Let's get to it.
>inb4 le fedora meme
I think the contemporary position is God not being omnipotent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pRzyioUKp0
>>25385287
This.
Whenever people say stuff like
> god works in mysterious ways
> it is all part of god's great plan
> just have faith
what they really mean is that their god either doesn't exist or isn't the omnipotent super being they claim he is.
>>25385287
Well, that concession basically solves the problem right there.
But a lot of people won't bite that bullet.
From smbc, I think this is a decent explanation of why we can't reconcile evil and god.
>>25385242
If god stopped evil things, people would expect god to stop everything.
Take a meteor hitting earth, god could nudge it off, and save the human race, nobody would know. But if god stopped rape and murder, everybody would want their own problems solved, and if god solved everything, the world would be a utopia.
But humans dont want a utopia. If they did, why is it people fantasize about an apocalypse, and struggling to survive?
Take a video game. Imagine a video game where you could not die, and all of the enemies died, and objectives were filled as soon as you spawned. Would that be fun? Fuck no. Dark souls is hard, but it is extremely fun, because the feel you get from killing a boss after your 10th try is unparalleled. If got was the all good omnipotent figure you speak of, life would just be lying down, on a bed, getting fed good food, and pleasured. There would be no good entertainment, because the stress of watching your favorite charterer die, and the evil one win, is too great.
An all good life, is a boring life. Struggle is what makes us human, it makes our lives have purpose, but it is evil. And god does not stop it, becuase he is good.
I bring a quote from captain kirk:
"What is a man but that lofty spirit, that sense of enterprise, that devotion for something that cannot be sensed, cannot be realized but only dreamed, the highest reality?"
The conquest of Alexander left thousands dead, a truly evil thing.
And yet it seems so good, and god would be a dick to stop it.
Im an agnostic.
>>25385541
If God were omnipotent, he could make it so we could be free of suffering and never get bored with being free of suffering.
>>25385242
It would be malevolent if it wasn't the will of a omnipresent god when he does it it's because the other option would be worse and can alllow evil to makes good.
>>25385751
>It would be malevolent if it wasn't the will of a omnipresent god when he does it it's because the other option would be worse and can alllow evil to makes good.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here.
>>25385605
But I want to suffer.
Lets agree, taliban=bad
They rape, murder, steal, commit crimes beyond reckoning, they are bad.
But when I was a 0331, before I went to college, I had a close encounter with them. I was on the edge of a small town on the eastern end of the country, and when walking along behind a short wall, we began receiving fire. When I was instructed to cover, and I began bursting at the bushes, and the hillside, I was full of joy. These people may be evil, truly horrible, but fighting them was bliss. God had delivered them to be killed by me. I dont think you can recreate that bliss.
Then take something like rome, or the byzantines, or the mongols, or the turks, or the french under bonaparte, or even the germans under hitler. It creates something so perfect, so massive, amazing, majestic, created due to struggle.
Rome struggled against the world, so they built civilization, worthy of god.
One could say god built it.
IF you are right, god would make us all women. (modern western) Women sit around, get fed, clothed, fucked, worshiped, just for existing. People on this board say they have it easy. But do they?
A woman could never experience what I experienced in Afghanistan. A woman could never experience what I experienced last night, running 10k through the snow, ski mask to protect from the cold, knowing how fast I was going and knowing how I was the baddest motherfucker in that forest, and no animal nor human could stop me from finishing my run.
Its just a divine feeling of masculinity, bred from struggle.
If god were so omnipotent, he would make us women.
But who the fuck wants to be a woman?
So were men. And god made us that way because he is omnipotent and knows it is good.
>>25385541
Don't diss my boy Alexander you fick
>prevent evil
this is the dumbest thing I ever heard, nowhere in the bible says god is a super hero that will end the earth's sufferingthat's what jesus promised but I like thinking jesus has nothing to do with god, he's like a pacifist philosopher offering peace of spirit.
God led his people, abraham's succession. if anyone here actually read the bible they know what I'm talking about. God is not an all good being who promised to make good and free the world of evil, he is a war god, not different to Ares and Mars, his promise was slaughter anyone that opposed to his nation, the old testament is all about that: wealth, power, gold and silver. just read psalms, they're praying before the war, praying for protection from their enemies and death by them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EonZXFd0Afw&t=4m30s
>>25385805
Yeah that was poorly worded
Basically it's a all knowing God if it thinks that the holocaust is better then the alternative then you can't really argue with it if you believe in a god. Your mom dying in a car crash wasn't god killing her but instead human depravity and God deciding that this is nessesary.
It's not fully what I believe but would be what most people would say I think God lets us of a leash and only changes things inconsequential to most, if he convinced everyone he was real then there would be nothing to gain from this world and everyone would be saved.
>>25385242
He works in mysterious ways ;^)
Bigger question is: why should God give an ounce of piss for humanity? Have you any idea just how fuckhuge the universe is? Even if we assume that only one in every quadrillion planets has an intelligent species occupying it, we are looking at a billion intelligent species in the observable universe. What makes us more worthy of attention than any other of those species?
Golly Jee this is such a sissy topic.
I've written a 13 Page Essay on this topic in a single night back then in 10th Grade and got a good grade by my teacher who is an academic.
Gehe.
Why did Christians change from using heretic to fedora?
>>25386183
>What makes us more worthy of attention than any other of those species?
Nothing, but if he's going to make demands that we worship him or he sends us to hell then he should have the decency to do something for us every few hundred years.
Or God, by virtue of being a timeless, omnipresent, omnipotent being, and therefore categorically not able to be completely understood by our human capabilities, enables a universe in which sentient life can exist, can develop its own ethical/moral standard of good/evil/etc, and finds it ultimately more interesting/important/entertaining/whatever that it forges its own destiny in spite of the evil it creates for itself.
TLDR = because God is so unimaginably powerful/wise etc etc, he prefers to let the universe more or less do its own thing and not interfere.
>>25386359
>because God is so unimaginably powerful/wise etc etc, he prefers to let the universe more or less do its own thing and not interfere.
But, you know, worship him or be condemned to enternal damnation. Why do we have "free will" if we just get punished for it in the end?
>>25386265
You assume god is the desert jew
>>25385436
what a stupid comic. "probably better" it's the fucking truth. the cosmos doesn't give a shit about you, but if you want to be happy and carefree and deluded then go ahead.
>>25386402
Eh, I'm relatively religious but I'll take a stab at it with what I believe. I was raised Catholic, and keep relatively Catholic traditions, but many of my beliefs differ from the church so therefore I don't think I'm a Catholic.
I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses are too far off in one of their beliefs - that not everybody gets to go to heaven (They believe the number to be ~144,000, but I don't care about the exact number). This makes sense in the "you either go to heaven or hell" dichotomy, but I don't necessarily believe in a hell. I think you either go to heaven, or you don't go anywhere. You're done, you return to nothing. Eventually, the second coming will occur whenever the fuck in the future, and that will be the cutoff date to make it to heaven.
So here's how I think God works it: He's all knowing, all powerful, etc. etc. He truly does love creation, us included. However, since he's all powerful, him intervening on our behalf to do *anything* kind of defeats the purpose of giving us autonomy. So instead, he's more like a parent - laying out the groundwork for development, showing us the way, then letting us do it on our own.
So he 'created' the universe, and by extension the Earth and humanity. He pulled off some miracles early on to show us that he is God, lay down some rules for the way we should live, then ultimately fucked off and with the attitude of "hey I showed you what I can do, I told you how I want you to live, now it's up to you to do it."
The coming of Jesus is the New Covenant - basically God coming to Earth and saying "hey, new deal - all you have to do is believe in me (by reaffirming your faith) and we'll double down - accept my son as the Messiah and you go to heaven (hint: ultimately if you truly accept Christ as the Savior, you will inherently live a life in accordance with God's intended morality). This was basically a reminder of what he gave to humanity early on.
>>25386402
Because it's not as black and white you put it, hell is just simply never knowing/being with God it's not hell and fire
>>25386675
cont'd
So to recap: God enables life, God tells us what the fuck we should do, humanity kind of misses the point, God comes back and streamlines the whole thing, and we are now in the period of figuring it out for ourselves. He kicked us out of our house to be successful on our own, as it were.
Those who are able to come to accept Christ as the savior get eternal life. Those who don't, that's it. You're just done.
Now I'm not a fucking fanatic and going to shove it down everyone's throats like a faggot, but I think that the most interesting and satisfying thing for a being that can literally do anything would be to let go and watch what happens when he lets life figure itself out.
>>25386625
>implying you can't be happy and carefree with religion
You just have to say you aren't a traditionalist, say the bible is man made looking at the real Jesus and bam you can do anything pretty much
Free Will cannot exist with a being that is Omnipotent. To quote Bertrand Russell.
The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. In the first place, this is not true; it is not sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference. If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man.
Sometimes I feel like God lied about the stuff he said in his books just to see what humanity would do with what's written. If he's that above the totem pole of existence he doesn't have to tell the truth because he's above that concept.
>>25386879
Yeah he created all evil and in the process created all good the alternative is to selfishly not allow live to exist.
>>25386879
>>25386964
These are low balls man
>>25386879
>The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent.
That's one thing that gets questions out of me. If God is everything wouldn't he also be the greatest evil along with being the greatest good? I mean, look at this way; If Satan is called the PRINCE of Darkness than who is King?
>>25386995
Yes, God would have to be, since he has created and foreseen all "evil".
>>25385242
i don't think being able to prevent evil being done to lesser beings but not doing it makes you evil. would letting a microorganism consume another microorganism make you evil?
>>25386964
If God has foreseen everything, there is no way certain people can act in the way he has deemed right because their fate is predestined. Free will does not exist, and the choice of "Good", is chosen only by those he has decided can choose.
>>25385287
or being real
>>25385287
And therefore, Epicurus's point is proven, and he is no longer God or his opinion, worthy of worship.
>>25387259
*or in his
>>25387219
>I a blind person walking off the cliff
>I can stop them but don't
Apparently i had to stop them? Seriously what's this horrible logic.
>>25387308
so god should view you as an equal?
>>25387308
Why do you not stop them?
Furthermore, did you create the event? Did you predestine such an action?
In the case of God, he has. He has made the choice to act in such a fashion, and therefore he is not given the option but deliberately choosing the outcome.
>>25387337
In a way yes, he loves his creations and therefore gives them freewill to be able to achieve goodness.
I'm not sure where this is coming from but okay.
>>25387371
God started the universe he didn't pin down every event sin is a factor making things happen without his direct intervention. He didn't predestine everything he just knows what's going to happen and choses to stay out of it except for a few things here and there.
>>25387381
>In a way yes, he loves his creations and therefore gives them freewill to be able to achieve goodness.
If God knows everything, then that precludes the existence of libertarian free will.
If God knows everything we'll ever do, then we're all on one set path, and in all our "decisions" we have no real power to do otherwise.
>>25387428
>God started the universe
>He didn't predestine everything he just knows what's going to happen
Homeboy...
>>25387428
If he is omnipotent, he has decided every action. If he is not omnipotent, then he is not God.
>>25387444
No that's not how knowing all events that will happen works, he knows how the chemical reactions in our freewilled minds will fire leading us to our own choices. He doesn't change anything.
If was from the future and knew you were going to the park in an hour its not that you have no freewill about it it's just that I know the result of that freewill.
>>25387462
He is omnipotent and has not predestined everything. Seriously if I have the power to do something it doesn't mean I'm going to do it.
>>25387500
Then he is not all seeing, and therefore he is not God.
>>25387535
If he has seen everything and knows everything, then he is fully aware the impact of everything action he makes. If he has created us, then he will be fully aware of what each and every one of us does, and therefore he has decided that by continuing with the action.
These discussions would be interesting if you started considering things for yourself and not just throwing low balls from other people
>>25387574
>Then he is not all seeing, and therefore he is not God.
What part of that makes him not all seeing
>>25387588
Anon, the conversation is based around this "low ball".
>>25387603
Because if he cannot see the impact of the 'chemical reaction", or be aware of it, he is not all seeing and knowing, since he is limited.
>>25387574
>If he has seen everything and knows everything, then he is fully aware the impact of everything action he makes. If he has created us, then he will be fully aware of what each and every one of us does, and therefore he has decided that by continuing with the action.
>Let's keep just saying it and it might be true.
No he has the power to predestine everything but choses not to because it would deny the ability to live in the image of him.
>>25387642
>Because if he cannot see the impact of the 'chemical reaction", or be aware of it, he is not all seeing and knowing, since he is limited.
He can see it I said he can see it but he chooses not to act on this knowledge and lets what you would do happen.
>>25387500
>If was from the future and knew you were going to the park in an hour its not that you have no freewill about it it's just that I know the result of that freewill.
No, it actually does imply that I have no libertarian free will.
If you know for sure what I'm going to do in a given situation, there is zero ontological possibility that I could do otherwise.
>>25387675
>>25387654
If he knows everything and understands everything, then he is fully aware of every action he makes and every action that will take place. This is a the paradox of omnipotence.
There is no way he can create freewill, because he is aware of the consequences everything he does and does not do. He has created every element of this environment, and is fully aware of every element Every action that takes place is a result of this choice, and he is fully aware of it. Therefore, free will cannot exist with such a being in existence.
>>25386183
Thats a central superstition of many religions. But unless we have no conclusive answer to the Fermi paradox we have no proof. For all we know we might by very alone in the universe.
>>25387654
If God knows everything, then he himself can have no libertarian free will. Because he knows for definite what he will do, therefore everything he does is set in stone, meaning he can't really change his mind, meaning he's not omnipotent.
>>25387693
This is dumb logic, you made the choice you could have chosen something else when you were choosing to go to the park the first time but you didn't that's where the free will happened me watching it happen again doesn't make it not freewill
>>25387730
Sure the freewill is given and is in respect to his will to give us freewill. What does this change?
>>25386402
Obviously that would mean all religions on earth are fundamentally false. So non of their made up punishments used to control their followers has any connection to God.
>>25387762
Yeah God is perfect and perfect has one path he doesn't have freewill like we do persay.
Ten thousand years of philosophical masterminds have passed humanity by, and you negros think the final truth is about to be revealed, once and for all, in an /r9k/ thread?
Kek.
>>25387831
You don't seem to understand my point. Free will cannot exist alongside a being that is all seeing and all knowing. With total knowledge of everything, God could not make any decision would full knowledge of the actions consequences. Apply this to the action of creating existence and humanity, and you will see the folly of free will.
This more or so leads into the paradox of Gods existence and the concept of Omniscience.
>>25387807
>you made the choice you could have chosen something else
No, I couldn't have. If you know what I'm going to do in a given situation for a fact, then that necessarily implies I cannot REALLY choose to do anything else.Because if I could, then that would necessitate that you don't really know what I'm going to do for definite.
If I know for definite what a rock is going to do when it falls off a cliff, then clearly the rock has no libertarian free will. If I know for definite what a cat is going to do when it sees a piece of fish, the cat has no libertarian free will. It's not different for humans.
Why does God have to have logical properties. Why would human logic like the problem of evil constrain him. He can do the logically impossible.
>>25387308
More like
>Tell your blind child to go to Cliff
>Don't stop it from falling
Now tell me should you have stopped it or not?
>>25387875
i'd believe it, desu
>>25387907
I think your sayign that if God had to chose to make us freewilled we aren't freewilled in the purest sense. I say yes we dont follow pure freewill becauase it was gods choice. But it doesn't change anything becuase the nature of our freewill is similar.
I'm I getting this wrong.
>>25387861
If God knows for sure everything that's ever going to happen, then not only does God have one path--so do we.
I always marvel at why this is for some such a difficult concept to grasp.
>>25387962
That are the claims of most religions.
Of course God might be a being we can not understand.
I'm really against religion, but don't fedora tippers realise what God dying on the cross represents, how he's leaving it up to people and it's the idea of an all powerful god in the sky behind everything that really dies?
>>25387940
If you go off the idea that you can predict the result of you know all the factors then yes you were predestined to do that in technicality.
The freewill I'm talking about is that God didn't guide the chain of reactions from when he started the universe except for a few times.
And yes evolution.
>>25387963
Should have is irrelevant, morals is a different issue.
Especially since me and God have different reasons for doing things.
>>25387971
I am saying God cannot do so, because it violates logic.
>>25387962
Because that would invalidate any debate by falling into the concept of Global Skepticism, thus making the grounds for any discussion faulty.
>>25387993
Yes technically there is one path but its not due to the will of God it's due to many factors like sin and human freewill.
>>25385921
You are very deluded. If God is omnipotent then there is no need for evil to exist because what ever you felt you can feel also without them. If not God isn't omnipotent.
>>25388092
>I am saying God cannot do so, because it violates logic.
I'm not sure how it defys logic but keep in mind this is a infinite being not bound by the things we are.
>>25388063
>The freewill I'm talking about is that God didn't guide the chain of reactions from when he started the universe except for a few times.
If he set it all in motion knowing full well what the results of the initial conditions would be, then we still don't have free will and we're following a script. He doesn't need to "guide" the chain of reactions--if he started them, it's a domino effect.
Also, if God interfered AT ALL with the pre-set conditions of the universe outside of God himself, then the results of those interferences would remain in play forever and have broad consequences due to the butterfly effect. Of course, God would already know that. He would also know that he was going to interfere, from the very beginning.
>>25388121
>Yes technically there is one path but...it's due to many factors like...human freewill.
1. One path.
2. Libertarian free will.
Pick one. They are mutually exclusive.
>>25388153
No if he knew everything he saw how he made the universe in the future and replicated it as to not interfere with freewill.
>>25388147
Because we are working upon human principles, and by trying to usurp that, you effectively fall into an appeal to authority. From the start we have argued on the basis of logic. To try and dismiss that through 'God did it", removes any basis to the argument. Do not try and chance goal posts.
>>25385541
Some evil may allow for the betterment of the human race, a la Hick's Soul Making Theodicy.
What that comeback doesn't take into account is that even if you can prove that some good-making evil exists, there still exists evil with no point. William L. Rowe's example of the fawn (fawn burned by a fire, lies suffering for days before dying) is such an example. We see no good that comes from this instance of evil. If X looks like it doesn't exist, it likely does not exist.
>>25388082
The point is why God would have created suffering in the first place. Religions claim that we should follow the will of God so his will is different from his own morals.
>>25388191
To us there are infinite choices we decide for ourselves, god has no freewill he sees we can do all these actions and still chooses the one he knew we would.
This is still freewill to us, your actions still matter but someone else having knowledge of it doesn't mean it's not freewill. God started the chain and is observing the results.
St. Augustine's "On Free Choice of the Will"
>>25388224
I'm saying our morals are not gods morals we can not comprehend how he thinks, we only know we are limited and flawed.
And logic changes with morals.
>>25388281
So good can exist
>>25388399
Good exists outside of evil, but even if you don't accept this how can you explain pointless suffering? What does that have to do with goodness?
>>25388369
An argument from ignorance. Just because we do not know, does not make the point any less valid.
>>25388622
There is no pointless suffering its all a result of actions. And no if you get rid of bad choices there are not good choices only choices.
>>25388688
Just because it's a argument for ignorance doesn't mean it's wrong.
>>25388318
>To us there are infinite choices
Not if there's only one path there's not. If there's one path, there are no real "choices". There could be the illusion of infinite choices, but in reality there would be no alternate possibilities whatsoever.
>>25388713
Who chooses to be born to a starving family in a third world country?
Pleasure is independent from pain, you don't need to stick your hand in a fire to know it's going to hurt you
>>25388369
>I'm saying our morals are not gods morals we can not comprehend how he thinks
If we can't comprehend how he thinks, then how do we know what he thinks is good?
>>25388799
It's not personal choice its resultant of the choices leading up to that time making that county a poor country. Freewill impacts others sometime negatively sometime positively. It's not all peaches and cream in this world. Just because some people have it hard doesn't mean that they deserve to have it better or that it means that they are any lesser of people.
>>25388837
God gave us morals but its probably a watered down version of what he things is moral due to our flawed nature
>>25388917
Why would he give us a flawed nature?
>>25388951
Because he can't create other gods and being flawed comes with not being perfect. He created life to give people in his image the ability to achieve greatness.
>>25388887
If everything is set in stone (which it would have to be if God knows how everything will turn out), there's no libertarian "free will" to begin with.
If someone's born to be a robber baron, assuming God exists, he knows that that person will be a robber baron, and that person does not have any actual power to be otherwise, because if he did then that would contradict God's omniscience.
>>25388999
>Because he can't create other gods
Then he's not omnipotent.
>mfw people stil don't understand what God refers to in all of these religions
'God' refers to the truth of no-self/the universe you massive cucks.
>>25389060
Because there's only room for one god due to it being infinite creating more gods means adding infinity to infinity which is still god.
My take is that all the suffering in the world will all be worth it in the end. Life is an intricate game with many lessons to be learnt; one where we're all winners in the end. See NDEs where people explain the pure overwhelming feeling of love and not wanting to come back to Earth.
We can't imagine all the suffering will be worth it because we don't know any better.
Perhaps we are simply the fragments of god experiencing every possible experience - good and bad - so he can better know himself.
>>25388399
It's just a man-made concept.
>>25389081
Go away, Spinoza.
>>25389207
K
Original content
>>25389114
>My take is that all the suffering in the world will all be worth it in the end
The implications of this assumption would justify committing acts murder, torture, and genocides.
It's a shit-tier belief.
>>25389331
>The implications of this assumption would justify committing acts murder, torture, and genocides.
That's exactly what I'm saying. That it will be worth it in the end. And on top of it, we're all ultimately "one", so in effect we're doing the torturing/murders and such to ourselves. We have many lessons to learn.
>>25387875
Where else is it suppose dto happen?
We didn't hav ethe internet for 10,000 years
If there is ever a "Final truth" you will probably hear about it first on the internet
>>25388951
> Why would he give us a flawed nature?
Why wouldn't he?
I don't get this juvenile belief held by skeptics that God owes us anything.
God also doesn't care what you think is moral.
>>25389557
>Why wouldn't he?
Because if he's all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then he would know that giving us a flawed nature would result in a great deal of evil.
>God also doesn't care what you think is moral.
If God knows everything, and he created me, then he created me knowing what all my thoughts and feelings would be. If he didn't care what my thoughts would be, why did he bother to create me in such a precise way that I would have those exact thoughts?
>>25389557
As someone recently said:
He's thinking of you, He's crying over what you're crying over
He cares about the things you care and worry about
He wants so desperately to hold you, bless you, love you, and bring you joy that is not comparable to anything that comes from this world
Unfortunately, robots and similar pessimists with their negative mindsets will scoff at this idea of this, unlike open-minded people.
>>25385287
Even though God is omnipotent.
Just as you wouldn't call a blind man to give eyewitness testimony on what a person looks like, you cannot have man attempt to pass judgement on what is or isn't possible in the universe. Man is incapable of seeing all things.
>>25389725
>open-minded
Does "open-minded" mean throwing away logic and critical thinking?
>>25389725
>hell
You're almost as bad as Donald Trump fans
>>25385242
If I don't stop a wolf from killing a rabbit even though I could, does that make me evil?
God can be both good and all powerful. The whole idea is everyone is judged in the end, not on earth. This leads to bigger problems, like why a man can redeem himself and go to heaven, yet if he died before redeeming himself, he'd go to hell, so it's simpler to follow Martin Luther's concept that everyone will go to Heaven, suggesting Morality is a construct of Humans, which, when you look at it, is the only possibility anyway.
>>25389922
Go back to reddit sanders cuck
>>25389926
If you're omnipotent and omniscient, yes.
>>25390007
You're boring. This is why you don't have god powers.
>>25390026
If you have the power to stop someone from getting hurt and don't because their suffering amuses you, you're not omnibenevolent.
>>25389892
Somewhat, yes. Intuition is a whole other level of intelligence which "logic" fedora-tier guys ignore.
>>25390063
>god hurts my feelwings so he doesn't exist ;_;
>>25390073
>Somewhat, yes. Intuition is a whole other level of intelligence which "logic" fedora-tier guys ignore.
How can you tell the difference between "intuition" and "delusion"?
>>25390211
Often you can't. That doesn't mean the answer is to be narrow-minded though.
>>25390097
The problem of evil doesn't seek to disprove the existence of any and all deities.
However, it does disprove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity.
The problem of evil doesn't disprove the existence of a supposed deity that's not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent.
As an aside, I suppose a case could be made that omnipotence might imply omniscience.
>>25390283
You say "narrow-mindedness", I say "open-minded critical thinking".
If you can't tell the difference between your "intuitions" and "delusions", you are a stumbling block at best, and a serious danger at worst, to yourself and others around you.
>>25390370
I should perhaps have said "you are PRESENTING a stumbling block...".
It's not my intention to be disrespectful.
>>25390370
Limiting yourself to just the concrete evidence around you is by nature narrow-minded.
>you are a stumbling block at best, and a serious danger at worst, to yourself and others around you
There are obviously limits. I incorporate what seems likely into the equation personally - I never rely purely on intuition when it comes to things like god. If I'm not harming others - which I'm not - I'm no danger to anyone. On top of this, I consider myself a generally intelligent and a very considerate person that cares for others.
>>25390537
>Limiting yourself to just the concrete evidence around you is by nature narrow-minded.
Good thing no one suggested that. Empirical evidence is a good way to get knowledge. Logical deduction is another good way to get knowledge.
>There are obviously limits. I incorporate what seems likely into the equation personally - I never rely purely on intuition when it comes to things like god.
Okay, but the problem of evil logically disproves the existence of an O.O.O. God. To believe in such a God it seems you would have to choose intuition (or delusion) over reason.
>If I'm not harming others - which I'm not - I'm no danger to anyone.
I'm not sure that belief in an OOO God isn't harmful. It seems like a belief which has long ago been proven false, and holding on to false beliefs and spreading them seems dangerous.
>>25390723
>Good thing no one suggested that. Empirical evidence is a good way to get knowledge. Logical deduction is another good way to get knowledge.
So limiting yourself to what you can see/observe, like I said.
>Okay, but the problem of evil logically disproves the existence of an O.O.O. God. To believe in such a God it seems you would have to choose intuition (or delusion) over reason.
It does LOGICALLY if you limit your mind. See my posts (>>25389114, >>25389406); using pure logic is extremely limiting. Logically, we can't possibly understand certain aspects of quantum physics. This is a simple sign that our knowledge arised from our limiting minds/thoughts are incomparable with the subject at hand (see: OP's initial post). This is why we need to step outside the box and ask "what if's".
>I'm not sure that belief in an OOO God isn't harmful. It seems like a belief which has long ago been proven false
Proven false? Top kek. It hasn't been proven false for shit and it can't be, even in the event that god happened to not exist.
>and holding on to false beliefs and spreading them seems dangerous
If they're proven to be false. If not, they can have a huge positive impact on people's lives.
>>25385242
God is omnipotent, and he is able to prevent evil. God also gave human's free will. And it is by that free will that evil comes from. God chooses not to intervene because he wants people to find him and do good on their own account, not his. If he didn't give free will, and forced people to do good, then one might say he is a controlling god that is not good. However, what he does is allows his people (everyone) to do as they please in hopes that they find their way to him to live in eternal happiness.
The Problem of Evil is something that was discussed in one of my high school classes years ago. If i had truly cared about keeping everything i learned in high school i would have multiple resources with information as to the Church's teachings on the matter. If OP and others would like i can email a friend of mine and get that information. I cannot promise immediate results, but i can probably get them within a week or so and then make a thread if people would like to.
(this would be the teachings of the Catholic Church, from the standpoint of a priest who went to seminary in Rome so they would be under good integrity)
>>25386265
Do you truly believe that that is what God does? Make demands of the human race to worship him? I am sorry but that has got to be one of the stupidest things i have read on /r9k/. You don't have to worship God to go to heaven. Heaven isn't limited only to those that believe and worship him. Heaven is for those who are good and do good. In fact, an atheist can make it into heaven as long as he is a good human being. God is there to help guide people into heaven and eternal happiness, but he is not there to make demands that they worship him. And he wont send someone to hell for not worshiping him. People get sent to hell because they have fully denied God's love. That is what hell is, a place without God's love.
>>25391260
>And it is by that free will that evil comes from.
Evil is often caused by want, which there is no shortage of, even in the current year. It should be within the Creator's power to do away with wants like hunger and loneliness, without negating free will.
If we're talking about the Abrahamic God, He seemed to have no problem giving man paradise on a silver platter. Life after Eden seems to be a punishment for the Original Sin of disobedience, with the possibility of redemption through keeping God's laws, good works, and, for Christians, following his Son.
Good parents want the best for their children, yes? If I could guarantee that my child would never have to work to eat, I would make it so.
>>25392087
That's because you're a dumb NEET who doesn't care about people being the best they can be
>>25391260
>God also gave human's free will.
If God knows everything, then that means he knows everything we will ever do.
This means in any situation when we are faced with a "decision", there is actually only one option we can take (the one that God knows we will take). The other option(s) do not represent real possibilities.
As I posted before
1. LIbertarian free will
2. Omniscience
One excludes the other.
