/lit/ - Literature

read Job you cringey gaytheist

same thread on /his/ btw

>>>/his/7814908

>>14458066
Epicurus wasn't even an atheist lmao

>God must care about humans or he isn’t God because i’m special and important
>God has a “human” personality
>God is conscious and has thoughts
Cringe and bluepilled

>>14458066
Epicurus was preemptively refuted by a tribe of desert dwellers.u mad op?

>>14458096
>worshiping a being that doesn't follow the same standards as us
>if you sin, you'll burn forever
hmmm

read any theodicy

>>14458102
>theist must believe in hell
>everyone who believes in a God is a Christian

>>14458066
What problem is there, exactly? Why shouldn’t evil exist? I would argue that without evil, God would be limited in his omnipotence, omniscience, and even his omnibenevolence. Without knowing suffering, how can we know love? So it may be the case that evil is necessary for God’s omnipotence and love to be displayed. Atheists cannot know or prove otherwise. So they have no argument here. Besides, this world is much more interesting and dynamic with both joy and suffering. We love stories with meaning derived from good and bad mingling together, perhaps God thinks along similar lines

>Tries to use morality to justify the non-existence of a being, when a fully material universe would have no definitive "good."

>>14458112
>angry bible thumper moves goalposts

>>14458102
what are you trying to say here

>>14458246
I’m not a Christian you mongaloid, I don’t believe in hell, if you had actually read any books instead of pop-theology and Wikipedia articles you’d know that and that I don’t believe in hell given that my post was spinozist.
You can’t disprove God with morality. Cope, not every theist is a Christian

>>14458265
Ok, christcuck. You think your screeching will make your deep-seated fear if sky daddy eternally torturing you for wrongthink go away?

>>14458287
bro I’m pretty sure that if a guy posts with Spinoza and says “I’m not a Christian” then that means he’s not a Christian. OP directed the argument to theists and not just Christians. You’re embarrassing yourself

>>14458066
>is God willing to prevent evil
Stop right there. Evil is simply things we don't want affecting us.
God dictates all things that happen. Just because something doesn't benefit us in the short term doesn't mean it's not a part of a master plan

>>14458066
>thinking that god can be malevolent is the same as god not existing

>>14458314
this too. It kinda makes sense that the ultimate being of all existence would be both benevolent and malevolent. The key is simply to get on God’s good side, endure the suffering, and enjoy the rewards that will come to you. God didn’t make the world just so humans could experience a boring form of happiness with no meaning behind it

>>14458066
>evil
Yeah, he missed the mark pretty hard with that one. Typical hedonist.
>>14458082
I endorse this message.
>>14458089
Then why is he said to have trotted out this weak argument?
>>14458100
Hah. Dont teass.
>>14458112
Second.
>>14458118
The point is if you think something is evil you don't understand that it was necessary. See pic related.
>>14458228
Nice.
>>14458096
Spinoza: G-d is exactly what I think he is and thats all he could possibly be. The man refutes himself.
>>14458287
>>14458265
The spinozist is less cringe up this is quite pathetic. Get of 4chan for a while you big brained keyboard warriors. Go do something good for someone beside yourselves.
Consider this a warning from a messanger of G-d.

Fuck god. You are your own deity.

>why God make bad!!
>why life not easy :(

>>14458066
Wouldn't god interfering disrupt free will? If life is a test then god wouldn't interfere.

>>14458420
Ok, since I'm my own diety, I command you to believe in Jesus Christ

>Fuck god. You are your own deity.

>>14458435
Free will is debatable. Also, not all suffering is caused by an individual’s actions. Examples: natural disasters, disease, etc.

>>14458066

this has already been addressed by gnostics with their characterization of yaldabaoth, the buddhists with 'great brahman', and other cultures have reached similar conclusions

>>14458449
From a complete existential standpoint you could say god is testing the entirety of nature. So natural disasters are being tested as well.

>>14458462
I wouldn’t say that, but I would say that God loves all aspects of existence, even earthquakes and volcanoes. God wants to give existence to so many things, even those that are subjectively evil or good.

>>14458483
Then God has no imagination.

>>14458492
Why would God think of things that don’t exist?

>>14458492
Replace god with that anon and you've got a correct answer.

I'm always stunned by the absolute audacity of theists speculating on the mind of God.

>>14458570
it’s because atheists attempt to do so first. The theist only has to pose a possible explanation for God’s behavior. The explanation might not be perfectly reasonable, but it will demonstrate that God’s motives can make sense though humans don’t understand him all the time. So yes, God works in mysterious ways, but if you’re gonna criticize God with specific objections, I’ll provide a possible reason to make you doubt your assertions. See >>14458118
where the argument is reversed, and it is proposed that evil is necessary for God to be maximally good. I’m not saying this is the truth, but it should make the atheist realize that he shouldn’t be so confident in his criticism, and that perhaps there are greater reasons out there for God’s actions

>>14458066
It forces one to choose which myth they believe. Abrahamics have to choose malevolent.
>>14458082
See? Malevolent
>>14458089
He claims to have gone with the non-omnipotent gods. But it doesn’t matter “lmao”
>>14458096
Malevolent. Got it.
>>14458100
The Hopi?
>>14458310
Another vote for malevolent.
>>14458394
It was supposedly a monk, but maybe he was reading a bit of Epicurus that never made it out of the dark ages. Either way, he missed no mark. A careless weird god or a malevolent one, it doesn’t matter, because there is none. In the beginning, in the meantime and in the end. “He” never matters.
>>14458429
And hearty vote for malevolent. You must be fun at parties.
>>14458435
Malevolent it is.
>>14458451
Christians haven’t faced it though. They’re all fools of course because they burned out the “Gnostics” from their history
>>14458570
Not the audacity of their malevolent god?

There was only one left, 2 if you count Epicurus.

>>14458082
*gets anally raped and then ass cancer*
>It was a test, read Job
*prays and still dies*
>muh Job
He is malevolent.

>>14458451
God is the highest good and evil is less than good, so therefore God cant be evil

>>14458066
God is able, but not willing.
But this is not malevolent, it is the highest benevolence.

A Free Will universe is the highest good, and it requires the allowance of potential evil.

>>14458066
Evil exists because we're not perfect like god, to relinquish imperfection is to be god.

>>14458597
If god was testing the free will of nature to potentially create a different realm that is perfection in terms of of what we subjectively think of as good then he wouldn't be malevolent, especially if peoples souls go to said realm.

>>14458700
So he’s not omnipotent. Perhaps dead?

>>14458701
So he is malevolent with extra mental steps. Got it.
>A Free Will universe is the highest good
This way you’re free to blame people for their ill behavior, even if it’s someone else’s fault for raising them rotten and/or pushing them into said ill behavior.
You’re a rather gross individual

>>14458714
So malevolent. Check.

>>14458730
Dude you're a fucking dumb ass

>>14458730
Why are you and other atheists ignoring >>14458118
>>14458314
>>14458330
?

>>14458745
They’re just more votes for malevolence. This guy >>14458733 thinks the malevolence is part of some master plan to do with “free will”. Which is oxymoronic, but I let it go.

Are you maybe hedging towards a imbecilic god? Not very popular

>>14458765
lazy

>>14458066
it doesnt take into account that God is all-wise and has a purpose for evil
its also a classic projection of finite morals onto an omnipotent being whom we could never possibly understand

>>14458066
>demiurgic god not followed by a single major religion.
Oh shit not this again

>>14458722
You're a rather intellectually dishonest and cowardly individual.

There is no point arguing with bad faith actors.

>>14458794
No faith actor

>>14458794
He is a bit arrogant, but he gives a good argument here. namely, arguing existence of free will cannot be a good answer to the evil in the world. there is still a question left.

>>14458722
I fail to see how that precludes his omnipotence

>>14458813
"if he is omnipotent, he should prevent evil" would be his presupposition.

>>14458722
>even if it’s someone else’s fault for raising them rotten and/or pushing them into said ill behavior
If it were someone elses fault then it wouldnt be their free will

>>14458822
I dont agree with the presupposition

>>14458813
You’re voting omnipotent malevolence is all. Fine.

>>14458824
Are you a determinist then? Are you that anon even?

>>14458827
Firstly, Why do you think so?
Secondly, Can you give me a Bible passage to support your opinion?

>>14458808
>there is still a question left.
what question is that?

If the value or good of Free Will is greater than the negative consequences of evil, then God is perfectly justified in allowing evil to exist for the sake of Free Will.

>>14458844
not him but
“if God is omnipotent, then he should make evil and suffering and imperfect things too” would be a legitimate argument in an alternate world by the standards of the arguments atheists use, would it not?

>>14458846

>>14458597
God is not malevolent considering God is where we get goodness from.

>>14458840
No, i'm saying the blame shift from the free actor onto a deterministic cause would preclude free will. Its not an argument against the free will defense at all
>>14458844
>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all thesethings.

>>14458859
God is the source of everything, though

>>14458865
Which is why augustine argued that evil is non being

>>14458875
I think there’s a difference between experiencing suffering and experiencing nothing at all

>>14458846
Why would God not simply create people such that they never have any desire to do anything but good?
>>14458849
No. In a perfect world, no one would wish for suffering to exist.

>>14458875
He wasn’t very bright, you have to admit.

>>14458082
>implying Job actually answers this question and doesn't just try to evade this same criticism.
"Did you wrestle Leviathan Job? No? Then fuck off."

>>14458895
>No. In a perfect world, no one would wish for suffering to exist.
Then they would have no reason to think of God or to love Him. It’s a boring, meaningless existence and that’s why God didn’t create it

Evil has no objective reality, it is a term for defying the law of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, who creates all good and evil. You are inferior to Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Resentment will get you nowhere for even that is impossible without His Will. You are inferior to Him, you are nothing, not even as lice are to you. He coulf obliterate you utterly and erase your ever having been from time itself and recreate you again a trillion times or other beings like you but more pleasing.

>>14458910
God could simply have created them such that they would not be bored by a perfect life.

>>14458924
Doesn’t matter because it’s still boring to God

>>14458597
Relax.

>>14458930
Malevolence.

>>14458895
>Why would God not simply create people such that they never have any desire to do anything but good?

Why would God not create a perfect world and perfect beings?
Maybe God did create these perfect worlds, but there is no variation, no spontaneous growth or evolution.

A free will universe of natural evolution allows for such spontaneous growth, both biologically and morally.

>>14458846
I'll open my 2012 fedora-era argument txt file.

>"irrelevant" approach : It is already wrong not to save an innocent victim even though he has the ability to help enough. It’s as if doctors have seen victims of traffic accidents in the street, and decided not to helping by emphasizing the abstract concept of "cooperation."
>francis bacon approach : It doesn't make sense to give him the will to do evil, despite his love for his creatures. Doesn't God want us to have eternal life?
>holocaust approach : Being able to give free will, and omniscience, God would have known that the Holocaust would happen. Does this mean that God knew this but ignored it?
>false dichotomy approach : Did all evil really come out of free will? For example, there is soldiers of the Vietnam War, who killed a man on the battlefield by order of state and leader, even though they do not want to kill a man. Would they think that evil comes from solely of one's free will?

God has nothing to do with any religion

it is simply a being of pure energy at the center of the universe that spawned life

religions are just scams created by the royal families to control people

>>14458857
God must be pretty malevolent to make this bitch so ugly.

>>14458930
If God is creating all this suffering merely because it entertains him, he is malevolent.
>>14458943
>no variation, no spontaneous growth or evolution
Why would any of these things be necessary?

>>14458942
God can do as he pleases. He’s offering you a good path even in the midst of all this suffering, so you should take it. He’s accomplishing his interests of creating an interesting world while also allowing you to find meaning and happiness in heaven.

>>14458082
>be god
>create a pathetic mortal puppet with infinite capacity for suffering
>subject said meatpuppet to unbelievable suffering
>"Dude it was just like, to see if you really believed in me. Here's your money back and you can start a *new* family

>>14458960
Forgot pic

>>14458849
>if God is omnipotent, then he should make evil and suffering and imperfect things too
uhh... omnipotence only implies he can do that. so, it will be this.
>if God is omnipotent, then he can make evil and suffering and imperfect things too
and (idk, most of) atheist will agree with this.
but (most of) atheist does not think god should create evil, because evil is a bad thing. he just can do that but not do that because bad.
>if he is omnipotent, he should prevent evil
in this case, though, he did not prevent evil although he can do that. evil is bad, so he should do that.

>>14458956
When humans are given the freedom to create their own worlds through stories, they choose to include suffering and conflict in their stories because they know this is meaningful. What else is God supposed to do but create a world that “entertains” Him? There are no bad consequences as He is God. He can do whatever He wants.

>>14458969
Why should God prevent something that is subjectively bad (to humans) ?

>>14458975
yeah I saw this argument. I think I went back to 2012.
I think you presuppose that
god is always objectively good, objectively bad thing does not happen,
and what we think as good and bad thing is only subjectively good and bad.
it's kinda cringe but I always give one example on this. holocaust.
by your means, holocaust is just subjectively bad, and even that is objectively good.

>>14458595
>atheists started it
Not so. The basic claim of all theisms is knowledge of the revealed thoughts of God, which is impossible.

>>14458970
>they know this is meaningful
Entertaining, not meaningful. It is also only entertaining because it is not real. Most people do not want to suffer. Also, God could have created us such that we do not find such things entertaining.
>There are no bad consequences as He is God.
The consequences for all the people who suffer and die for no reason are pretty bad. There is no silver lining if a four-year-old girl gets cancer, and there is nothing but suffering to be gained from such an event. Why would God find this entertaining if he is benevolent?

>>14458970
So you equate God to the Roman aristocrat, who went to the arena to watch gladiatorial combat? And you don't think this gets in the way of all those claims of God's benevolence?

>>14458999
Trying to define objective good or bad except in reference to obeisances to Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, is just nonsense. The Bible is full of catastrophies inflicted on Jews when they stray from their duty to Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Singling out the Holocaust, in a Century full of genocide, shows gross foolishness. There is no more reason He would feel compunction about a million Jews than you would about a million potatoes.

>>14459006
It’s possible with God

>>14459014
wanna know how I know you're a south asian?

>>14459023
Yes, since I'm Scandanavian and Scottish

>>14458765
I wouldn't say it's contradictory, if free will is a true concept then everyones souls going into their own universe would make sense. This would mean the multiverse theory is true as well.

>>14459029
lmao, being born in Scandinavia/scotland doesn't give you that blood, you're a paki/pajeet

>>14459007
>Entertaining, not meaningful.
Dumb semantics
>It is also only entertaining because it is not real.
Wrong. When events are real, people still find meaning from it even if it includes suffering. There are tons of real-life Cinderella stories that really impact people and display meaning
>Also, God could have created us such that we do not find such things entertaining.
God “could have” created nothing at all but that would be boring and limiting of his glory
>The consequences for all the people who suffer and die for no reason are pretty bad
bad for them sure
>Why would God find this entertaining if he is benevolent?
Because God is Truth, and Truth does not forsake the existence of such things just to prevent subjective suffering. Everything is movement towards understanding and maximum meaning.

>>14459033
No, I am born in America of that extraction

do people still use this?
This can only be used in some understandings of god, a pesonal god that acts accordingly to human subjectiviness will trully fail under these statments, but these do not work with any serious theological arguments. First of All there is no evil to be fought, take a look on the neoplatonic, on the origin of evil. Very basic.

>>14458765
I would also like to add that if nature is to be tested then god being good or bad (muhleveluntz) isn't of any concern. You're not really getting what I'm saying, god isn't binary.

>>14458082

>Durr I killed the fish so your argument is invalid

...just...

>>14459035
>Everything is movement towards understanding and maximum meaning
How does a child getting cancer and dying contribute to this?

>>14459062
fresh off the boat from reddit?

>>14459064

I avoid boats, the water scares me. I mean, do expect me to pull in leviathan with a fishhook? Or tie down its tongue with a rope?

>>14459063
seems pretty meaningful to me even if it’s sad

>>14458100
>preemptively
retroactively*

>>14458118
God lets all the flowers bloom, to see if something is worth keeping. Our cosmos is a corrupt venus flytrap. It's beautiful in many ways, but many of its denizens are evil and malicious.

>>14458960
>with infinite capacity for suffering

>>14458597
You've grown wrong. God is cutting the extra branches. Gardening. Not for your pleasure, not for your suffering.
However, it will eventually make you the greatest you can be. Or you'll be discarded from the garden.

>>14458066
Some clay pots go wrong, they get broken down and reused. No malice, just happy accidents.

>>14459131
No Geunon retroactively refuted him though

>>14458118
>need to know suffering to know love
what a fucking meme, this is like saying that next time I see a marriage proposal, I should break their legs so that they can better appreciate each other

>>14459266
Its common sense.

If everything you ate was sweet, you would not know it was sweet because you would have no experience of the contrast.

>>14459280
>you would not know it was sweet
yes I would, assuming I have a tongue

>>14458429
ok retard

>>14458066
You atheist faggots think satan is just sum bitch .... he uses the weak in his war against good

>>14458104
They don't answer it
>>14458118
'Why shouldn't evil exist' isn't an argument that God isn't evil.
>>14458310
Not an argument because it relies on something that isn't actually knowable in anyway, I could turn the same logic on you and say 'good' is just the master plan of the demiurge so he can do evil.
>>14458435
Free will but he punishes you for going against his 'will'?
>>14458451
only acceptable answer

>>14458701
>A Free Will universe is the highest goo

obviously not if it allows evil, idiot

>>14459280
You would if God designed you to know it was sweet without contrast.

>>14458730
pls no women on 4chan
go update your ig story with a pic of the book youre reading
you will get many dms from cool atheist boys there

>>14458066
>Throughout the Middle Ages Epicurus was popularly, though inaccurately, remembered as a patron of drunkards, whoremongers, and gluttons

>life is mean!
>god is mean!
same shit
grow up

>>14459394
You ruined my board.
I’d leave bags of burning feces at your door if I knew where you lived.
Your childishness deserves something as childish in response. Grow the fuck up.

>>14459400
One more for malevolent.

>>14458951
that's a sick picture anyone know the source?

>>14459358
How is that obvious, brainlet?

If the value or goodness of a free will universe is greater than the value of a perfect non-free will universe with no evil, then the free will universe is the higher good.

Free Will + (potential evil) > No Free Will + (no evil)

>>14459426
Given that God is supposed to be omnipotent, that equation could be anything he wanted it to be. And given that God is supposed to be benevolent, the equation wouldn't look like that.

>>14458394
>Spinoza: G-d is exactly what I think he is and thats all he could possibly be. The man refutes himself.
>t.has not actually read the ethics and the arguments Spinoza gives for his beliefs

>>14459564
Doesnt matter, its a rational justification why allowing the existence of evil is actually part of the higher good

>>14458882
suffering =\= evil

>>14458930
>God
>having needs
Pick one

>>14458082

The mainstream interpretation of Job is awful, terminally Atheist.

>>14458959

Not him but how would this make him not malevolent, Logically speaking?

>>14459013

Catholics actually have no comprehension of Morality, literal animals.

>>14458066

Why would malevolence follow from the second question?

>>14458946

To the last question:

Freedom of will does not mean freedom of action. There is no necessity between them and one could easily be without the other.

>>14459748
>The mainstream interpretation of Job is awful
You mean like Augustine, Aquinas, Schleiermacher, and Barth?
do not say Joel Osteen is a mainstream interpretation, Joel Osteen have been always bad.

The old precept is that, if one loves God above all else and acts accordingly, no real "evil" may befall him. He might experience pain and suffering, or incredible loss and melancholy, but these are merely the outward forms of corruption: he is saved from the "evil" that might accompany these conditions through his imperturbable, emancipatory belief in God. If he strays from his love of God, and therefore from goodness, it is only then that he becomes susceptible to evil -- not merely suffering, but suffering that boils over into hatred/corruption/blasphemy/sickness of the soul. Though the truth has been revealed to him, he has (through his own free will) placed something "above" his natural desire to know and love God -- anger, hatred, lust, cupidity, sensory pleasure, etc. God is willing and able to prevent evil, but so must man be in order to fulfill the covenant.

But I'm an atheist, so none of this matters to me.

>>14458953
God is kind to make a girl with a nice body ugly so people like me have a greater chance

holy shit has god ever been btfo'd so hard? how have i never heard of this until now, OP you should be given some kind of award. here i was about to throw my life away marrying my high school sweetheart, taking over my dads business and planning on having 10 children and tithing to the local church where i would volunteer as a deacon.

but fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck all that noise, now im going to hire 5 prostitutes to trash a low rent motel room and then pay 3 to murder the other 2. i have access to 20k in liquid cash, how much cocaine will that buy me? i think ill drive to mexico and get an rpg.

>>14459825
>YOU MEAN-YOU MEAN-YOU MEAN-the catholic pantheon?!?!?!?!

pathetic

>>14459853
Actually, that last statement is a lie. I'm more like an agnostic, even though the two terms are almost used interchangeably now. i know nobody cares, but I'm trying to lie less

>>14458066
>>14458597
Is it malevolent if it is deserved?

>>14459235
This board's use of the word "retroactively" is infuriating. Is this a meme of some kind?

>>14458246
>>14458287

The doctrine of Hell has long been disputed and doubted.

>>14459354
>Free will but he punishes you for going against his 'will'?
I wouldn't say he/she/it punishes you for doing bad shit, It's more of a karmic cycle kind of thing where the type of energy you give goes right back to you.

>>14458776
>it doesnt take into account that God is all-wise and has a purpose for evil
if God is omnibenevolent, he can't increase the sum of good by creating. so evil can't be necessary for or outweighed by any greater good. so all evil would be gratuitous.

>>14462662
>he can't increase the sum of good by creating
he can if he’s omnipotent

>>14462669
omnipotence doesn't mean God can do self-contradictory things. he similarly can't create a round square, for example.

>>14462736
you wouldn’t understand. You’re not omnipotent like God hehe

>>14459413
God's malevolence is a good thing

>>14458102
>human standards
nonexistent

humans follow god's standards or they have none and anything in between is nonsense for power or money gain. not exactly a theist myself but neither an atheist.

I don't think anything about God.

>>14460062
Yeah, but the meme was retroactively refuted by Schmitt.

>>14458066
evil is imaginary

So evil is necessary for free will. Ok, maybe... But then why is it that we need 2000 years of moralfagging to destroy any evidence of free will?

Further, isn't being a materialist automaton evil? And would not absolute suffering - which becomes necessary the farther we fall from the Good - turn the creation itself to blasphemy? Any resolution to the Problem of Evil only reveals Christianity's ugliness.

Bonus question. Does this not mean that God wills the apocalypse? And is this directed towards the creation as form or being? In other words, does God oppose his own creation as its end or in the beginning, in the end or as its beginning?

(Or in still other words, is the Christian Problem of Time God's attempt to retroactively refute himself from the future?)

>>14463146
what are you talking about bro God just wants to make a cool story and understand himself better don’t be hating

Only bugmen think suffering is bad inherently

>>14463236
The argument has nothing to do with suffering in itself. It is that the Christian God is supposedly one of Love, Beauty, and Grace, yet he often betrays his essence.
Meaning that it cannot be his essence and his essence must be something other than Love, the Good, and Justice. This is not even a bad thing necessarily, however, it is written into Christianity as law.

>>14463359

delineate the demiurge from god

Justify how a Perfect being could even understand evil, ie things less perfect, let alone create it

>>14463519

this post implies that god is separate from his creation, when in reality god is in all of us, and our division and imperfectness creates our own understanding, but as one unitary movement. is it fair to us? maybe not. does it matter? no

>>14463553
gay and also not christian

>>14463553
That doesn't address the problem at all. The perfect creator being still holds evil within it
And if you're not claiming that the creator is perfect then you can fuck off because this thread isn't for you

>>14463577
>>14463597

why do people get hostile when you attempt to introduce actual metaphysics to them? the truth is the truth, regardless of any degenerate opinions that modern christians may have, or atheists with their own degenerate opinions

>>14463619
Call it what you want, you haven't addressed the issue of evil at all

>>14463623

there isn't any objective evil, just a degeneration of the good as plotinus would suggest. death and decay is baked into this world, and your ability to reflect on it is not only subjective, but ignorance/division causes you to ignore that all of the good and evil that you supposedly do are just to yourself. for example, you might be pure evil incarnate to an anthill when you walk across your lawn, but most people wouldn't think that

>>14463519
how can creation be “imperfect” ? What do you think the point of creation is? Do you think that by creating individual, imperfect things such as people with Down syndrome means that God is imperfect? There’s not really a logical justification for this claim. Your thinking seems superficial

>>14463683
Your view clearly doesn't adhere to any christian ethos so why are you answering this question in a thread directed at christians?

>>14463693
Because there's evil in the world, thus it is imperfect. This isn't my claim, this is straight from Christian doctrine. I'm asking how a pure, perfect being who is supposedly the embodiment of goodness create something that contains evil.

>>14463722
>Because there's evil in the world, thus it is imperfect
if a story contains evil characters, is it an imperfect story? What Christian doctrine are you talking about?

>>14463722
Evil is the absence of God's divine presence.

>>14463722
>I'm asking how a pure, perfect being who is supposedly the embodiment of goodness create something that contains evil.
for the same reason that the greatest chef in the world can make disgusting food. Why can’t he?

>>14463760
the greatest chef in the world isn’t perfect, retard

>>14462752
You just abuse language.

>>14463766
“perfect” is a vague descriptor. Even if God is a perfect-creator, then how does that imply that God can’t create imperfect things? What does it mean to be a perfect creator?

>>14463794
He is described as a father. He is an absentee parent. A deadbeat dad. Worthy of scorn.

>>14463236
>>14463080
>>14462763
KEKS. Degenerates. Bootlickers.

If you can't hear reason, heal yourselves, go meet your maker and leave us in peace.

>>14463815
>KEKS
Nice word filter

>>14458082
The Book of Job doesn't resolve the problem of Evil because there is no evil to speak of in the story. There is simply a bet with a Devil figure who is little more than a caricature. Of course, the arguments of atheists are assumed to be predominant in these discussions, and perhaps even correct within their own formulation, but it is necessary to set these aside to see what lies beyond. Christians should also take a moment to consider how easily they are moved to reaction by such simple arguments.

The problem presented by the Book of Job is one of faith and piety, whether or not Job is pious because he has been blessed or he has been blessed because he is pious. At stake is an undermining of Job's faith. Interesting to note in this is the subject, the conflict of beings, and the order of appearance which is something of a Copernican revolution in how worldly and heavenly dominion are perceived. Authority is no longer assumed, but must be established by other means. Theological discussions rarely approach this difficulty, but this is the second bet or split that accompanies any paradoxical question.

When another sits at the table the original question must be abandoned. The Devil asks us instead, is piety instilled or blessings given? Or in other words, does God love his subjects to further his piety or are they pious in order to further his love? A trick in the spirit of Thrasymachus, and God is not prepared to answer.

The divine is thus forced to defend itself on another territory and instead of answering the Devil God turns to sophistry against humans. Evil is not the subject of the Book of Job, merely the bad.

>>14463755
So God isn't omnipresent?

>>14463881
One must not assume that he who reigns over evil is incapable of understanding it, but this is what God asks of the devil and his subjects. For if God is omnipotent surely he would be capable of undermining the faith of a lone man in his moment of greatest weakness. But he does not do this, nor does he resort to the worldly trick of lifting a man up before destroying him completely. Simple men understand such realpolitik, and the Devil would be capable of much greater means.

God views his followers and the devil as fools. He does not understand evil, nor can he elevate himself to it. He is merely bad.

Even worse is that the dilemma of piety is now confined by strict limitations upon what is known - the form as its effects in the world. God himself becomes subject to a priori blindness, and evil exists at a similar non-linearity to the questions of Nietzsche and Socrates. However, this is only because all else is eliminated; the territory denied to the subjects through the sovereign's self-exile. Nietzsche is dead, but God is left to contemplate power.

>>14458066
There are many reasons to call a god who is neither able nor willing a god, look at literally all non-abrahamic religions for examples.
However the answer is, as always, Gnosticism.

>>14462947
So then why do we find some of His actions objectionable, such as what is outlined in Job?

>>14463891
One cannot imagine Zeus appearing in Prometheus Bound. The King must retreat in his time of greatest need: an assassination of time brought forth so that his subjects disgorge themselves into his dominion. He only fails because the Promethean realm is impenetrable.

The Christian God lost access to this secret retreat, or perhaps he revealed it to his subjects in a moment of weakness and they brought it to plunder. The a priori is apprehended through negation, at the moment of revelation.

Only through total rationalisation of his own self-destruction may the creation be brought forth from the abyss. The Eschaton and Katechon are One. Job's faith a simple trick before the devil's idol.

The end of humanity as a species, its becoming as a relic.

https://youtu.be/4T8ile1uq-U

>>14463699
This is a thread directed at theists, not everything is about you. Christianity has its place within the topic of conversation but it is clearly not the centerpiece around which every other talking point revolves.

>>14463737
That's retarded. If there are evil characters in the story, then the story is set in an imperfect world. Dumbass.

>>14463919
what makes a world imperfect? What is the purpose of a world?

>>14463882
No. He is not in your toilet nor is He anywhere near your room while you're jacking off feverishly to your 500 MB Toe Pic folder. He is on His Throne which lies above everything. He is above all things but He can hear you and see you as if He were watching you closely. The whole universe is in His right Hand and He watches closely-- shadowing everything with His infinitely calm and merciful demeanor while Men and Women wrong each other and wrong themselves.

He has placed Earth in the middle of Heaven and Hell. In Earth we have Heavenly things, like the quench of thirst with cold refreshing water. Like the shade under a tree which is visited by a cool breeze which gives you goose bumps. Like the beauty of the rain forest and many things that are on our Earth.

And we have Hellish things. Like the Earthquake that may kill a woman and her child. Like the tyrant leader who commits mass genocide against a people. Like a Tornado which tears families in two. Both figuratively and literally. Like the unimaginable pain of childbirth and the torture of a child for no reason other than sexual gratification.

Most of the things on Earth that we hate are man-made Evil. And therefore, lacking God's divine presence. Which is good. The natural disasters and illnesses are all trials for mankind in order for them to enter God's divine presence on the Day of Judgement. And He will judge everything in truth.

https://youtu.be/3tBqdKGiqnI

>>14458112
>or be reincarnated into an ant
>or be denied 72 virgins
on and on, faggot

>>14464131
What is 2000 years of religious thought in the face of 2000 WOLOLOOOOOOS!!!?

>>14463897
pride

>>14458096
it is almost as if humans made up god using whatever reference they could find.

>doesnt prevent evil therefore malevolent
I mean this is just dumb

>>14464869
superficial thinking. It’s like they’re stuck in the 12 year old atheist rebel mentality. By their logic the existence of good things means that God is good. And with evil there are actually more forms of good (sacrifice, persistence, compassion, etc.) that would not exist otherwise. Wow, another simple refutation against their thinking (but they won’t accept it)

>>14464875
>And with evil there are actually more forms of good (sacrifice, persistence, compassion, etc.) that would not exist otherwise
>>14462662

I mean, people who take anything good to be god will but dont take it when its evil things are dumb.
I myself believe that god has a non interference politic, this is a test for the worthy after all.

>>14464881
That doesn’t make sense though. How do you know that God’s benevolence isn’t maximized by allowing evil to exist? See >>14458118

>>14458096
Then you can't define God as "good" because he would therefore be above our conceptions of good and bad. IMO that would make the concept of God pretty useless.

>>14464909
Or you could simply define God as objectively good, since God gives existence to all things, whether they be subjectively good or bad to humans, alligators, ants, etc.

>>14463699
You fucking retard.

>>14464901
there's no suffering/evil in heaven, presumably, but it seems like good is maximized there regardless.

>>14464923
Bad argument. Heaven is perfect because it accompanies the exit from this world which is full of suffering. So heaven doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
>Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted
> Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

>>14464929
what about infants who die and go to heaven? do they not enjoy its maximum goodness in virtue of them having nothing against which to compare heaven?

>>14464939
I have no idea what happens to infants / aborted babies. But perhaps the mere experience in the womb and the exit from the womb would be suffering enough to make heaven perfect

>>14464901
>>14458118
>>14464929

How many layers of blasphemy can you cram in one argument? Relativism between Good and Evil on Earth is bad enough, Relativism between Heaven and Earth is an abomination.

>>14465258
I can’t engage with non-arguments. Try again

>a world with only good in it would be boring
How the fuck would you know that? And wouldn't that make Heaven absolutely pointless and retarded? Or do you expect the promised happy afterlife to get a little dose of 'evil' too?
>oh yeah Josh God is great, life in Heaven sure is awesome, never would have known that God is the best if that cherubim didn't tear off my son's leg last heavenly autumn

>>14465360
>>14464929

>>14465441

There is no Relativism between Good and Evil.

>>14465476
if you remove the subjective aspect, then sure. But you would first need to define good and evil in an objective sense

>>14463815
>If you can't hear reason, heal yourselves, go meet your maker and leave us in peace.
take your own advice. you know nothing of God. hypocrite

>>14458082
The whole conclusion to Job is that there is no answer, God is sovereign and it isn't the place of mortals to question him. Funny how the ChristLARPers here always parrot "read Job" and can never elaborate on what it actually says.

>>14464161
The templar should be a different color, and thus the "nice old man" is so named because he now sees the monk in his same color in the second panel.

>>14458066
God is far more interesting when he isn’t omnipotent. The idea of tricking God is something that Abrahamic monotheism unfortunately did away with.

>>14458246
theism has nothing to do with bible or religion dipshit

>>14458394
Ironically your pic related is an addition by a later, Orthodox Jewish, Pharisee, commentator onto the work of the Teacher that doesn't appear in the early manuscripts.

>>14459036
el goblino

>>14458082
already have a job

Thought athiests were above value judgements such as "good" and "evil" what is evil to an athiest? That which does not agree with my modern senseabilities? Can an earthquake truly be evil? Is it just the golden rule but without the icky theistic parts? They complain a lot about this problem of evil but dont really explain what it is in their eyes.

>>14467187
Are you serious? The virtue philosophies are some of the first you should have covered, do you even read?

>all
In many religions gods aren't omnipotent and this doesn't btfo those religions at all.

>>14459287
Even bland is a taste, anon

>>14459376
What can we know without contrast?

The only true evil is that which is able to prevent the Human Soul from attaining the Good (heaven), there is nothing that can prevent the Human Soul from attaining the Good. Therefore, there is nothing that is truly evil.

Guenon

>>14464901
because a universe in which only God exists is already maximally good.

>>14458118
The question is clearly not in relation to suffering itself, without which yes there would be nothing to define pleasure against. Although even this is not necessarily tenable. The presence of evil, for example, in the uncontrollable death and subsequent eternal damnation of an unborn child would suggest that God is not omnibenevolent.

>>14467391
What about those born into a, relative to Christianity, illegitimate religion?

>>14458765
No one thinks it's oxymoronic, retard.

'Malevolent' but towards WHOM that is the question. I think we should all collectively agree that God being malevolent towards those who are sinful (ie EVIL) would be perfectly fine. Anyone who disagrees with this is most likely a moral nihilist and should stick to reading Nietzsche instead of trying to understand the finer workings of Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus or some of the findings of natural philosophers such as Nicole Oresme or Roger Bacon.

>>14467453
But God is a creator. Without creation, God’s omnipotence is not displayed. What even is God without creation? What does He interact with? How can he perceive himself? So it’s not the case that a world with only God is maximally good. Define good, by the way

>>14467604
>Without creation, God’s omnipotence is not displayed.
don't see why this matters to the question of omnibenevolence.
>So it’s not the case that a world with only God is maximally good.
ok, in that case he's not omnibenevolent then.
>Define good, by the way
we can just use whatever your conception of good is

>>14467662
>ok, in that case he's not omnibenevolent then.
This doesn’t logically follow. What is your reasoning here? It seems superficial. What exactly do you mean by omnibenevolent? And what does it mean for creation to be good or bad?
>we can just use whatever your conception of good is
The good is that which tends to existence (of some thing). So I would say that food is good as it tends to our existence, and the world is good as it tends to God’s existence, since the world displays God’s omnipotence, fulfills his omniscience, and allows him to be glorified by humans, maximizing his benevolence.

>>14464909
read plotinus

>>14467700
>This doesn’t logically follow. What is your reasoning here? It seems superficial.
P1 - If God is omnibenevolent, gratuitous suffering doesn't exist.
P2 - If suffering isn't necessary for or outweighed by any greater good, it's gratuitous.
P3 - If God cannot increase the sum of good by creating, suffering isn't necessary for or outweighed by any greater good.
P4 - God, maximally good sans creation, cannot increase the sum of good by creating.
P5 - Suffering isn't necessary for or outweighed by any greater good.
P6 - All suffering is gratuitous.
C - God isn't omnibenvolent.

it's formally valid, so it does follow - but I guess you deny some of the premises here.

>The good is that which tends to existence (of some thing). So I would say that food is good as it tends to our existence, and the world is good as it tends to God’s existence, since the world displays God’s omnipotence, fulfills his omniscience, and allows him to be glorified by humans, maximizing his benevolence.
what about things that tend to existence that aren't in God's conception of the good? e.g., rape, incest, etc.

>>14458066
Read the new testament.
Jesus tells us why there are people born blind or crippled.

I imagine for theists the only thing more annoying than the irrefutable problem of evil is the fact that it's so simple it can be understood by anyone within 30 seconds. Forestfulls of paper, oceans of ink, the combined effort of the greatest religious minds of all time, and still no avail. A single paragraph that even a young schoolboy could have come up with on his own makes all that work for nothing. If I was an unironic theist I would have to kill myself just to be free of the shame.

>>14467767
>God, maximally good sans creation, cannot increase the sum of good by creating.
I disagree. I don’t think God is truly God without creation. He’s incomplete otherwise. I believe God is perfect THROUGH creation. That is how Truth is made complete. Because God is Truth.
>what about things that tend to existence that aren't in God's conception of the good? e.g., rape, incest, etc.
It depends on what exactly they help tend to existence. God tells us what is good for us, but that does not necessarily mean that it’s objectively good or bad. God might want a world that involves sacrifice. So let’s say there’s a bad event occurring, and a man sacrifices himself for another. There is suffering present here, but it tends to the existence of sacrifice, which displays love. God might allow things like rape because they still contribute to the existence of something that is desirable in God’s eyes.

>>14467599
>>14458765
>>14458745
I find it very odd that atheists do NOT tackle certain issues.

>>14458118


So what is going on here? Either they do not have a rebuttal (we win) or they do not think it worthy of a rebuttal (they are ignoring the argument because it isn't along traditional philosophical lines). Ridiculous imo.

Doesn't make any sense either way, something is going on.

Re: "You need pain to know pleasure"

It is only so because God makes it so. God, being omnipotent, could create a different metaphysics/psychology/biology in which pleasures and love are had without pain or evil existing. It is only in our current existence that Good needs Evil to exist. Our current existence which God created and has full control over, that is.

>>14467824
>I disagree. I don’t think God is truly God without creation. He’s incomplete otherwise. I believe God is perfect THROUGH creation. That is how Truth is made complete. Because God is Truth.
that's fair. I'm not sure that's the mainstream view in Christian theology, which is I guess what the argument is directed towards.
>It depends on what exactly they help tend to existence. God tells us what is good for us, but that does not necessarily mean that it’s objectively good or bad. God might want a world that involves sacrifice. So let’s say there’s a bad event occurring, and a man sacrifices himself for another. There is suffering present here, but it tends to the existence of sacrifice, which displays love. God might allow things like rape because they still contribute to the existence of something that is desirable in God’s eyes.
ok, it sounds like the good is something above and beyond just that which tends towards existence, if it depends on what something helps tend to existence. regardless, the specifics of your/God's conception of the good don't really matter w/r/t the argument as long as it doesn't include gratuitous suffering.

If there is no point to evil or suffering life is just a plague. Why would the universe have life at all?

>>14467859
You’re now confining good and evil to be totally dependent on subjective experience. What seems good to humans is good and what seems evil is evil. But this totally disregards God’s conception of good, which is more objective. A world in which humans only perceive good is therefore not necessarily objectively good.

>>14467862
How can we determine if something is gratuitous or not? It seems like a matter of opinion. God may see things differently. There also may be a slippery slope here: take away everything you think is gratuitous, and you may end up with nothing! But again, it depends on what God views as necessary or not.

>>14467871
This effectively allows us to define 'benevolent' as literally anything. In fact you are retroactively defining That Which Is as benevolent, and the proof for it being benevolent is that God willed it and God is benevolent ergo it is benevolent. Truly faith is the only way one could possibly buy this crap.

Ayoyoyo!

>>14467871
Evil is not based on perception. It is a thing.

Without the intervention of Satan, this reality would be good. Because Satan is a fallen angel (ie fallen from God), God wants reality itself to teach him a perpetual lesson. This is the nature of how brutal God can be.

Satan, at his disposal, essentially has technology, and therefore, chance, or chaos. This is why the 'god of chaos' being worshipped on here is a little disturbing. I don't know about you, but I do find that on various occasions certain outcomes seem socially preferable to others given a chance-based scenario.

What we are talking about it the general 'feeling' of chance. How it feels. If there is money on the line, even moreso: it feels like someone is pulling the strings somehow. But that can't be.

In the Quran, it talks repeatedly about how games of chance are at Satan's disposal. This is just one of the many implications of evil. I think technology has the potential to be very good, but it could be helping to create a reality in which we are directed by chance, that is by an invisible hand. And no, we're not talking about Smith's invisible hand either. Something more sinister.

Same for gambling goes for casinos, as proven by various economists, who have found that there exists only a slight long-term linear trend in the indices. So investing is basically gambling as well. I'll tell you what's going on here: someone IS pulling the strings. Someone who thinks they are god.

Someone is also directing most of you: controlling academia. They think that by imbuing academia with an atheist bent they can prevent you from discussing certain issues (see >>14467826)

>>14467888
well the point if the argument is that any instance of suffering would necessarily be gratuitous. also any instance of pleasure/good would be gratuitous. gratuitous here just means not necessary to accomplish what God would need to as a result of his omnibenevolence.

>>14467892
God is objectively good, but also subjectively benevolent to humans. But God can also be subjectively malevolent. This has to be the case, since some people hate God, and some people go to hell.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Deuteronomy 7:9
>9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

>>14467933
This is the rational position. :3

>>14467932
Right, but God’s objective omnibenevolence/goodness/justice is not affected by our subjective views. God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator. In the same way that I eat animals for my purpose, making it good for me, God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good. Unfortunately this allows suffering to exist for us, but God is merciful, so he allows a way to salvation, which we can either accept or reject. See >>14467933

>>14459354
>Not an argument because it relies on something that isn't actually knowable in anyway, I could turn the same logic on you and say 'good' is just the master plan of the demiurge so he can do evil.
And you would be right? This is a pretty common argument. Morality flows from that which creates morality, not from those participating/observing in morality

>>14468053
>inb4 “but God breaks his own moral code”
No, those are the morals that God prescribes to humans, because he cares for us. There’s no reason why he has to follow the same rules

>>14467871
>>14467933
>>14467964
>>14468053
>>14468097
Any objections before /thread and /“problem” of evil ?

/thread
/problem of evil

>>14468453
Wololo

>>14458066
it cannot be refuted, otherwise it wouldn't be around anymore and believed by so many people

>>14458066
Did Epicurus ever make an attempt to define either "God" or "evil"? Pulling a quote like this out of context seems rather dishonest to me.

>>14467376
We need contrast, but not the contrast of opposites. What's the opposite of red? But we understand red through it's contrast with a background, which can be any color (other than red, obviously).
And if you feel tempted to say the opposite of red is yellow or green (depending on whether you prefer paints or prisms), remember that color theory isn't phenomenology.

>>14469729
Does this apply to all arguments? Since they persist, that means they’re correct? Also, how do you know that it can’t be refuted? Have you heard every counter-argument?

>>1445808
More like get a job, amirite?

>nobody ITT has ever heard of Felix Culpa
Imagine not reading books

Read Augustine-On Free choice of the will

>>14467964
yeah it doesn't matter. even granting that God's conception of good is objective and even possibly unknowable by humans doesn't change the fact that it would be maximized sans creation if he's an omnibenevolent being (although you reject that God is maximally good sans creation, which is fine).