Are there any non-pleb tier answers to the Problem of Evil?
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent
That's not how it works.
>>841455
Errr. Okay. I guess you solved it by saying "that's not how it works".
Congratulations for outfoxing all the great philosophers and theologians of all time.
>>841446
The problem is that Epicurus and a great many understandings of God assume he still operates in the binary of good and evil.
God is totally beyond both good and evil. The destroyer is also a creator, where there is gain there is also lose.
>>841446
The Catholic answer would be that evil is simply the absence of good, and the "good" of free will necessitates the possibility of evil
>>841481
>Congratulations for outfoxing all the great philosophers and theologians of all time.
Why have this thread if you're gonna say this? No one here is a great philosopher or theologian.
the problem of evil denies that god is the solution to evil in which case you're ignoring scripture when it suits your argument to do so
>>841491
I'm not suggesting they are but "that's not how it works" ain't a good answer, whether you're a MacDonalds worker or the greatest thinker of all time.
>>841483
So from a human perspective he is completely indifferent.
>>841485
Does evil exist in heaven?
>>841497
Scripture? What particular religion are you arguing on behalf of? And how does whatever scripture you follow answer the Problem of Evil satisfactorily?
Humans can never know whether something is actually evil. Only God has the wisdom to decide that.
You not liking something does not mean it's evil.
>>841520
>he is completely indifferent
No, he's deeply vested in humanity. An irreplacable part of him would die if we died.
Think about the eco system, that too is both good and evil, but yo wouldn't say it is indifferent to us, rather we are inseperatly wrapped in it. We also contribute to it, a great deal because of how significant humans are.
So we also contribute to God, it's a symbiotic relationship.
>>841563
>No, he's deeply vested in humanity. An irreplacable part of him would die if we died.
You seem to be best friends with him. Been chatting to him have you while he lays out all his hopes and dreams and darkest secrets to you?
>Think about the eco system, that too is both good and evil, but yo wouldn't say it is indifferent to us,
I probably would say an eco-system is indifferent to us, yes. It doesn't have a mind or form opinions about anything at all.
>>841560
>Humans can never know whether something is actually evil.
>>841576
Good is a point of view Anakin. Unless you are God
>>841560
I am a human, asking a human question using human words. God not liking something, or liking something, does not come into whether I consider it evil.
>>841588
But God made you in His image.
>>841583
U a christfag though? Case the bible says moral knowledge is inborn just saying.
>>841583
And humans can experience evil, so they know what it is
>>841549
it was never a problem to begin with
>>841596
>But God made you in His image.
Whew, lad. Lamest answer to the Problem of Evil that I have ever heard.
>>841608
In other words you have no answer.
>>841560
>Being this retarded.
>>841619
i already gave an answer. god is the solution to evil
>>841627
That doesn't even begin to be an answer.
>>841605
Do they? They have opinions, only God can decide what is truly evil. The disciples thought the crucifixion was a bad idea. They were wrong, God was right
>>841641
it does. the 'problem of evil' isn't even a problem because it is in god's plan that it is solved. he has willed it gone and his plan unfolds day by day. you're expecting a pleb answer and i can understand you don't quite get what i'm saying
>>841529
Do you even know what heaven is?
>>841656
Pre-meditated murder of children is an evil act, basing your morals on a mythical narrative is embarrassing.
>>841680
It's a simple yes or no question. Does evil exist in heaven?
>>841573
>You seem to be best friends with him
God isn't anthropomorphized. Think about how ideologies work, how they seem to have a life of their own, and they have a symbiotic relationship with humans. They 'improve' the lives of people but also need the people to give the concept mobility.
Sometimes you might say an idealogy or ecosystem appears to have 'goals' or 'wants' because it move in certain directions.
God is like that. It's the reason you can influence him but he can also influence you, because an essential nature of him is wrapped up in humanity itself. It's also why God is both good and evil because it 'learned' both these traits from humans.
>>841446
>Ctrl + f
>no Liebniz
>>841739
Candid
>>841748
>implying Candide takes apart the beat of all possible worlds
>implying the ending doesn't back up the idea
>>841690
A Catholic would say that someone choosing to commit evil would not be in heaven, because being in heaven implies a state of perfect grace,
>>841512
Not the anon you replied to, but that statement of Epicurus needs context. What are his definitions, why is that malevolent? It does of course fall into the very old, very unsolved question of theology: Free Will and the nature of God. It's a huge bitch.
>>841756
So evil does not exist in heaven?
Read this, OP:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm
Here's a summary of Thomas Aquinas on the problem of evil. Taken from the "problem of evil" wikipedia page:
>Saint Thomas systematized the Augustinian conception of evil, supplementing it with his own musings. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature.[87] There is therefore no positive source of evil, corresponding to the greater good, which is God;[88] evil being not real but rational—i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things or persons. All realities are in themselves good; they produce bad results only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil is fundamentally good, as well as the objects in which evil is found.[89]
Free will is demonstrably false. If there is a God I think something like free will would separate it from us.
>>841841
>Free will is demonstrably false
Explain
>When this thread was literally answered in first post and everyone keeps debating anyways
>>841869
Please forgive that this is a PopSci article, I'm on mobile
http://gizmodo.com/a-simple-computer-tests-shows-the-limitations-of-our-fr-1750918442
Another way to look at it, the next time you make a decision, do your very best to sieze the reason you made it. Keep going back into your chain of thought until you reach the genesis of the decision that you perceived as an act of will. Even if your decisions were governed by random processes and therefore unpredictable, that does not explicitly prove free will.
>>841897
Forgot to include the second part of my first statement.
You can't find the beginning of your thought. It was seemingly pulled from nowhere.
Also consider a thought experiment. You have a time machine. It's not a very fun one; when you go back in time, you do not get to keep your memories from the future. So you've decided to go back in time to the moment before you decided to wear your brown shoes instead of your black shoes. Given that your mental state is precisely the same now as it was the first time you made this decision, what could possibly change the outcome now? Nothing. Every particle in the universe is in the same exact spot and your neurons will fire in the same exact order again.
>>841897
The article is interesting.
But I'd like to make analogy about it.
Let's say we are playing a video game, you vs me. But you have a hack set up that allows you to see my hand of cards, or the units I have, or where my character is, some sort of information like that. Of course you would be able to predict what I would do reasonably. If you say I told my workers to 'build tanks' you could predict I would have tanks before I had tanks. Or if you saw me tapping two islands and the only spell in my hand is counter spell you would know I would play the spell before I play it. Or if you saw me switching to the grenade you would know I would throw the grenade before I throw it.
This is what the computer is doing in this situation. The computer is essential input reading.
>>841931
But you are already aware of what those in-game actions are - the hack analogy is just extending the original premise of the argument for free will, that, basically, some undetectable property allows free will's existence. This research shows that we can measure the unconscious potentials of action and predict the result before the subject is even aware of their decision. Using your analogy, that amounts to the hack knowing you are going to build tanks before you even want them.
>>841960
I'll extend the hacker acknowledge and relate back to the experiment.
Let's say I KNOW I am being hacked. In this case to defeat the hacker I need to trick him. Make it look like I am going to do something but actually do something else.
Now how would we trick the hacking machine. One could to build your own little machien that presses the button at a certain interval.
The more I know about how the machine thinks the more ways I could find to defeat it. I may for instance learn how to 'fake' the sensation of pushing the button and even move my arm but 'miss' the button. Back to the hacker analogy if I know the exact details of the hack you are using I could know how to defeat you.
The hacking machine in your example is very effective because the players do not realize their opponent has a hack. So they are 'choosing' to play in a certain way. If they had knowledge of the hack they could choose to play very differently and finding ways to trick the machine. Even the most powerful prediction in the world can be thwarted with the right type of knowledge. For instance suppose you created a machine that could calculate the trajectory of every atom in the universe and thus know what it's state will be like in the future. Your machine informs me that I will eat chicken tomorrow, but to thwart the machine I eat pork instead. However if you did NOT tell me what the machine said I would have eaten chicken.
free will argument (sort of) answered the problem of moral evil
the problem of natural evil is less of a logical problem and more of a probabilistic one i.e. is it LIKELY that a loving god would strike people down with painful diseases for no apparent reason, as such it doesnt really require a strong response in the same way the moral problem does
>>842076
The real question is what's wrong with an evil God? Or an ammoral God? Or a God that is both good and evil?
>>841455
What would you call me if I was able to save a child drowning in a pool and not willing too?
>>842076
>free will argument (sort of) answered the problem of moral evil
but if everything is determined (which an omniscient being would entail), then you've solved one problem in the process of creating another. You're left sacrificing one of the essential attributes of God.
>>842234
The analogy doesn't work because you're not perfect (^:
perfection is an excuse
>>842076
Moral evil is still predicated on natural ills. We're not born blank slates and are ultimately the result of our environment. Sky daddy is still responsible.
>>842318
perfection is a vague, non-specific catch-all term used to deflect the need for further clarification
>>842292
Muslim theologians struggled with this too. They went with the opposite route of the Christians. There is no free will, everything that happens is by God's will. However everything is part of a 'plan'. If he allows the bad guys to grow strong it's so that their defeat can be more glorious in the future (a great way of thinking for a religion of war), the victory of the good is inevitable.
Random deaths are explained as God saving you. For instance if you died in a car accident it's because in the future you would have become an atheist or something and went to hell for it. By arranging the car crash God is saving you from hell.
Everything happens for a reason in the most radical sense of the phrase.
>>842335
>Random deaths are explained as God saving you.
What about atheists randomly dying?
>inb4 Satan
>>841756
Not choosing to commit evil over a hundred years =/> not choosing to commit evil over eternity
Your argument => no free will in heaven
The Problem of Evil is a shit tier argument. It literally requires saying that
"All conceptions of morality and all conceptions of 'benevolent' Deity are incompatible with the state of the world as it currently stands.
That is an unbelievably shitty argument. Just a terrible terrible argument. The Problem of Evil is almost always an argument saying "This conception of Deity, does not accord with my culture's morality, therefore that conception is contradictory when it calls itself the vague term 'good'"
If you acknowledge that
1. There are multiple conceptions of morality and multiple conceptions of benevolent Deity
and
2. The Problem of Evil is ultimately a question of combat ability. That is, does this moral system and this conception of Deity line up well.
You will quickly realize that the Problem of Evil can only invalidate certain moral theories or certain conceptions of Deity by positing a contradiction, its not nearly as simple as "Well, my culture's morality doesn't line up with the "All-Good" Deity of a religion whose morality is radically different then mine, therefore this Deity could not possibly exist".
>>842340
They would have become super-atheists.
>>842359
compatibility fucking auto-correct.
>>842340
Probably God killing them before they do something stupid and end up in the lower regions of hell.
Alternativily if an atheist lives it's so that they can be defeated. For instance a Muslim would believe Richard Dawkins was made so that he can be beaten in a debate and look stupid on TV. Or an apostate was made so that God could demonstrate his wrath by having him killed. To use a professional wrestling analogy non-Muslims are the bad-guy wrestlers who build up a win streak and get the championship belt only for the good guy's victory over him to be all the more glorious.
This is also why groups like ISIS are not intimidated by the superior military of their opponents. God gave their enemies that military so that they could have a glorious underdog victory.
Like I said it's a great theology for a warring nation, if you win a battle it's because God is on your side. If you lose a battle than it's because God is setting up your enemy for a fall. Because there is no free will you will win eventually, it's just a matter of God picking the juiciest moment.
>>842335
Since Determinism is true, this has to be the correct route, if one need be taken.
Of course, it's still subject to other criticisms regardless. A personal, anthropomorphized God doesn't make sense. More person-like, the less perfect.
Thus, teleology and intelligent design don't make sense. There's no plan or design if He's not a person, has pure perfect intellect, no emotional imperfections, no constraints, absolute freedom, no drive, etc. True freedom from constraints entails an absolute ambivalence and indecisiveness. There would be no planning, no designing, and no creating if He was perfect.
If He's not perfect, and He's more of a person, anthropomorphizable, then it makes sense for Him to plan, design, and create things. He has His own drive and ambitions, His own end goals; HIS own final causes. But that means that we reject perfection.
No matter how you slice it, the various things attributed to God are not wholly consistent together. At least, Perfection and Creator, Perfection and Person, Benevolence and Omniscience, etc.
>>842378
>it's a great theology for a warring nation, if you win a battle it's because God is on your side. If you lose a battle than it's because God is setting up your enemy for a fall.
The ultimate "it doesn't matter, stop thinking about it!" metaphysics
>>841836
>evil is not real [implying good is]
>things are not evil [implying things are good]
>all realities are good
Good old Aquinas redefining everything as an argument. Good and evil are not things, they are out judgements and as much as "evil is an absence of good", good is an absence of evil. Fuck that dunce.
>>842378
>Alternativily if an atheist lives it's so that they can be defeated
>They actually believe this
>>842400
>Good and evil are not things, they are out judgements and as much as "evil is an absence of good", good is an absence of evil.
There's literally nothing wrong with this. Spinoza thought the same.
>>842391
This type of thinking you are going at is what lead to Deism. Once philosophy couldn't resolve the paradox of an all powerful and all 'good' God the only path was that God simply didn't interfear.
The lesbon earthquake was actually a turning point in philosophy and theology. A massive earthquake happened, killing thousands, what's particular about it is virtually every church was damaged or destroyed while the other builders had considerably less damage. At this point people still believed natural disators were made by God so standard theology couldn't explain why God would destroy his own church.
Deists like Voltaire stepped in and cited it as proof that God really didn't give about our conduct and naturalism offered theories of explanation that religion couldn't (the theory was that the earth was shaked up by random pockets of gas beneath the surface, earthquakes were nessary for releasing the gas which was an ok theory for the time)
However I think there are two things over looked.
1. Determinism and free will are not incompatible. You can predict what I will do, however if you tell me your prediction I am free to do the opposite.
2. I think trying to talk about God, or he Gods, as a moral agents is incorrect. Rather they would have their own will and agenda. The natural conclusion of this is they are not all powerful otherwise they would snap their fingers to make their agenda happen.
>>842405
I think a lot of atheists intentionally go for hard determinism to be contrary to Christians, it's not a scientific consensus (or even a scientific question).
I find it interesting that this hard determinism is also an Islamic stance. I predict as Islam grows in the west atheists will reject hard determinism and absolute free will.
A lot of them don't even seem to realize it's not a binary. There are many things in between complete free will and hard determinism.
>>842410
What you quoted is what I said. Duncquinas' "point" is redefining everything in such a way that only good exists.
Spinoza is a bro if he agrees with me.
>>842434
>There are many things in between complete free will and hard determinism.
There is a scale between complete randomness and complete determinism. Free will is incoherent on every point on that scale.
>>841446
God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can’t. If a thing is free to be good it’s also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they’ve got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk.
This is the best answer I have heard.
>>841446
Evil is just an arbitrary term invented by people and is basically just short hand for "that which hurts us"
>>842514
So, evil is a spook?
>>842526
"good" is a spook. "evil" has the same effect of putting something above the ego, but not in an affirmtive way but in a dismissive way.
So evil can be seen as a type of spook in this way
>>842605
I must read more Stirner
>>841483
So why worship someone who doesnt give a shit about you?
>>842748
Deists did not "worship" their God, they may revere him in a Hermetic way (as above so below, that sort of thing) or they may not have strong feelings to them.
There are greater varieties of God than the traditional Christian one and a very large variety of attitudes to them.
>>841446
Yes, that's all good and fine, but did G*d ever score 4 touchdowns in one game? Check mate Christfags
>>841669
> he has willed it gone and his plan unfolds day by day
If God willed it gone but evil still exist then he isn't omnipotent because his power restricted by how fast he can solve problems. There are no excuses like give me more time if you are as powerful as God.
You're an idiot who denies reality if you think God is omnibenevolent.
>>842421
>1. Determinism and free will are not incompatible. You can predict what I will do, however if you tell me your prediction I am free to do the opposite.
I'm not entirely convinced. Recall that I'm conflating an omniscient God with determinism. Now, once again, contrast omniscient God with Human free will. Yes, I am free to do the opposite of what he knows will happen. But he still knows what will happen, and it will happen. I may be given the final say in which button I ultimately press, I am indeed the decider; but the decision that I am ultimately going to make, the button that I WILL press, is not actually up to me.
>2. I think trying to talk about God, or he Gods, as a moral agents is incorrect. Rather they would have their own will and agenda. The natural conclusion of this is they are not all powerful otherwise they would snap their fingers to make their agenda happen.
I agree more with this. It makes more sense for Him to be a moral agent if He is not omnipotent.
>>842234
A lazy ass
>>844765
I do not go for an all powerful moral agent God. I have my own personal spirtuality, which I still need to do a great deal of research to really turn into a proper system. I think there is something that can be called a God or Gods but the morality is not so binary. Just as you and I may have our own personal good and evil so too can spiritual agents.
For obvious reasons I do not believe any agent is all powerful, I think that's a type of paradox.
I beleive we are free to use our free will to make choices, although these choices are influenced and limited by our knowledge so they may be predicted, but we are always free to change our mind if think we learn we are being lead on a string.
The divine agents would have a similar set up.
>>844020
This. God never claims to be omnibenevolent. He drowned the entire world ffs.
>>841446
The answer has always been agency.
God can create good out of evil?
>>841588
You are not the arbiter of what is good, and what is evil though.
Out perception of good is human centered and has nothing common with what actual Good is.
>>844814
It was always a shitty answer because religion always tries to take peoples agency i.e. trying something that even God doesn't tried to do so that answer always looks like shitty cop out.
>>844809
>Just as you and I may have our own personal good and evil so too can spiritual agents.
I would be sympathetic to that view. Even if there was a creator God or Gods, the moral beliefs that they have would not necessarily be objectively true.
As for Free Will, I think it's less that simply our knowledge is limited, but rather, as a result of our genetics and our upbringing, we develop preferences, tastes, inclinations, aversions, attitudes, and dispositions toward pretty much every possible thing. Every decision we are faced with is ultimately stacked in favor of one choice, rather than another.
Analogously, it would be like giving me three doors to walk through, one of them leads to a slow and painful death, one of them is a boring day in an office, and one is a day filled with my favorite music, favorite food, and favorite people.
In a way, yes, I have the freedom and opportunity to choose which door I will walk through. But it's not much of a "choice". The options are stacked in favor of one. Now, in day to day life, the various options we have in certain decisions aren't going to be THIS radically far apart, but I think that, nonetheless, if you could get down to it, you would find that you're more inclined toward one choice, rather than the other(s). It's the reason we do cost/benefit analysis, why we list pros and cons. We're trying to see which option we ACTUALLY want the most, and that one is the obvious option. In a way, we're using reason to constrain our decision, so that we actually commit to one.
The quote "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" from the Godfather always springs to mind.
>>844830
But what makes you believe that there is an actual Good in the first place?
>>844863
Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray. They foster doubt in the validity and supreme authority of the word of the Lord and His laws. Many philosophers have attempted to use morals and ethics to disprove the Lord's benevolence. Like with science, Satan has enabled this by giving man the illusion he can understand ultimate truth, know more than the Omniscient. But the basis of science and morals and ethics is not knowledge, it is doubt, proving they are the work of Satan. Make no mistake, morals and ethics are humanistic in nature, an imperfect human tainted by sin can not begin to comprehend the thinking of the Creator. To attempt to apply them to the workings of the Divine is folly, morals and ethics do not apply to God. It is hubris to treat God as but a simple man. There is no God but God, concepts of relative fairness do not apply to God, for God has no equals. The only morals and ethics that apply to God are how he he judges all of mankind as the ultimate judge. The concept of morals and ethics are ultimately paradoxical. Man in his imperfection can not determine the ultimate truth and judge between right and wrong. Man putting his own finite thoughts ahead of the thoughts of infinite knowledge is beyond pointless. It is man saying he is superior to God. People enter conflict because of differing morals and ethics, a Satanic plot to divide and plant the seeds of doubt. Philosophers are Satanically inspired, they think because they doubt, not because they know. Only He who is perfect and omniscient can knows truth in its entirety, and the only being capable of judging what is good and evil. You can not judge God by the standards of man, you can not judge the word of God or the law of God, to do so is to presume dominion over God, the Creator of all. You, as man, need only know the absolute Truth of God, you, the imperfect being, can not comprehend nor understand God, the perfect being, you can only know God. God is the Truth.
>>844866
>Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray.
ok
god is not man. what to use might be evil is not necessarily to it
the problem of evil is basically just the problem of fedoras not accepting god is inherently arbitrary
>>844846
Exactly why religions (systems of bondage) suck. We were created to live free, with the Holy Spirit in us, guiding us.
>>842234
An asshole.
>>844943
>Probably the same religion the "problem" took it's entire premise from.
But Epicurus likely wasn't arguing against Christianity, butthurt Christposter, since he died a bit under 300 years before it was a thing.
Man, the answers to the problem of evil always seem like inane cop-outs. "God is beyond human morality" "Man can't determine good and evil" "God has great plan that suffering is a part of" fuck that noise. Good and evil are human value judgements; God is not, and cannot be beyond them, because we're the ones making the judgement. Of course we can determine good and evil, we're the only beings that have been conclusively shown to be able to do so. Whether God's plan justifies suffering is likewise only for us to judge, since we're the only ones capable of judging it. So by human judgement, evil exists, and God is either incapable of doing something about, unknowing of it, or not willing to do something, implying he's either weak, stupid, or evil.
>>842340
They were chosen to serve Athe, an eldritch thing.
>>844866
>Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray.
Mmmmm, that's goooooooood pasta.
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent
and so what if he is?
>>844994
Chosen by God?
>>845005
Then he's not a benevolent god worthy of worship in any sense except fear.
This is what I've always wondered about the problem of evil, the easiest and most plausible answer is that God is indeed lacking in one of these qualities, yet no one ever seems to go for it.
>>844972
O L D T E S T A M E N T
>>845012
>Then he's not a benevolent god worthy of worship in any sense except fear.
So what if he is? Fear is a completely acceptable motivator and is one that is actually pretty prevalent among the religious.
>>845038
It's a fine motivator, but I know I'll regard anyone who worships out of fear as a pathetic coward, and I know others would too.
>>845010
No, there are two gods. One is locked outside spacetime. The other one, our creator, the focal point of creation, is a blind retard.
>>845044
I guess you could call them pathetic cowards but if God did exist and you didn't worship him and went to hell (or whatever) because of it, then that would honestly be a bit pointless and would be letting pride get the best of you.
>>845052
oh, so a sort of "two sides of the same coin" type of deal?
>>845058
It would be hilarious if there is some kind of test and in practice only religious believers would go into hell. Like God being an another Satanic lie.
>>845065
Seems like Gnosticism with Demiurge and other god who is Absolute.
>>845065
Yeah, my reading is "power without wisdom" + "wisdom without power". Makes for an untamed universe. Lovecraft was grim. And his stories were kinda same-y.
>>844823
Kek. Humans are exactly the arbiter of good and evil. Sorry to burst your bubble, mate, but every time one asserts some absolute authority on morality, one has nothing to back it up.
>a-a-a-a burning bush told me
>>841446
Bad shit that happens serves to deepen the human experience. You can't really define good without a concept of evil. Just as you cannot define light without a concept of dark.
>>846961
What's funny is that even if a burning bush did say something it wouldn't matter.
Humans are still free to live life as they choose. God's morality being "absolute" or "objective" is just a meaningless phrase. People can just ignore what the Hebrew God says and set up their own rules. The Chinese managed to run a fantastic civilization for hundreds of years without a single word from God, so did many other cultures. We are free to call anything we want good or evil and decide own destiny, create our own heirachy of values, or to shop around for one of the many other value systems already made: there are an infinitude of moralities.
Even if one did want to choose to follow God's morality instead of the infinitude of other moralities. What exactly IS God's morality? One would still need to interprete the bible in order to figure it out and that interpraetion is subjective. Some interpretations believe killing is always wrong, others buy into Augustine's just war doctrine, others think killing can be ok if you get an indulgence (see the crusades). Kierkegaard thinks killing can be warranted with a "teleological suspension of the ethics", which is itself a subjective. Different denominations and different philosophy/theology is going to give you different results.
Apart from this you have to ask is it even possible for language to communicate something in a way which does not require subjective interpretation: many linguistic theorists say no.
So religious or not subjectivity is a part of any moral system. This is not a bad thing but the very thing that makes our creativity and free will meaningful.
>>847030
>I can't be good to people unless there is some African suffering from an insane illness
>>841446
The obvious answer is there is no God.
If you insist on a God then the answer is that he is malevolent.
>>847058
>Strawman
This seems like a pretty intuitive concept, Anon. If we lived in a state of eternal bliss there would be no advancement. Humanity would not strive to accomplish goals, as we would have no goals. There would be no wrongs to right, nor would necessity press us towards technological and societal advancement. Evil is that which drove humanity to construct every modern comfort we both enjoy.
Not to say that modern society is without evil, in fact it's quite the contrary. Almost every beneficial achievement in the sciences can be twisted towards darker purpose. However, I think most of us can agree that humanity is better off today than it was a hundred or so years ago.
>>847040
God's morality is only understandable through my relationship with and interpretation of god. He told me himself and also the bible.
>>847071
>strawman
Could you, or could you not, be as moral as you are now if people did not die horribly for completely preventable reasons?
>>847119
That's somewhat of a Kierkegaardian approach, in which God's communication is very direct.
Because God speaks individually to each person their understanding will be unique, since God's relationship with each person is different. Because of this Kirkeegaard believes the individual has a role in interpreting God that cannot be differed to someone else. You cannot go to a priest (or sometimes even the bible) to to get the full message.
An example for him would be the story of Abraham. If Abraham went to the Rabbis of his time they would say he should not sacrifice his son, if he went through his sacred texts he would find nowhere saying he should do so, he would even find passages saying God does not want human sacrifice. If he went to some other moral agent (say secular understanding) it too would say he should not do it. But God's path for him was uniquely his and only he could understood his true purpose and destiny.
>>847141
>But God's path for him was uniquely his and only he could understood his true purpose and destiny.
To not sacrifice his child?
>>847141
I didn't know there was a name to it. In any case I was sort of just shitposting, because it's a claim that I see used to put down what should be rightfully individual intepretations of god and theism from others. It simply never sat right with me.
After all, if each person has a personal relationship with god, and god's plan for us is unknowable, then how is it knowable that god has not said two different things to two different people? And if this is true, how is one any more legitimate than the other, and why does a person who is using this feel the need to use it to attack another?
How do you know that god hasn't been silent to athiests and agnostics. Or that they've come in different forms with different messages to polytheists and etc to spur us all into some action with unknowable but divine consequences? How in this case do you know that the ten commandments are true to you when they speak of false idols? And why do we persecute people for religious differences when I see this personal relationship with god cited so often?
And as an atheist who is pretty wholly uneducated on theism, but is still interested in the philosophy and historical ramifications of it: Where does Kierkergaarden stand in the debate over how Christians should do their worship?
>>847185
Kierkergaard*
>>847144
God had a pact with Abraham that he would be father of a great child. He has to work with God to fufill the pact and spends his entire life on wild goose chases, seemingly waisting his life, God won't even permit his wife to give birth till both of them are old. Than he gets his son. Than God fucks with him again and says he needs to kill him, Abraham is too old to have another so he might think his whole life was a waste but Abraham sticks with the conviction he set forth and goes with God.
For Kierkegaard this is a story about the absurdity of life, one navigates around the absurdity through faith. Life isn't straight forward, you have to risk it all and suffer.
>>847185
He was radically individualistic. The final authority isn't even the bible but the indivual's direct connection to God. For him this even goes beyond morality, God is neither good nor evil but beyond it, and humans may temporarly enter this divine mode as a Knight of Faith.
For worship Kirkeegard was anti-clerical. He saw the idea of an authoritarian church as an obstruction between God and Man: you go to church think it accomplished something and than leave. For him this is not a 'true Christian'. This doesn't mean he didn't want any preachers but they are not above the individual.
Kierkegaard see's religion as a spiritual journey of self-development. He isn't concerned with heaven and hell (he insists everyone will eventually enter heaven once they have developed themself enough, maybe you will be given time to do this in the after-life if you were slow on earth).
Religious reverence of God is supposed to be passionate rather than rational for him. Like Nietzsche he thinks emotions are a natural part of being human and thus need to be embraced to fully develop spiritually.
Historically he was the most important Protestant since the Reformation and probably the one that has the most value to atheists, he influenced a ton of 20th century secular philosophy.
>>841446
Why would he give a fuck about evil? In the end, it doesn't actually matter. Evil only has influence in our earthly lives, which is a really-really short time period compared to the eternal life that awaits the worthy.
Through our acts during times of suffering we can show who we truly are.
Bitching about m-muh evil and muh suffering is a really selfish and short-sighted act.
>>841704
You seem to personify a lot of things, how is God so inhuman and then apparently has feelings, or if he lost us "he'd lose a big part of himself "?
>>847416
Thanks for the breakdown hombre, I'll have to look more into it in that case.
>>847496
God is an abstraction. Think about how other abstractions work such as 'the ecosystem'. The ecosystem would drastically change and become far simplier if humans disapeared.
You can say the eco system is human because humans are a part of it, but it's not entirly human, it's greater than that.
Abstractions need to be communicated with metaphors. A very common pattern in religion is that they will tell you the God they depict is not it's true form but a way of understanding it. For lower people that cannot handle abstract thinking it's better to describe the divine realm in anthropomorphized terms. I also think some religions are kind of stuck on this way: they are worshipping a metaphor rather than attempting to understand it. I think atheism is either the inability to appreciate abstract thinking or someone that was just never exposed to the more difficult to grasp concepts of God.
>>847508
>I think atheism is either the inability to appreciate abstract thinking or someone that was just never exposed to the more difficult to grasp concepts of God.
And I think this is just your personal conceit and delusion. I guess it is easier to tell yourself "they just don't understand".
>>847416
I think Kierkegaard is also using faith in God as a way to cope with loss and realizing that loss is an inadvitable part of human existence. To have Faith in God thus becomes the way to deal with it, enabling one to value the passable things more and be aware of their impermanence
>>847490
And in the next post you'll turn around how great and how good your gawd is. That's the only reason this argument exists.
>>841446
He doesn't understand the duality of divinity. Divinity (god as some call it) is chaotic, ifs not black and white but a gray area. You have to understand the pantheistic belief, the old religions that had pantheons. Some divine forces are considered by men to be good and others evil, but to the divine themselves they are no different, they are merely forces.
>For example:
Gravity can sometimes kill you, yet it's what's holding you to the earth. Is gravity good or evil?
Disclaimer, I'd have to type out a massive post to get you to understand that if you don't already and it's late. Basically, gravity is a divine force. Many old religions had a god that represented gravity and it's protection. Thor for example was a god of gravity. Titans and such represented forces of nature, some gods represented suns and light. Faiths we're meant to help us understand the un-understandable. Monotheistic religion isn't really that understandable because it's a bastardization of the old faiths. Instead of dividing divinity into a pantheon to better understand what makes up the universe, they attempt to monopolize everything under one force of divinity. They did this for political reasons, power. The new religions were simplified, there was no longer a path to understanding, and submission to authority was written in. How convenient that must've been for those who desired power back then...
Divinity is one thing, it is wholeness, but separated. Separation of wholeness is what begets our perceived reality (think of the singularity), and you can't arrive at an understanding to this through the fallacy of monotheism. This may be a partial explanation but think on the concepts and I'm sure if you're worthy you'll arrive closer to the answer. What is wholeness/nirvana/divinity. The answer is literally all around you. I'm not one for cryptic talk, I just don't think I can adequately put it into words.
>>847127
There would be no concept of morality, so your question is a meaningless platitude.
>>842443
The problem with that answer is that our freedom is already restricted by our nature, and it doesn't bother us. It doesn't even seem like a restriction of free will.
For instance, suppose I decide to find all the prime factors of some very large integer. I cannot; it is not within my abilities. I also cannot fly through the air by my will, or choose to become unconscious by act of will, or any number of things. Most of the things I am incapable of doing, I am also incapable of conceiving. My will is significantly constrained.
A truly omnipotent God could easily have added "doing evil" to the list of things humans can't achieve. We would still have free will to choose what songs and poems we compose to His glory (assuming He's into that sort of thing), who we love, et cetera.
Even if there's only one way to be perfectly good, God could have created us to be less evil than we are. Pick any sin: God could have chosen our nature to make even imagining that sin as impossible as factoring large numbers. Why didn't he?
>>844866
There's a lot of stuff in the Bible about the importance of discerning between true and false prophets. If humans are completely incompetent to make moral judgments, how are we to accomplish this? How can you be sure that the Law you believe in is not a false law, a sophisticated trap by Satan? I know the Bible says it's the word of the Lord, but surely Satan, the great liar, would also claim that his book of lies was the word of the Lord.
For instance, let's say a shining being appears to you tomorrow and tells you to kill a lot of people. Is this an angel of God, or a demon in disguise? How do you tell?
>>848109
>Gravity can sometimes kill you, yet it's what's holding you to the earth. Is gravity good or evil?
Literally the answer to the thread. "God" is a juvenile understanding of what lies beyond. The questions he's asking are answers in themselves. "He" is all those things, but "He" is also not.
>>841917
That thought experiment is literally circular logic. You're just describing a reality in which actions are predetermined. Yes, in your thought experiment there wouldn't be "free will" up to the point of going back in time, because you have future perspective of the free will choice they made to wear brown shoes. You're basically just describing "if the future has already occurred, you can't determine it."
But there's no basis for that idea, that the future has already occurred. Take a different version of that thought experiment, you can go back in time with your memories intact. This time you choose to wear the black shoes because of your memories. Now there's free will changing events.
Or take it in a more literal way, maybe you go back with no memories but the time travel process alters a few atoms, with butterfly effect resulting in a different choice.
Stop using circular logic to support your arguments.
>>841960
Predicting results =/ determining results. Just because I predict the sun will rise tomorrow doesn't mean I control the sun.
>>841576
>white people
>evil
>>841446
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent
If we use Christian version of God then he is our father. No good father would let his children be pampered for ever, he would let his kids grow up and able to live on their own, which would mean they would have to brave evil on their own.
Yeah. Read Seneca's "On Providence".
>>842234
What if you knew that that child was Hitler?
>>848400
what type of comparison is that? Save him and just teach him not to fucking kill jews. Literally, a million things could have stopped hitler.
>>848319
that sorta makes him an asshole. Since that "evil" is also his children.
"oh, my children are warring against each other because that ole devil convinced them too? I'll let them handle it."
>>842378
True, a Muslim army is probably one of the most powerful organizations. trained from birth, made not to ask questions. Hardened through multiple religious practices, and taught that death is not even a remote concern.
That being said, I still thin it is all defense.
(Except ISIS)
>>848427
Well then we are shit children because by again Christian myth he did teach us, we just didn't listen and now we must deal with the consequences of our actions.
>>848423
The banks were the only things that really stopped him
>>848436
>shit children
you know the saying there are only bad parents, no bad children exists for a reason right? Its BS but the truth is, if you have a bad parent, more than likely going to have bad children.
basically, god is a shit parent. but hell, that's obvious in literally any version of the bible. jealous, negligent, angry all the time, murder's his children for being "bad", etc.
>>848423
>stop Hitler
Why not stop the Jews from Jewing? So many people want to go back in time and kill Hitler, what a half baked idea. Kill Abraham and you save billions more.
>>848452
I'd rather not do a single damn thing to change the past. butterfly effect, especially with that, too much change. The world is what it is, what happened, happened. Bad or good, its way worse to change the past.
>>848193
>using free will as any form of an argument
Free will is an incoherent concept on any point in the spectrum from pure randomness to pure determinism. You do not exist outside causality and randomness in any form is either independent of you, or only dependent on the causal effect you have - you, in turn, being a causal/random amalgamation of other things.
Free will is an infantile invention by christfags who cannot reconcile the problems with their ideology, and it has no basis in reality or indeed any possible reality.
>>848319
>not pampering your children = throwing them in a pit of fire for eternity
Your god is infinitely immoral under any definition that isn't "might makes right".
>>848529
You just had to say that, didn't you?
>>845012
Then worship Him out of fear, if that's the only way you know to approach Him. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
>>845044
And I call anyone willing to fight the Almighty to the death a fool.
>>848531
That is the catholic mithos.
Orthodox one goes along the lines of everyone after death revives the love of god but those who don't accept it will suffer for eternity.
>>848529
Only a fool argues for hard determinism.
>>848531
God is the basis for morality, and the enforcer of morality. Without God, you have no objective basis for morality, and must cling to "might makes right".
There's a better way, and it's God's way.
>>848547
I just pointed out that hard determinism is irrelevant to arguments about free will. It is a concept that doesn't map to reality no matter how you try to picture said reality. Stop being retarded, christfag.
>>848555
Consensus through reasoned argument is not synonymous with might makes right. God is the epitome of totalitarian thinking. Nice Poe's law post, by the way.
>>848557
You didn't point out anything, as you don't know anything worth knowing.
>>848562
Poe's Law once again cited by people without discernment, unironically.
>>848563
Address the point instead of resorting to ad homs, retarded christfag.
>>848567
The point is obvious. You have free will whether you know it or not, and whether you exercise it properly or not, because God says "choose".
>>848567
I'll address any "problem" you think the christian worldview has.
Expect not to enjoy the answers though, as your bias is evident.
>>848569
>you have a free will whether you know it or not
It doesn't matter who says "choose", dumbass, if everything that makes you does not depend on your conscious choice. Which is the case in any possible reality, deterministic or not.
>>848579
God matters. If God says "choose", you have a choice.
You do not get to redefine reality for everyone.
You are not God.
>>848582
Oh, okay. Please help me picture the method by which God allows me to make a choice that's - my - choice. Or just define free will, so I know what kind of moronic thought processes go on inside your head.
It better not consist of these simplistic pronouncements of "that's the way it is because GAWD".
>>848573
Get snapping, then. The post you quoted is the one you didn't address.
>>848582
how do u know lol
*ZAP* i just lightningbolted ur ass
#rekt #jhvh4eva
>>848592
He created you a free will moral agent, with your own sovereignty that He will not override, and will not allow me to override. If it were up to me, I'd make sure you ended up in heaven with Him forever. It's not up to me. It's up to you.
You have not laid out any problem with Christianity. It's a good start. There are none.
>>848595
Not a very strong attack, as here I post in response.
You do not want to play this game with me.
>>848600
Free will by design is not free will, in the same way that renting is not owning. If God can decide you have free will than he can decide that you don't. Free will can not be taken away. Free will does not have an asterisk
>>848600
>He created you a free will moral agent, with your own sovereignty that He will not override, and will not allow me to override. If it were up to me, I'd make sure you ended up in heaven with Him forever. It's not up to me. It's up to you.
>if I say it enough times it will become right
Define free will, so we can strike at the core of your intellectual hangup.
If I'm talking to you about how something works, "you just have it" is not an answer.
>>848613
You think God changes His mind, breaks His contracts, and makes adjustments for error.
You think this, because you don't know God, and haven't really considered the matter fully. Or superficially. Or at all, quite frankly.
>>848616
The ability to freely choose among available options.
>>848619
'Kay. You are aware that any choice you think you make has already been made by your subconscious processes seconds earlier, right?
>>848642
Prove it.
>>848618
God told Abraham to kill his son, then said jk just cut off his foreskin.
God set forth a set of laws, he told his people what he wanted. When Christ came and altered those things he showed them to be altered. For whatever reason, he allowed his opinion to be changed. Not to mention this little gem:
"I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.
If humanity as a whole could say "no more free will" and it becomes so, then we never had free will to begin with because there was the possibility to have it taken away. Free will with an asterisk
>>848642
By my subconscious process.
See the word "my" in there?
>>848652
Prove it.
Just naming it is not proving it.
Prove that A they exist and B they are the ones doing the decision.
>>848647
Not true; Isaac was circumcised prior to the event.
Genesis 21:4 Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.
Isaac was probably in his early to mid 30's when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. His only begotten son. On a hill called Mt. Moriah, later to be named Golgotha.
So we have a Father and Son, the Father telling the Son he must die, carrying wood on his back for the sacrificial fire, in his mid-30's, and the Son obedient to death, even death at His Father's hand.
God stopped Abraham's hand, and spared Isaac.
God did not stop His hand, and spare Jesus.
>>848658
I have to prove that what you said, and I agreed to, is true?
Who disagrees?
>>848542
I would say the same of anyone willing to worship an entity already proven malevolent. If one cruelty is within his disposition, what's to stop further cruelties?
God basically has us chained up in his basement, if he does indeed exist, and we can either choose to die with dignity, or beg for our lives and die with shame.
>>848664
That is not proof. On the Wikipedia page it's self it is said that is one hypothesis that we don't have free will and it gives others that say we do.
>>848555
But God's morality is exactly might makes right. He's the biggest fish in the pond and gets to set the rules. If you recoil at might making right, then you must likewise recoil at God's morals.
>>841446
Without evil, man cannot willingly do good.
If causality exists, we don't have free will. It's really as simple as that.
>>848690
Anyone can make up deep-sounding bullshit, doesn't mean it's true.
>>848666
Excuse me, my bible study years are long past. As for the rest of my argument? "You can't know God" is insufficient. If there is a possibility of losing free will in any way besides death, then it is not free will. God can be swayed, God can be convinced. Free will can only be absolute
>>848695
There would be no good without evil. If there were no evil, man could not do good, because both are value judgement that depend on one another.
>>848687
Read past the overview, dolt. MRI studies have shown that human behavior is predictable on a neurological level. With seriously limited equipment.
What do you think causes your actions, magic?
>>848682
You say God is "proven malevolent", and yet there is good in the world.
Where did the good come from?
What evil has God done?
>>848689
I don't, because I see those two things as being connected. God is the most powerful, because He is Morality.
>>848771
>Where did the good come from?
Conscious beings created it for themselves.
>What evil has God done?
Viruses, parasites, bacterial disease, cancer, natural disasters, asteroids impacts.
>>848699
You can have your free will overwhelmed by God, and will, if that's what you choose to do with the rest of your life.
You can absolutely know God. I know God, and He knows me. It's an actual relationship between Creator and created, and it's exactly what we were created for.
And it has to be entered into voluntarily.
That's why you have free will; you have it to reject God, if you so choose.
>>841446
You define all the terms, most especially God and Evil.
The arguement is in favor of a gnostic/demiurge type reality or atheism. I prefer gnosticism.
>>848778
So fallen and depraved mankind creates good, and God is evil.
So fallen and depraved mankind can overpower a malevolent God, and force good to be in the world.
wew lad
>>848778
>Viruses, parasites, bacterial disease, cancer, natural disasters, asteroids impacts.
Er, none of those are evil, and all of those were caused by the introduction of mankind's sin in the Creation.
>>848773
Morality and power don't have anything to do with each other. In fact being more moral would make you less powerful under any definition. Try again, christard.
>>848780
There's no practical difference between Gnosticism and atheism.
You're going to be roommates.
>>848786
This of course stands in stark opposition to everything mankind has ever held to be true.
Why do you think there were jousts? Duels? Champions?
Evil is weak. Evil is self-destructive. Evil is powerless. Evil is doomed.
Good wins. Love wins.
>>848794
Only God is good.
There is nothing evil in a hurricane.
"Sin" is your inability to be like God (thank God), and while you think you can be God, or overcome God, you will find that you were just a fool all along.
>>848795
>Why do you think there were jousts? Duels? Champions?
I think they were irrelevant to the point and illustrative of you not having one.
Morality is the imposition on oneself to do good to others. That is by definition restrictive and anything that would be all powerful would not gain that power in any way by being moral. Omnibenevolence allows for less than simply being amoral or capricious.
>>848800
>Only God is good.
Fuck off, cretin.
>>848800
>Only God is good
Way to devalue everything else in the universe!
>>848814
No, it's because mankind has always believed that the winner was blessed by the gods.
You don't even have a definition of "good", much less a clear understanding of what doing good to others would even mean.
You have a problem with God, not with me. To me, you're just a blindfolded slave caught behind enemy lines, and it's my job to jostle the blindfold a little.
>>848819
Value is only what someone will pay for something.
Jesus gave His life on the cross to redeem mankind.
We are precious in His eyes.
This universe, and everything you see, is temporary, and fleeting. It will be gone soon.
But He will remain, and you will always be "you", in one place, or the other.
>>848771
>What evil has God done?
Jesus stole a donkey.
>>848845
>mankind is arrogant enough to invent anthropomorphic rulers of the universe and then attribute everything good that comes to them to it
More news at 11.
>You don't even have a definition of "good", much less a clear understanding of what doing good to others would even mean.
Causing as little as possible mental anxiety and physical harm and as much as possible mental and physical fulfillment.
The only one without a definition of good is you, who thinks good is "whatever the boss tells me".
My problem is with morons like you. Your sky daddy figure has no proof of even existing, I have no reason to have a problem with him.
>>848853
The man willingly let the disciples leave with it.
The man had an encounter with God in his dreams where that donkey would be required of him.
I can say that because I know God always works both ends of the deal.
>>848849
>This universe, and everything you see, is temporary, and fleeting
>Jesus gave His life on the cross to redeem mankind
What I had for breakfast this morning has more influence on my life than what Jesus did. He died for his own crimes.
>Value is only what someone will pay for something
Value is whatever someone cares about it's as simple as that. If you care about yourself you have value, if you care about the future that has value. The value is exactly equal to what you put on it.
>We are precious in His eyes
That's nice but I don't need a cosmic parent figure to affirm the value of my life. I can do that myself.
The universe will always be here in some form. The univerese is by defination everything that exists. And things being fleeting is EXACTLY WHAT GIVES THEM VALUE. It is the process of transformation we care about, of seeing things blossum and change. This is why the insightful religions have long realized that death and life are the same thing, where something is destroyed another thing takes it's place. A cessation of death is a cessation of life.
The Christian wish for an Apocalypse for it all 'disapear' and for 'death to die' is simply a rejection of all things. Only someone that see's no value in life would think an end of the universe sounds promising and only someone that see's no meaning in change wants an unchanging world.
>>848857
Modern man thinks he knows more than the ancients. Film at 11.
Minimizing harm is not doing good. I told you that you had no clue what good was, or what it would look like. And you proved me right. Thanks, sport.
God: Anon, did you see the universe I made for you?
You: (nothing)
God: Did you hear about Jesus dying for your sins?
You: (nothing)
God: Is your name in the Lamb's Book of Life?
You: (nothing)
God: As your name is not in the Lamb's Book of Life, and as you have rejected the only means of salvation available to you, you are now free to demonstrate to Me that you are like Me. Go.
You: (nothing)
Assuming for a moment a creator:
I don't think you can create a universe without suffering, that is not also static. At it's hearth, our suffering is a result of our need to harvest scarce energy, and the competition for that free energy.
A universe without suffering is one of non-interaction. Why even bother?
Suffering exits because that is the only way God could create a universe that is interesting, that has things happening in it.
Basically, a Parminidean universe v. a Heraclian one.
>>848884
Jesus created the earth you live on, the food you eat, and the air you breathe. You have nothing that was not given you by Jesus. So, no.
Value is transactional. Caring is about caring. Value is about buying and selling. I was bought by the lifeblood of God Himself. Your spiritual father, the devil, paid nothing for you. You are valueless to him.
Your life outside of God has zero value. Nobody's buying.
The universe, even by scientific standards, will achieve heat death.
>>848893
Which supposes that God is subject to certain logical laws, I guess, whatever.
>>848771
>What evil has God done?
Literally all of it.
"I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
"The lot is cast into the lap; but its every decision is of the LORD."
"But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee."
"And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house."
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee."
and so on.
>>848893
The universe was created without suffering.
Suffering, pain, and death were introduced by the fall of man.
The world you see is not the world as it was created; it's broken, cursed, and falling apart.
One of the reason it was cursed was so that you might know something was wrong, at a very fundamental level.
>>848885
>Modern man thinks he knows more than the ancients.
Are you joking? That's completely true, dumbass.
>>848900
>evil
Calamities. The hurricane above, for instance, God did, and it is not evil.
>>848900
As to the rest, all authority is from God, and any man who takes authority from God puts his heart in God's hands, and God can move his heart as He moves a river.
>>848907
It's absolutely ridiculous.
>>848897
>Jesus created the earth you live on, the food you eat, and the air you breathe. You have nothing that was not given you by Jesus.
A. then god is useless, unless you want to go into the whole "jesus is god" thing
B. prove it. their was a world before jesus and there is a world after him. There is no proof that he had any impact besides religion.
>>848902
>Suffering, pain, and death
The first two are evolutionary mechanisms, the third one a result of entropy. You are formulating unnecessary hypotheses.
>>848873
Theft is theft, anon.
>>842234
Free.
If God absolutely had to do things to ensure his benevolence then he wouldn't be free. By extension he wouldn't be perfect.
>>848917
You're an asshat and should die of dysentery.
>>848910
>this shit again
God is omnipotent, and He drives everything that happens in this world. He has, in fact, complete control of our lives, yes, including the evil, however much you false "Christians" want to believe He's some cheap Platonic abstraction of good. He is more than that. He is God. The Scriptures specifically say that He sends evil spirits, that He hardens hearts, that He causes people to cheat and lie — of course He does! He causes *everything*! He is the Almighty GOD, not some infinitesimal creature, and not some abstract principle.
>>848939
I already did.
>>848934
>if i had to do good things to be good, i wouldn't be free
>better just say i'm good
>>848945
Sounds totally made up. I don't get why we are taking these mythical creatures at face value on a history board.
>>848885
>Minimizing harm is not doing good. I told you that you had no clue what good was, or what it would look like. And you proved me right. Thanks, sport.
Says you, whose only idea of morality is "bossman dun said it"
>>>/4th grade/
Literal toddler level of thinking.
>>848956
because 2/3 of the world believes in it and has believed in it for a long long time.
>>848918
God is useless? No, God maintains everything that keeps you alive.
Jesus is God; said so, and proved it. There is no "before Jesus". He's eternal. There's only "before Jesus manifested in the flesh as a human being about 2000 years ago."
>>848927
I'm telling you what God told me.
>>848930
The owner never claimed theft; why do you, when you have zero facts upon which to base your judgment?
>>848885
Nice imaginary conversation. Poe's lawing all over the place. Does god need you to speak to me? Have you forgotten your pills today?
>>841605
Humans don't experience evil. They experience what they believe is either a beneficial or detrimental effect on their situation or their surroundings. Evil is simply associated with whatever is perceived as being intentionally detrimental to humans.
>>848966
That's not in any way an argument in favor of the voracity of the claim.
>>848945
He created you a free will moral agent, and gave you sovereignty over yourself. You have it, because God gave it to you. You have everything you have, because God gave it to you.
Omnipotent does not mean God has to do all things. It means God can do all things that require power to perform.
>>848897
>Jesus created the earth you live on, the food you eat, and the air you breathe.
Even if there was some creator that sparked the big bang what would that matter. Jesus didn't create my breakfast, that was the combined work of humanitie's farming industry, with thousands of years of development. He didn't create the earth or the air either, that is the great cosmic cycle of creation and destruction of planets.
And in the end the only reason any of these things matter is if I find some use for it: that use will be uniquely my own.
And no your Jesus didn't create anything, he was a normal man that had some myths made about him, this happened all the time in the ancient world.
>Your life outside of God has zero value
Aww the true heart of Christianity, nihilism! Rejection of all values!
>The universe, even by scientific standards, will achieve heat death
And the forest near my house will eventually be burned down. When that happens something else will replace it. As you yourself have said everything in the universe is changing or 'fleeting' that means any state of decay or heat is going to change eventually. Eternal change, forever and ever.
>>848970
I don't believe you. And if I were you, I would not trust this entity talking to you so blindly.
>>848959
God is good, and what God says is good, is good. And what God says is evil, is evil. And He enforces those laws.
Above us.
Dictates what is good and evil.
Enforces it.
That's a system of morality, not "do what feels right".
>>848968
alright, I'll give you a challenge then. Scientifically proof it. Even god himself, if he created this world, is not immune or exempt from his own laws, correct? If he was/is, he is not part of this world. He could be an observer but he couldn't actually do anything unless he himself worked within his own laws.
>>848975
Maybe you'll be able to say something. I doubt it. It would be too late anyway, as you would stand condemned already for not believing Jesus.
>>848981
He did, actually. He created all things.
If Jesus were a normal man, we would not be talking about Him.
>>848983
You don't believe God.
>>848952
>God needs to actively prove to us that he's good.
>>848984
This is completely meaningless and unhelpful to advance a discussion of morality.
>>848985
Another victim of Scientism.
>>848997
kek
Without God, there is no objective basis for morality. You say murder is bad; some tribesmen say it is good. Who is right? Who decides? The mob? Mob rule is "good"?
When has that ever been true?
>>848996
It's not even about proving it, your retarded post implied that to be good you don't even have to do good things, as that would be "restrictive". Well tough shit.
