointless (no stakes, no growth)
you're not describing a better world, you're describing a video game cheat code
>love doesn't need suffering
a child's love for a sibling is innocent, not tested. real love, the kind that sacrifices, perseveres, forgives, requires teh possibility of pain. otherwise it's just affection, not love.
>God could just stop the system from collapsing
translation: "God should magically patch reality so it fits my preferences!"
but why assume your preferences align with the greatest possible good? unless you're God, you're just asserting your tastes as cosmic law.

you're not arguing for a coherent world, you're arguing for a cartoon where
>actions don't matter
>growth is unnecessary
>love is untested
>reality bends to your whims
if you really think that's better, then prove it, show me the actual blueprint for this world hwere
>free will exists but evil has no consequences
>biology functions but pain is impossible
>love is deep but sacrifice is irrelevant

>>507327310 (OP)
What book of the bible is that from?

>>507327510
because is jewish
the new testament was roman aka whiter influeced wich is why it is less retarded

>>507338684
>Why didn't Adam just make the right choice?

>>507337945
>The idea that love requires the existence of suffering is perhaps the most retarded thing you've said so far.
Actually, he's objectively correct. To love or have compassion somebody, by definition what that means is to want what's best for them. It doesn't just mean "to have a strong emotional attachment to", because even abusive mothers act on that sort of phony, selfish love when they destroy their children. But to want what's best for somebody, you have to want their situation to improve. Somebody's situation can only improve if their current situation is not perfect. So imperfection is necessary, otherwise there could be no desire to see somebody be and do better, and thus there could be no compassion or love.

>>507339368
Well certainly the idea that suffering is the whole point of the creation does solve a lot of problems and answer a lot of questions. I can see why the gnostics came to their conclusions.
Also it would mean that the worship of God is an appeal to lessen one's personal suffering.
>I'll do whatever you say please stop hitting me.

>>507327310 (OP)
I'm sure the concept of free will was explained to you, so we'll just attribute it to your invincible ignorance

>>507339643
>the new testament was roman
Kek, yeah bro.

>>507339094
tov in the Genesis is more functional, referring to what works rightly in creation, not necessarily implying moral virtue in a cultivated moral character.

>>507327510
The OT is the truest expression of the Jewish soul: revengeful, genocidal, paranoid, legalistic, schizo.

>>507340023
i didn´t say romann, said it had more roman influce wich is why is it less retarded
it is still jewish but less

>>507339280
What about it?

>>507327310 (OP)
>>507327505
Something from nothing (creation) requires positive and negative. Good and evil. For God to be good and create good He also has to create (You)

>>507339224
It's from Isaiah.
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13.htm
The book is attributed to the prophet Isaiah and the words therein are the commands from God and prophecies from God that Isaiah wrote down. It's believed much of it was written during the Babylonian captivity and the part in the OP is explicitly directed at Babylon, describing what will happen to them when the LORD has his way.

So yes, God enthusiastically supports the doing of everything written in this feverish Jewish revenge fantasy.

>>507340096
Yeah, like totally dude.
And the nazis weren't Austrian they were just heavily influenced by an Austrian.

>>507337945
4Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

>but muh children with cancer
>i don't have children its bad for enviroment

You have to be age 18+ to post here.

Jannies clean this up.

>>507339407
So this is what schizophrenia is like

>>507339446
Anon there is literally no rule in the universe that specifies what a square or a circle is. These are human definition. If you go down to the atomic level there's no such thing as a right angle, so how the fuck can a square exist? Our definitions of shapes merely help us work at our scale even if at the atomic scale a perfect 90 degree angle is physically impossible. An omnipotent God doesn't need to work with human made definitions.

>maybe diseases ARE the side effect of a system that ALSO allows biological complexity, adaptation, and resilience.
So God couldn't have created a system with biological complexity, adaptation and resilience without diseases? Not omnipotent then.
>maybe suffering ISN'T the point
yet it still exists while God could make it not exist.
>but unless you've run the cosmic simulations, that's just a guess.
lmao really? I guess you should tell doctors to run the cosmic simulations and see if curing diseases is really a good thing lmao. fuck it, let's go back to a world where getting an amputation is almost invariably fatal due to infection. guess there's no point bothering with sterile surgical equipment, let me just lick this knife clean and I'll remove that pesky leg what say you anon?


>if stabbing doesn't hurt, then free will is meaningless
How so? Free will isn't freedom to do something that's impossible. Even if I want to make you turn into a pile of cum socks right now, the fact that I can't do it doesn't mean my free will is meaningless. It just means my free will can't help me do that shit. So if you stab someone and it doesn't do anything, it just means your free will isn't going to help you harm someone else. You can keep stabbing them. That's your free will allowing you to do it. But there's no pain and suffering in this world. Harming someone being impossible doesn't limit your free will, just like my inability to turn you into cum socks right now doesn't limit mine

>>507340100
Why are christ niggers such dishonest fags? Oh that's right, they're Jewish

>>507340549
>Plato, Epictetus, Socrates, Buddha, Christ, Plotinus, Marcus Aurelius, Aristotle and literally every other wise and decent person in human history are all schizos because I didn't get my way one time and it made me mad
You're acting like a child.

>>507328081
The Bible explains this.
The Bible says
>This world is ruled by Satan
>Satan roams the earth, he isn't in Hell yet.
>Satan even offers Jesus this world and Jesus refused it.
>Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world
>>507327972
No, gnostics got it wrong. See above.

>>507329312
The problem of evil only happens when an all-powerful god is explicitly stated to be ostensibly good. So it started with Christianity. The Jew god was (clearly) not good so the problem of evil couldn't really exist until 200 AD or so.

>>507327310 (OP)
Because saulstians are hypocrites. They love quoting yeshuah on love, but get real quiet when he says he came to divide families and pit the son against the father, the brothers against one another, and that to follow him you must hate your family.

>>507339446
>a child's love for a sibling is innocent, not tested. real love,
so "untested" love is not real love? says who?
>translation: "God should magically patch reality so it fits my preferences!"
First of all if he's benevolent removing suffering should be his preference and second, why not? Isn't he supposed to be all powerful?
>you're not arguing for a coherent world, you're arguing for a cartoon where
A coherent world could exist without suffering if an all powerful god wanted it to. To argue otherwise is mental retardation. You're altering the definition of all powerful to fit your narrative. All powerful means ALL POWERFUL. End of story.

>actions don't matter
Actions can matter without suffering.
>growth is unnecessary
Growth can be necessary without suffering.
>love is untested
Love can be tested without suffering.
>reality bends to your whims
What the fuck are you talking about? You're the one saying that a person living in a world where a knife can't hurt someone else should magically be allowed to hurt them despite it being physically impossible because "muh free will"

>show me the actual blueprint for this world hwere *insert shit I never said*
no thanks, mr. strawman

>>507340549
>Anon there is literally no rule in the universe that specifies what a square or a circle is. These are human definition
You're confusing the name for the thing itself. Circles and squares objectively exist. Humans beings didn't invent them, they discovered them. In the same way that human beings discovered that 2+2=4. Now, just because one culture uses 2 to represent the idea and another uses II, doesn't mean that two as a number doesn't exist objectively. They're humans labels with objective definitions. No one gets to decide that 2 and 2 don't add up to 4, because it's an immutable fact that existed well before humanity and will continue to exist even if all human beings are annihilated.

How do christ copers deal with yahwehs obvious injustice. My favorite example is when God punished David by having his wives and concubines raped.

>>507328479
That's bullshit. I didn't need to starve in filth to enjoy my childhood, and niggers/jeets from shithole countries don't appreciate the chance to do good, they immediately rape and kill.

>>507338351
But that my friend would slaughter his family wasn't necessary either, if it wasn't necessary for him to choke the kitten. What you've come to argue now is that anything that potential might happen, that might do harm, can be ameliorated through a person killing himself.
Meaning, you ought to kill yourself lest you cause unnecessary harm. What is necessary then, when we've got such an elegant solution to unnecessary harm? It seems it's necessary to kill oneself, if one should not potentially cause unnecessary harm.

>>507340549
you're conflating physical instantiations with abstract truths. while perfect geometric shapes don't exxist materially, their mathematic properties remain necessarily true (eg, a square's definition.)
omnipotence doesn't mean violating logical truths, it means God can actualize any possible world.
the question isn't about "human definitions" but about coherent possibilities.
the argument isn't that God couldn't create disease-free biology, but that certain goods (like immune system resilience, evolutionary adaptation) may require systems where malfunction is possible. this isn't a limit on power, but on composing certain goods together, what philosophers call the "problem of co-instantiability"
your medical analogy misfires. doctors work within a fallen system to alleviate suffering, which is morally good. but creating an initial world-system involves different considerations than inttervening in an existing one. the question is about fundamental creation parameters, not intervention.

in regards to you free will and harm thing, you're confusing two types of impossibility,
logical (turning someone into socks)
moral (making harmful actions inconsequential)
the latter would create a world where moral choices lack significance. if stabbing caused no harm, the moral dimensions of violence would disappear. it would just be performance art. true moral freedom requires that choices have real effects.
the argument isn't that suffering is "good" but that certain kinds of worlds may require the possibility of suffering to realize particular greater goods. an omnipotent God can actualize any possible worlds, but not all goods may be compossible (able to exist together)

>>507327310 (OP)

>>507341064
The mental concept of "2" doesn't exist without humans arbitrarily projecting imaginary divisory lines.

>>507341064
>Circles and squares objectively exist
They literally do not. These are human concepts. A square is a shape with 4 right angles. A perfect 90 degree angle is physically impossible because atoms vibrate unless you get to absolute zero, which is, you guessed it, physically impossible. The most perfect sphere still has bumps, therefore our measurements are all but approximations, especially considering PI has infinitely many digits.

These concepts help us build things at our scale. But they're not real. There is no definition of what a square is in the universe. If you subscribe to quantum mechanic theories, there are some universal laws that govern all behavior in the universe called symmetries. They do not include definitions for shapes.

>>507338436
>And if one wants to do something that causes suffering when there is the option not to do it, that is evil.
Ok. And why ought someone not be evil? Don't say it to me, say it as if to the person who has set his mind on doing something evil.

>>507341239
So you're saying that two apples on a log don't actually exist unless there's a person there to witness it and say "Hey that's two apples". What you're arguing is that reality itself is subjective and dependent upon an observer, which is a self defeating. You've made two huge concessions that don't act in your favor. For one, if reality is subjective then any random person saying "God exists because I say so" makes it true, since reality depends on his perception and what he says becomes reality. For two, if you're saying that reality depends on an observer then there must have been an observer before the first human was born in order to conceptualize a human and say "hey that's a human". By your own failed argument, a human being is just an arbitrarily projected division and the one doing the projecting would have to be God.

>>507340768
>conveniently ignores Epicurus
lmao

>>507341512
He's not a philosopher, nor was he wise or good. He was a hedonist who argued against philosophy.

>>507340930
>The problem of evil only happens when an all-powerful god is explicitly stated to be ostensibly good. So it started with Christianity.
The Problem of Evil predates Christianity by far, mouth breather. It goes back at least to Epicurus and earlier still.

>>507341504
Your definition of one apple involves your human brain conceptually demarcating one collection of atoms and molecules as a separate object from others. This is a survival mechanism and has no reality. Division is a concept of the human mind. Theres just one completely indivisible universe. Objects as separate entities is an illusion

Christianity created the greatest civilization and technology the world has ever seen. Stay mad and keep shoving objects into your rectums, faggots.

>>507341464
It literally does. The rules of geometry and mathematics are consistent across all of reality and across every human civilization, despite them never having met at the times they were discovering these rules. Just because a square doesn't exist in matter doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. A math equation doesn't have to be represented in matter in order for it to be an objective fact that exists independent of human observation.

>>507327510
>Why is the Old Testament so gruesome?

Yahweh. the god of Old Testament was a psycho alien

>>507327510
Bronze age gods were like that. They were manifestations of the state

>>507341699
So you're saying that all of reality is dependent upon a mind that existed before matter in order to give that matter coherency and form. Congratulations, you've just argued that God exists.

>>507341754
This is just saying we notice there are patterns. Laws and principles are just patterns. Theres no platonic reality

>>507341183
That´s like never playing, because it could include losses through the game. Playing the story mode with cheats on the first run would be boring.

>>507341850
I literally didn't, I said the opposite. It's not only not dependent, it doesn't exist at all.

>>507341739
Why didn't it manage to create it in Africa?

>>507341917
Objective patterns that exist independent of us and our opinions about them. That's literally the definition of reality.

>>507342006
OY VEY!

>>507341739
All derived from Greek and Roman art

>>507341974
If reality doesn't exist then what are you arguing? Why are you arguing? Who are you arguing with? You're just collapsing into a black hole onto yourself. The moment you insist that reality doesn't exist, you've just discounted your own position, because by your own admission you can't be right about anything if there is no anything to be right about.

>>507342031
They aren't objective, they're just human minds noticing patterns. But objects as separate entities don't exist. Everything is one, division is something the human mind does as a survival mechanism, that doesn't make it real. Just as your dreams and imaginations aren't real. You could argue that they have some level of reality as they appear in the mind but it would of course have to be a lesser reality than what we agree upon as "objective"

>>507342153
I didn't say that, I said separation and division is an illusion.

>>507341504
>So you're saying that two apples on a log don't actually exist
No you fucking retard, he's saying that the word TWO doesn't have meaning without human beings attributing meaning to it. As far as the universe is concerned at the quantum scale, these "two" "apples" are indistinguishable from the log they're on. As these two distinct objects to us are to the universe at the quantum scale a bunch of subatomic particles which are part of a unified field in which all emerging particles are equal. That's how they explain all electrons being the same regardless of where you are in the universe. They're part of the same "field". The "apple" is just a human definition for a specific type of amalgamation of these subatomic particles.

>>507341939
Once again, you're retarded. You learn something from slightly burning your hand for half a second, you don't learn anything from being burned alive at the stake or crucified. Evil doesn't create good people who are thankful when the situation changes, it creates more fucked-up people, period.

>>507342163
In german we say "Wirklichkeit" (reality). It contains the word "Wirkung" (effect). So reality is everything that has an effect.

>>507342240
That's my original point, is that he's confusing the word TWO and the symbol 2 with the actuality of there being two of something. It doesn't matter what language you use to represent the fact that "two and two add up to four", because it remains an objective fact for all time, independent of humanity witnessing it, that two and two together are four.

>>507342388
Thats actually interesting, thank you

>>507332978
In summary

>>507342163
All animals do this. It's not a function of the human mind specifically.
>Everything is one
But there is disparity

>>507341592
>nooo that guy wasn't smart because... uhh... because I don't agree with him okay?!
lmao

>>507341478
>And why ought someone not be evil?
Because it causes suffering.

>>507342427
I understand, the concept of "2" is the same everywhere, because we call the pattern of duality, "2". My assertion is that this pattern is a result of human minds creating and projecting IMAGINARY lines of separation. There in fact is "not two"

>>507342502
There is no disparity

>>507341185
>But that my friend would slaughter his family wasn't necessary either, if it wasn't necessary for him to choke the kitten
Right. And if he does it anyway, he's evil.
>What you've come to argue now is that anything that potential might happen, that might do harm, can be ameliorated through a person killing himself.
Correct.
>Meaning, you ought to kill yourself lest you cause unnecessary harm.
Only if there is no other option but to cause unnecessary harm, then yes, doing that harm to myself is the best option.

>>507327310 (OP)
>Why do /pol/ Christians always handwave and dismiss the Problem of Evil?
because you are an insincere retard philistine who deserves only sodomy and death.

>>507342246
Your examples give the opportunity to improve as society by not killing people we accuse of wrong doing.

>>507342163
Again, you're arguing towards God without realizing it. If all things are one then all things come from one and are within one. The human mind wouldn't even be able to make distinctions if distinction itself didn't exist within that one prior to the human mind, because as a rule nothing springs from nothing. The human mind wouldn't inherit the ability to distinguish from a cause that itself had no ability to distinguish, because a cause can never bestow an effect it doesn't already possess.

>>507342884
>Nothing springs from nothing
Where is there nothing?
The human mind is attached to a physical "object", the brain. So where is this nothing?

>>507341239
>The mental concept of "2" doesn't exist without humans arbitrarily projecting imaginary divisory lines.
>arbitrarily projecting
Found the leftist kike.

>>507343063
>Worship my rabbi or you're a Jew!
Eat a foreskin, golem.

>>507342655
I think there is. Else there would be uniform distribution of energy - no potential for anything to happen

>>507343009
>Where is there nothing?
Nowhere, because all things are within that one and all things come out of it.

>The human mind is attached to a physical "object", the brain
The human mind uses the brain, but the brain isn't responsible for the human mind. An inferior cause can never produce a superior effect, rather a cause always has to be superior to its effect. It would be a logical impossibility for matter to create mind, but mind can create matter.

>So where is this nothing?
We're all inside of the one, and the one is all.

>>507343264
Why would that be the case?

>>507343259
>mentally ill kike lashes out incoherently
I don't believe in any gods, I just noticed your 50 genders postmodern ideology posing as off-brand buddhism and thought you deserve to be named.

>>507327310 (OP)
This is very easy to answer. The problem is that the thread is at its end. If anyone is willing to open up another thread about this subject I can answer OPs pic.

>>507343338
>An inferior cause can never produce a superior effect, rather a cause always has to be superior to its effect. It would be a logical impossibility for matter to create mind, but mind can create matter.
This is nonsense. We can literally watch complexity arise from simplicity.

>>507343401
>Random straw man
Sure thing, shlomo

>>507341189
>their mathematic properties remain necessarily true
according to our own definitions of said properties, yes. If you've seen the type of shit mathematicians come up with, you'll know that this shit isn't as cut and dried as you think it is. Case in point, that fever dream video called "turning a sphere inside out". Is it possible to turn a sphere inside out without breaking it open? Most will say no, some will say yes, because some field of mathematics (aka topology) uses a set of rules that allow that shit to happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_eversion

The point is, this type of shit is equivalent to 1+1=2 in the eyes of the universe, because human made concepts don't need to be rooted in physical reality. There is no "line of code" in the universe that dictates a square is a 2D shape with 4 right angles.

>doctors work within a fallen system to alleviate suffering, which is morally good
But removing suffering entirely isn't?

Your entire argument relies on the premise that removing suffering somehow removes all meaning from everything else but you've yet to make a convincing argument as to why that is. You're so desperate to argue for why a benevolent god allows suffering to happen that you can't even fathom the possibility of a meaningful world without suffering in it. You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Your actions can have meaning even in a world without suffering, for there are MANY actions you can take right now that do not involve any suffering.

If you buy a gift to your sibling on their birthday, the fact that you gave them a gift has meaning to them. that gift itself has meaning to them. no suffering involved in this interaction whatsoever.

If your best argument here is that removing suffering removes meaning from actions that cause suffering, why is that a bad thing and why wouldn't a benevolent god do this? Sounds like a far better world than what we got.

>>507343445
Simplicity is superiority, complexity is dependency. Look at it this way: A multiplicity is made up of many things simpler than it. It's dependent on each of those simples and owes its existence to them, thus it's inferior and submissive to them. And each of those simples is dependent upon simpler simples. When you follow this chain, you must eventually reach something that's One and truly simple. It has no dependencies, it's self existent and utterly simple, thus utterly perfect and self contained. Perfection and simplicity are the same principle.

>>507343564
>subhuman automaton doubles down in its incoherent lash-outs against imaginary religious enemies
The perils of having no prefrontal cortex. Anyway, please tell me more about how being able to tell objects apart and count them is "arbitrary" and "subjective".

>>507343720
Simple and complex are just humans definitions for levels of density. It doesn't refute the non dual nature of reality

>>507341189
>you're confusing two types of impossibility
No I'm not. In a world without suffering, stabbing someone to harm them is a logical impossibility, because there is no such thing suffering in the world. Just like there is no such thing as the ability to turn someone else into a pile of cum socks in our world.

>>507343828
>Separation exists
>Because it was real in my mind
Real convincing kike worshipper

>>507343832
Oh, I get it now. Every time you're objectively proven wrong with logic you're just going to say "that's just a human definition" because you can't actually argue at an adult level. Here, let me try.

The non dual nature of reality is just an arbitrary human definition, it doesn't refute the existence of The One.

>>507327510
It's the jewy bit. New testament is the corrections. It negates most of the jewy practices.

>>507343924
Are you hearing voices? Still waiting for you to explain why being able to distinguish between objects is "arbitrary" and "subjective". Start with "arbitrary". :^)

Notice how you have no recourse except to deflect and chimp out some more.

>>507341153
>How do christ copers deal with yahwehs obvious injustice.

Jesus did not worship Yahwh
https://youtu.be/0nmNr0km-p4?si=KOg2pEK7dM6WM7TA

>>507343979
Because unfortunately for you, your imaginary lines in your head don't actually divide reality

>>507328081
dude the fact that you cannot answer such a basic question yourself just shows how retarded you are and how shallow your understanding of religion really is.

The whole idea of bad things/suffering existing somehow "disproving" God is childish and stupid. May as well ask "why God let people die if he is so good?" without acknowledging where the life came from in the first place.

>>507344020
Where is the separation in the universe? Oh it's your imagination

>>507327310 (OP)
Without the Christian morality compass, how do you define evil anyway?

>>507344026
Jesus is allegedly Yahweh

>>507344139
>Where is the separation in the universe?
Notice how I correctly predicted that you will spend the rest of the thread deflecting. I didn't assert any "separation in the universe". Try again, nigger.