/lit/ - Literature

>>15650934
>why life hard why life not always easy

>>15650936
yea...definitely about that...

>>15650936

Mysterious ways

>>15650936
brainlet

>>15650936
As we all know, love is making things unnecessarily difficult and painful for others.

>>15650934
You call him "God" because if you don't, he will anally rape you. Solved.

>>15650962
Such degeneracy. I hope you’re joking

>>15650970
You choose malevolent. That’s all that is. Zeus=Yhwh, same dif

>>15650977
Many things aren't chosen

If God real why bad thing happen

>>15650993
>Look, me? I already solved the problem

>>15650993
yea why

>>15650993
Yes.

God's logic could well be beyond our comprehension, or He could just be malevolent for a number of reasons.

>>15650987
And yet you believe in a god because some dithering tribe in the desert wrote about theirs.
It’s fiction. You can’t choose for it to be fact.

high IQ thread

why are christians larpers always feel the need to proclaim their superiority?

>>15651033
you're projecting here friend

>>15650993
Because the only 'God' that exists is pure evil.

>>15651039
Yes, and I believe that if God created everything then any perceived evil on His part is necessary

It's not really about if he's real or not, that's not the point of religion at all.

>>15651037
you can't provide an answer on your own bro

>>15651048
excellent point, anon

>>15650934
gnosticism refuted this

Dualism is the only way to solve this. The material world is evil, and god is good. The purpose of the material world is a test to see who is worthy of returning to God.

>>15651065
in what consists this test? It's for humans only?

>>15651062
in which work?

>>15651079
Yes, because animals have no rational soul, hence they are not capable of pure intellection.

>>15651097
yikes

>>15650987
"evil" doesn't exist

>>15650934
"evil" doesn't exist

>>15650934
BTFO'd by Ennead III.2-3 On Providence. God acts through man, not on man.

>>15650936
cope

>>15651136
I said why is there suffering at all in the world goddamnit I don't care about man only. I swear you are all brainlets.

>>15651136
m e g a
c o p e

>>15651147
Because the soul has self-motion and turns away from the intelligable world. Phaedrus explains this.

>>15651154
Are you one of the soft fat boys who gets bullied and then cries to God to save him instead of obeying the will of God and crafting your body into being a hard lean fighing machine? Should have read Plotinus.

>>15650936
why tho

>>15651171
>uhhhhhh.....jesus loves you?

>>15651162
Why does God allow that? Also what about suffering resulting from natural desires?

>>15651221
Why does God allow self-motion? It's a necessary condition of ensoulment. To be otherwise is to not exist. What suffering from natural desires, obey gods will: eat, have sex.

What if there's no best possible world, in much the same way as there's no largest natural number? Since God can only make one possible world actual, no matter what he does he could have done better. But this "failure" doesn't seem to require that he be any less than maximally powerful and knowledgeable, nor any less than perfectly righteous.

>>15650934
invent evil. blame god.
don't like a game, lose, blame programmer and sysadmin.
refuted.

>>15651264
>Since God can only make one possible world actual
Seems an arbitrary limit to place on God. Why not modal realism?

>>15650934
those who use concept of evil are still moms bois.

>>15651296
Interesting point.

One thing to say in response is that most people think the pluriverse is metaphysically impossible, in which case it is a well-motivated limit on God that he cannot create it. Indeed, it is a *necessary* limit. (Even Lewis in some sense thinks the pluriverse is impossible, as his semantics for modality involves quantification over possible worlds, and the pluriverse exists in no possible world. But in another sense I guess he has to think the pluriverse is possible since in some sense he thinks it's actual).

Another thing to say is that it's not clear that modal realism gets rid of the problem. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind, but if you're thinking that God has the power to create any subset of the pluriverse, then if there's no best possible world there will be no best possible subset, so he'll run into the same problem.

>>15651284
you sure did anon!

>>15650934
>Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.

Does not follow. Explain how it does. You can't.

>>15651349
I'm not sure what the ethical consequences of theologocial modal realism are in so far as the OP, but I think modal realism is more befitting of God than imprisoning him in our universe, which is tantmount to denying God's transcendental nature.

It does raise a lot of moral questions, like infinite torture worlds really existing. Perhaps it forces a sharper and clearer definition for what God's role in creation actually is, that grants autonomy to created beings without diminshing normative imperatives imposed upon all possible worlds. What is the nature of providence in infinite torture worlds? Providence as a normative force, not a practical force.

>>15650934
>evil
stopped reading there. evil does not exist
he has been btfo so many times yet retards who cant think still post this retardation

>>15651221
Because God gave us free will. You can't have free will without some evil.

>>15650934
This argument is so retarded. Tell me OP, what would you change about the laws of thermodynamics to prevent burglaries from happening?

>>15650934
Dangerously based.

>>15650936
Cope.

>>15651973
Maxwells daemon opens a gate each time an evil act is about to be committed.

>>15651953
Evil and good exist as concepts independently of us, if they did not we would have no way of contrasting anything

>>15650936
I’m constantly surprised and impressed by the ways that people expose themselves as dimwitted, pea brained dullards. Bravo, you fucking imbecile.

So life is shit god or not. What exactly are athiests trying to prove? This argument just makes them sound like the sadsacks they are

>>15652144
>What exactly are athiests trying to prove?
their position, i.e. that there is no god

>>15651039
Eh? Define evil. It's as measurable as "pretty" and "tall".

>>15652158
Based.

>>15650934
Has anyone given a more convincing argument for the existence of god than Leibniz?

>>15651349
>his semantics for modality involves quantification over possible worlds, and the pluriverse exists in no possible world.
You always quantify over a set -- in this case the set of possible worlds. Similarly, if you quantify over the set of natural numbers, you can't deny the existence of ℕ.

>>15652144
It's not on atheists to prove anything. Theists are the ones making the claim. A claim that is transparently incoherent.

>>15651966
That's flatly incompatible with the omniscience and omnipotence requirements.

>>15652210
The Bible proves all, anon.

>>15650934
The only source of evil is the man himself. There is no evil nor malevolent intent in nature. Why God haven't made us all kind? Because he gave us freedom to be kind.

>>15652223
Nope, no can do. God is omniscient and omnipotent.

>>15652217
Is it? Make a case why.

>>15652231
I don't understand what you intended to say.

>>15652217
>tfw too omnipotent to place a check on my omnipotence
Hmm who's really placing limits on God's potency here? I think omnipotence includes having self-control.

>>15650934
evil isn't real and only seems to exist subjectively in the mind of the beholder

>your sky daddy isn't real but this abstract cosmic badness is real because I say so!!
kek

>>15652257
I'm not the one placing limits. It's a matter of logic. God cannot create an object so heavy he can't lift it.

>>15652263

Whence these impressions?

>>15652270
If he can't create an object so heavy that he can't lift, then he's not omnipotent.

>>15652194
Regardless, if the set of possible worlds includes infinitely ascending sequences of better and better possible worlds, and no best possible world, then plausibly none of its subsets are best either. So no matter what possibilities he actualises, God will always be criticisable for not actualising better ones.

>>15652289
I think not. The ability to perform a logically impossible task is not a coherent demand. God cannot create a square circle because the very concept is incoherent.

>>15652160
How do you measure prettiness?

>>15652223
there's no suffering in nature?

Imagine creating a universe, making creatures out of mud, designing people smart enough to split an atom, and after all that, some little shit uses Earth's worldwide network of cables and thinking objects to talk trash about you.

>>15652313
With Emma Stone.

>>15652160
>>15652313
Or rather, I got thrown off by the fact that tallness is measurable, and prettiness isn't, so your point doesn't quite come through.

>>15652305
God can complete Supertasks and Hypertasks. It's one of the perks.

>>15652327
>prettiness isn't measurable

Acktually...

http://archive.is/dMoqF

>>15652320
There is suffering in nature but suffering is not equal to evil. When you suffer from a desease, it's not a result of someone's evil intent. You can only apply the notions of evil and good to someone who posseses a reason.
A virus can be "bad" for you but it's not "evil" because a virus has no will, it has no "choice" but to do you harm. People have that choice, but they don't always exercice their freedom not to do harm, hence the evil.

>>15650934
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

False.

>>15652378
Cope.

>>15652285
the world that God gives rise to

>>15652387
Cope.

>>15652375
the problem for me is suffering, not "evil". My question is how is suffering justified?

>>15652406
>That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

>>15651065
Sounds like more nihilistic life-denying bullshit

>>15652406
Nature-induced suffering isn't justifiable at all. Only an action of a sentient being can be justified (as far as it acts according to reason).
"Justice" is a notion of human ethics, justice is not found in Nature.

>>15652416
>>15652426
I loathe Nietzsche pseuds from the bottom of my heart.

>>15652430
>you can't call nature evil, it has no moral agency, it's just mindless, predatory, destructive, and insane
which is why it's evil lol.

>>15652430
But Natura is a creation of God.
>>15652416
An injustice, a torture, a betrayal make you stronger?

>>15650934

Has been refuted dozens if not hundreds of times.

>>15652443
What went wrong?

>>15652375
Spook-rich post.

>>15652446
You wish, god-botherer.

>>15652416
>that which does not kill us makes us have a nervous breakdown and have our sister take care of us until we die like bitches anyway

>>15652362
That’s not the issue. While God can actualise any set of possibilities he wants—even infinite ones—if there’s no best set to actualise, then he can’t actualise the best set. Moreover, if the reason there’s no best set is that for any set there’s always a better one, then no matter what God does he always could have done better.

Maybe this explains why God created a world—our world—that isn’t as good as it could have been.

>>15652406
suffering is a bio-chemical penalty to prevent you from doing things that will kill you or inhibit reproduction. if suffering didn't exist, there would be no reason not to cut your arm open to see what's inside

>>15652406
Suffering allows us to peform heroic valour. Jesus explains this to St Anthony after letting him be tortured by demons for a few days.
>Then said Saint Anthony: O good Jesus! where hast thou been so long? why wert thou not here with me at the beginning to help me and to heal my wounds?
>Then our Lord said: I was here but I would see and abide to see thy battle, and because thou hast manly fought and well maintained thy battle, I shall make thy name to be spread through all the world. Saint Anthony was of so great fervour and burning love to God.

>>15652443
>it's just mindless, predatory, destructive, and insane
How can something which has no mind be insane? How can something which has no will be evil? There is a large difference between being evil and being harmful. Good intentions can bring lots of harm.
The Nature works according to its rules. It has no care nor intent for human beings.
>But Natura is a creation of God.
Yes, but again, it does no evil nor it does any good. Only sentient beings possess the capacity to do such things. There is nothing evil in suffering and there is nothing good in pleasure.
>>15652467
There is no larger spook than believing that Nature has evil intents towards human beings.

>>15652487
doesn't explain or excuse it. no reason firing of c-fibers shouldn't feel like a really strong tickle. matter is hell, stop simping for ialdabaoth

>>15652494
God created the whole world, anon. Only his 'intent' matters.

>>15652495
>stop simping for ialdabaoth
kek

>>15652487
>>15652493
Like the anon above me said, it doesn't excuse it. There is also incidental suffering

>>15652504
>God created the whole world
Prove it.

>>15652516
I'm just going off the common understanding of 'God'.

>>15652487

There is only a vague correlation between bodily damage and pain.

>>15652504
But do we know his intent? God does no evil so there is no evil in his creations apart from man whom he endowed with freedom of reason to do both good and evil. Because if God made us good by design we wouldn't experience love towards God because we would have no choice but to love God. Love that has no choice but to love isn't real love.

>>15652516
It is axiom, you idiot.

>>15652494
life is inherently deficient, deficiency/lack is evil

>>15652406
you hungry you suffer. pain. you eat suffering ends. you learned. what is pain? a demand of your body to get out of uncomfortable harmful place. people suffer because they are stupid faggots.

>>15650934
evil is what I and my mom don't like.

>>15652542
God is responsible for evil, for creating the condition of possibility for evil (freedom/lack/negativity, whatever the fuck you want to call it). God is evil.

>>15652563
so?

>>15652580
>God is evil.
The Bible proves this wrong.

>>15652542
>man whom he endowed with freedom
Nope, that's inconsistent with omniscience and omnipotence. Try again.

>>15652513
It does excuse it, suffering creates the opportunity for heroism, which is of greater account than suffering.

>>15652588
The Bible contains many assertions but no proofs.

>>15652588
Isaiah 45:7

>>15652485
Good point. Suffering is in all cases an alienation from God. Because God has qualities in the infinite, all finite things will always be alienated from God to an infinite degree.

>>15652580
you prove you are retard. retards must suffer. darwin agrees.

>>15650934
>Then he is not omnipotent
>Then why call him god

Just because god cannot prevent evil that doesn't mean he's not still a being above humans and the rest of the creatures on earth
This is clearly a false dichotomy implying god can only possibly be one of two things all powerful or worthless

>>15652562
>deficient, deficiency/lack is evil
The notion of "deficiency = evil" only applies to human beings afaik which only proves my point. Also, Aquinas makes no difference between harm and evil. But you can elaborate on this.
>>15652580
>God is responsible for evil, for creating the condition of possibility for evil
The man as he was originally created wasn't evil nor good but was just a creation with no will or rational intent. The man became capable of evil only when he received the capacity of reason by comitting the Original Sin. So, as a created nature, man isn't evil nor good. As a creative nature, man is capable of good and also (because of his deficiency) of evil.
>>15652594
God intentionally infringed his omnipotence by creating an intelligent being.
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil".
God's intentions are good by design. "Good" was once defined as being in accordance with God's will. So, everithing God does is good by definition. Our modern understading of "good" is much more secular.

>>15652669
Cope.

>>15650934
Now I see the appeal of Stoicism, completely side-stepping this kind of retardation.

>>15652674
>The notion of "deficiency = evil" only applies to human beings afaik which only proves my point.
every day something has to die for another thing to live. this applies to everything that lives. don't play word games, this shit is a sadist's dungeon

>The man as he was originally created wasn't evil nor good but was just a creation with no will or rational intent.
so man wasn't evil until he was man, which means until he was granted his selfhood/freedom by God. which makes God responsible for evil.

if God can't create sentient beings without "infringing on his omnipotence", he isn't omnipotent

>>15652327
"tallness" is not measurable. Length is. The empire state building is tall to you, but not to the sun, therefore it is not tall.
Evil is a human concept. I frankly don't believe God is omni-benevolent by our understanding of benevolent, but he is by his understanding, if that makes any sense. He wrote the definition. It's like how by a child's definition, a parent is "evil" by not giving them cake for dinner.

>>15652688

not an argument but I'm not some die hard theist anyway just pointing out the obvious flaw in Epicurus' argument
There's no reason to believe that god can't be a powerful being that tries its best to help humans but just can't do everything and in this case there is not much justification for hating or abandoning him

>>15650934

your creation of good also creates evil along with it. two sides of the same coin. read the book of job

>>15652731
>It's like how by a child's definition, a parent is "evil" by not giving them cake for dinner.
this child/parent metaphor seems like one of the only strong theodicies to me.

>>15652731
>I frankly don't believe God is omni-benevolent by our understanding of benevolent, but he is by his understanding, if that makes any sense.
then he isn't by the only standard that counts. how could an omnipotent being not anticipate the discrepancy and compensate for it? why are you making excuses for a creator of universes lol? I hate how you people ALWAYS use a parent-child analogy.

>>15652371
The one on the left is prettier.

>>15652720
>every day something has to die for another thing to live
I can't see how it's evil.
'To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted'.
>so man wasn't evil until he was man, which means until he was granted his selfhood/freedom by God. which makes God responsible for evil.
You see, we call evil only that which *intentionally* does harm to us. But the only thing which does that is the man himself. So how can you blame a self-inflicted harm to God? How can a man complain about evil if he's the only source of evil? You can of course say that God could deprive us from the capacity to do evil but the capacity to do evil stems from our freedom. Take it away and we are no longer free to do good and to love God. So if you want to blame God for making us able to do evil then why won't you also praise God for making us able to do good?
Of course God knew from the beginning that evil will stem from man and He created him nonetheless as He loved his creature.
>if God can't create sentient beings without "infringing on his omnipotence", he isn't omnipotent
If God can infringe his omnipotence doesn't it make him omnipotent in the first place? He who can't infringe his own power does not possess any power.

>>15652757
no it isn't, it's the same cuck tactic job's cuck friend used, make people mistrust their intuitions about the injustice of God's "plan" by tacitly calling them naïve, sentimental, or childish

>>15652798
he isn't the only source of evil. keep making excuses for a divine creation that eats itself everyday. monstrous

God administers the poison and the antidote (and the antidote only sparingly), no I don't feel I owe him anything for the antidote.

>>15650934
These are valid points, but people usually take it to mean that God doesn't exist at all. I'm not sure what type of fallacy this is (I'm not good with names), but all this proves is God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, which I already take to be the case.

>>15652371
The face on the right is extremely punchable.

If you're a compatabalist can't you just solve theodicy for free?

>>15652809
>he isn't the only source of evil.
Who also is then?
>keep making excuses for a divine creation that eats itself everyday. monstrous
I ask once againg how the cycle of life and death is evil or even bad. Just imagine inhabiting this mortal coil for all eternity, unable to die. That is truly torturous.
>God administers the poison and the antidote (and the antidote only sparingly), no I don't feel I owe him anything for the antidote.
What do you imply by the "poison" and the "antidote"? Pain and pleasure? If you feel that you do not owe him anything then why God owes you anything? Why do you blame him for evil? Do you need someone to blame? Can't you accept that there is no malevolent design behind your suffering? That suffering isn't morally bad but just painful?

This would be deep if you still believed in a thirteen-year-old's idea of God.

>>15652865
man's evil is a symptom of cosmic evil, not the other way around.

>I ask once againg how the cycle of life and death is evil or even bad. Just imagine inhabiting this mortal coil for all eternity, unable to die. That is truly torturous.
kek, only because you're extrapolating from this condition into a hypothetical one, God can make immortals that don't get bored or hedonic. aren't angels?

God creates the condition for evil, by infringing his omnipotence. he creates the poison and then asks us to be grateful for the cure. I don't care how you slice it. if he is One, he is the source of the poison, it cannot originate anywhere else

>>15652834
That makes no sense, you can't even formulate the free will defence without libertarianism.

>>15650934
without evil their cannot be any free will, free will being the greater good than the evil required for it.

>>15652931
It's by nature of finititude. Only an infinite being would not suffer. Finitude by nature entails suffering, an alienation from infinite (omnipotent) good. There is no way to make something finite into something infinite.

>>15652974
>omnipotent being
>there's no way
Every time. Pathetic.

>>15650934
His argument is rudimentary and syllogistic. This type of logic can't tell me whether my pet is a dog or a cat let alone what God should or shouldn't be

>>15652988
God could make such a logical contradiction but we wouldn't be aware of it because the part of reality we inhabit is logical, it's a sort of anthropic principle thing.

>>15652988
>God can't create an squared circle, so He doesn't exist
Kek.

Is it not possible that evil is even beyond God? A form and concept that is eternal and outside of the dimension of ours and the divine? God created us to spread good, for he is the ultimate warrior against Evil. He exemplifies all that is good and has shone his rays on to us, the intention of us Humans is not to worship this human figure/ humanization of God, rather to worship the qualities of this God, his true intentions. We are God's sword against the endless swarms of Evil that permeate this Dimension, and as we clear this one we shall go on to the next one and start this fight again, each more taxing than the last. In the end we shall hold hands with God as we eliminate the final Evil, and then true Paradise will bless all of the small pieces of souls that have been spread across countless eons. God is Omnipotent in our understanding, but Evil is that which can not be moved or changed, to destroy it is impossible, but to instead eliminate it through sheer virtue and exemplification of goodness.

>>15653008
>God is bound by the determinations of logic
lol

>>15653005
>uuh he could have done differently trust me bro
So?

>>15653020
Yes this is based but this isn't the orthodox understanding: that evil is an eternal, self-existent principle and God is a paladin of light at war with a principle outside of him.

>>15650934
you are cringe

Good and evil are subjective human concepts. God is the creator and master of all reality that paints the image of reality onto himself. There's not a blade of grass that moves without the will of the Lord.

>>15651154
The world wasn't made for man.
We are meant to be the custodians of the earth, to descend in order to heal; but we descend, freely, for pleasure and illusion.
The only evil beings, 'Arcons' and Titans, in all reality are the self-serving souls who walk this earth. The source of all evil, who with every sin tear at Being.

>>15652834
>>15652936
I've been wondering about this. So if compatibilists are right about free will then the problem of evil can't be solved by appeal to the value of the freedom God endowed us with?

>>15651166
>need to get swole in god's creation to counteract his own evil potencies
kek, end yourself.

>>15653057
no u

>>15652931
>man's evil is a symptom of cosmic evil, not the other way around.
How does 'cosmic evil' manifests itself other than in men?
>only because you're extrapolating from this condition into a hypothetical one, God can make immortals that don't get bored or hedonic. aren't angels?
I don't know anything of angels. I don't know why our life is as it is. But if God made us immortal and non-hedonic, would we still be men? Wouldn't the notion of our freedom and the love of God despite all our conditions lose all its sense? If I remember correctly, God values our love way more then the love of angels. I'm not even sure if angels have a choice to love. Of course, the story of Lucifer tells us otherwise, but it's kind of vague.
>God creates the condition for evil, by infringing his omnipotence. he creates the poison and then asks us to be grateful for the cure
Why do you only deem men as "poison"? What is, once again, the poison and the cure in your understanding?
>One, he is the source of the poison, it cannot originate anywhere else
What is evil? Evil is the harm originating in someone's intent. Harm by itself is neither evil nor good. Only the intention 'makes it so'. We call someone evil because we know his intents to do us harm in order to please himself. Do we know the intents of God? No, we don't. So how can we call him evil? His will may be harmful to us but never evil. Remember the story of Job.
Our notions of good and evil, harm and use, intent and will are inapplicable to God. We can't judge God as we judge men.
Evil is not an entity. It's just a word that shows our relation to some humans act or intention. How can you even accuse God of something so humane?

>>15653028
>God is bound by the determinations of logic
>lol
We are, even if could could make a square circle, or a an unliftable boulder, or dry water, we wouldn't be able to understand such thing. Those paradoxes could exist as far as we know, yet go unnoticed by our universe because of it's inability to contain those events. In the same way that UV radiation exists regardless of your ability to perceive it in a traditional sense.

>>15653020
Evil is a parasite on the good. There is no evil without a contrary good. Evil is not an independent principle. See Proclus On Evil, which is the standard Platonist/Christian/Western position.

>>15653222
>How does 'cosmic evil' manifests itself other than in men?
deficiency, predation, death.

>But if God made us immortal and non-hedonic, would we still be men?
so God is bound to honor the essence of man, apparently sacred and unalterable, but the essence of evil is a non-essence, a non-potency, a misrecognition, a trick of our finitude, etc. etc. How convenient.

>Harm by itself is neither evil nor good. Only the intention 'makes it so'.

God created harm and the possibility of harm. He is a flawed creator.

god is incomprehensible

>>15653248
does the Good parasitize itself? no? then evil is an independent principle, even if that principle is parasitic. independence implies some degree of existence, and since it does not originate from the Good, self-existence as well. how could the Plotinian One be extended towards matter/non-being? in what is it extended? how could light be depleted? by what?

>>15653250
>deficiency, predation, death.
This doesn't correlate with the moral definition of evil. It may be unpleasant to you but unpleasant doesn't mean evil.
>so God is bound to honor the essence of man, apparently sacred and unalterable
He made us free with an expectation that we will one day turn towards him and love him. Because love has no virtue if both of the lovers don't have a choice not to love. God loves us on his own volition and he wants us to love Him on our own volition. As you can see, this description doesn't eve require the notions of good and evil.
>God created harm and the possibility of harm. He is a flawed creator.
How came the possibility of harm makes his creation imperfect? What is perfection then, do you know of it?
It is imperfect only for the eyes of the imperfect.

>>15653306
>It is imperfect only for the eyes of the imperfect.
yes, it's always the child's fault, never the parent, and especially not an all-powerful one.

>This doesn't correlate with the moral definition of evil. It may be unpleasant to you but unpleasant doesn't mean evil.

it correlates with my intuition that a loving god would not create a material universe where bodies devour bodies. if you don't share this intuition you are spiritually defective.

wonderful, guys who argue about evil consider themselves good. why? moms cannot be wrong. lol. stupid autists.

>>15653250
>deficiency, predation, death
>evil
The gods become human for there is no life in eternal sameness.
Life, the Indefinite Dyad, the Power of the Father, cause of all difference: Infinite Change.
Limitation from the Monad and multiplicity from the Dyad are joined and kept apart in Harmony by God as the One-Being, the One and Many.
Why is Gold valuable? Why is it worse for a young person to die than an old one? Why do we travel far for better weather? Why do we work so hard to preserve the endangered? Do you think an orgasm would be pleasurable if it lasted a year? This is the sin of promiscuity, you debase the worth of sex for yourself. It is why we are obese and depressed, there is no struggle for good, pleasure is so easy that life becomes suffering.
A life without suffering is nothing but suffering, the typical 'paradise' is Hell.
There are many reasons for why Plato's heaven is temporary, and why the Guardian who reaches the vision of the Good cannot be allowed or allow themselves to remain in that vision. This is also the sin of Gnosticism and 'liberation' seekers.
The Soul is the child of Earth AND starry Heaven. Our nature is change itself, the median of all creation, we cannot rest forever.

>>15653261
>god is incomprehensible
Yet you claim to know him

>>15653348
>yes, it's always the child's fault, never the parent, and especially not an all-powerful one.
Do you deny your responsibility? Maybe you don't even want to be free, don't want to have reason?
There is a special place in Dante's Inferno called Limbo where reside the lukewarm souls of people who refused their responsibilities and did nothing notable in their lives, no good, no harm. It is a place for people who didn't even deserve to go to actual Hell. So, even residing in Hell requires some merit, some exercice of will.
>it correlates with my intuition that a loving god would not create a material universe where bodies devour bodies
Where does this representation comes from? Let me guess, from your earthly views on parental love. Do you think of God as of humane parent? Then you only delude yourself. God is cruel — by our standards. But our standards, our rules do not compel Him.

>>15650934
It is; evil doesn't exist

>>15653404
Not him but that's the point.
He is paradoxical, things we know yet things we know that seemingly go against other things we know. God is Inefffable because we know antithetical things of Him, and that he is still yet more than his intelligible Light.

>>15653426
>Where does this representation comes from? Let me guess, from your earthly views on parental love.
no, from the true god beyond this shitshow. I'm glad you admit you worship a God who cannot prevent himself from being cruel to his own children, that he never had to create, both them and even the idea of cruelty. You're boring. I'm done with you.

>>15653401
>A life without suffering is nothing but suffering, the typical 'paradise' is Hell.

what a load of shit. only brains get bored, you don't your brain with you into the pleroma.

>>15652731

Taking you for your word, can I say that the good from God is likewise not really good?

>>15653446
Soul always has a body.
And God will throw you down into forgetfulness if you refuse to descend to Becoming as a Guardian.

“Observe then,” said I, “that this part of such a soul, if it had been hammered from childhood, and had thus been struck free of the leaden weights, so to speak, of our birth [519b] and becoming, which attaching themselves to it by food and similar pleasures and gluttonies turn downwards the vision of the soul—If, I say, freed from these, it had suffered a conversion towards the things that are real and true, that same faculty of the same men would have been most keen in its vision of the higher things, just as it is for the things toward which it is now turned.”
“It is likely,” he said.
“Well, then,” said I, “is not this also likely and a necessary consequence of what has been said, that neither could men who are uneducated and inexperienced in truth ever adequately [519c] preside over a state, nor could those who had been permitted to linger on to the end in the pursuit of culture—the one because they have no single aim and purpose in life to which all their actions, public and private, must be directed, and the others, because they will not voluntarily engage in action, believing that while still living they have been transported to the Islands of the Blest.”
“True,” he said.
“It is the duty of us, the founders, then,” said I, “to compel the best natures to attain the knowledge which we pronounced the greatest, and to win to the vision of the good, [519d] to scale that ascent, and when they have reached the heights and taken an adequate view, we must not allow what is now permitted.”
“What is that?”
“That they should linger there,” I said, “and refuse to go down again among those bondsmen and share their labors and honors, whether they are of less or of greater worth.”
“Do you mean to say that we must do them this wrong, and compel them to live an inferior life when the better is in their power?” [519e]
“You have again forgotten, my friend,” said I, “that the law is not concerned with the special happiness of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit [520a] which they are severally able to bestow upon the community, and that it itself creates such men in the state, not that it may allow each to take what course pleases him, but with a view to using them for the binding together of the commonwealth.”
“True,” he said, “I did forget it.”

>>15651010
God is nature butters, you can rest now. btw dump your ideology you freak

>>15651284
Cant exactly quit life or travel to another world so....
Also,ETERNAL SUFFERING

>>15653469
God is One, idiot. Absolutely alone, fire in nothingness, it is incomparable. nothing, nonexistence cannot have qualities. God encompasses all qualities at once and none at the same time. Is God good? yes. Is it bad? yes. Is it wise? yes. Is it stupid? yes, because he cannot compare himself to something or someone else. If you are alone in a prison, you are the most clever and the most stupid guy in there.

>>15653512
>Soul always has a body.
which it must be detached from. soma is a tomb for Plato, did you forget?

>>15651046
That is but to say Heaven does not exist.

>>15653531

You have not answered my question.

>>15651065
Did you miss the omniscient part?

>>15652765
>>15652828

>>15653469
yeah for sure. I'm a christian and frankly I don't think God is very good going by the "standard" standard, but I think he's good by mine. Standard's are set by the leader, and whether or not you agree with the leader, he makes the choices. I'm not a fan of the "hippy" opinions given by most Christians about his love. God is an absolute good because he said so, not because there's a rule book from someone else that says so. Remember, refuting religious people is not actually a good way to "disprove" God, because they have a time warped opinion that was created by superstitious brown people thousands of years ago.

>>15653538
That's body of the lowest aspect of matter, absolutely indefinite matter.
Even God and the Forms are informed in Intelligible Matter; in-fact the Dyad and Power itself is true Matter, the productive power of all things, panta rhei. Their eternal Union is the One Being.
And yes, it is a tomb, what you miss is that a true tomb is a Temple, and the Body of Soul is the Whole universe, and the Body of God is the Temple that is all Reality. For death is life. The Body we seek in this age is an Aetherial body of the Stars.
Also read Book 5 of the Corpus Hermeticum.

>>15651791
You think someone unwilling to do good is good?

>>15653650

Yes. Good to those who do not want it is bad.

>>15653538
First, then, we must learn the truth about the soul divine and human by observing how it acts and is acted upon. And the beginning of our proof is as follows: Every soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal but that which moves something else or is moved by something else, when it ceases to move, ceases to live. Only that which moves itself, since it does not leave itself, never ceases to move, and this is also [245d] the source and beginning of motion for all other things which have motion. But the beginning is ungenerated. For everything that is generated must be generated from a beginning, but the beginning is not generated from anything; for if the beginning were generated from anything, it would not be generated from a beginning. And since it is ungenerated, it must be also indestructible; for if the beginning were destroyed, it could never be generated from anything nor anything else from it, since all things must be generated from a beginning. Thus that which moves itself must be the beginning of motion. And this can be neither destroyed nor generated, [245e] otherwise all the heavens and all generation must fall in ruin and stop and never again have any source of motion or origin. But since that which is moved by itself has been seen to be immortal, one who says that this self-motion is the essence and the very idea of the soul, will not be disgraced. For every body which derives motion from without is soulless, but that which has its motion within itself has a soul, since that is the nature of the soul; but if this is true,— that that which moves itself is nothing else than the soul,—then the soul would necessarily be ungenerated and immortal. Concerning the immortality of the soul this is enough; but about its form we must speak in the following manner.

>>15653538
>>15653614
>>15653713
To tell what it really is would be a matter for utterly superhuman and long discourse, but it is within human power to describe it briefly in a figure; let us therefore speak in that way. We will liken the soul to the composite nature of a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the horses and charioteers of the gods are all good and [246b] of good descent, but those of other races are mixed; and first the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is noble and of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome. Now we must try to tell why a living being is called mortal or immortal. Soul, considered collectively, has the care of all that which is soulless, and it traverses the whole heaven, appearing sometimes in one form and sometimes in another; now when it is perfect [246c] and fully winged, it mounts upward and governs the whole world; but the soul which has lost its wings is borne along until it gets hold of something solid, when it settles down, taking upon itself an earthly body, which seems to be self-moving, because of the power of the soul within it; and the whole, compounded of soul and body, is called a living being, and is further designated as mortal. It is not immortal by any reasonable supposition, but we, though we have never seen [246d] or rightly conceived a god, imagine an immortal being which has both a soul and a body which are united for all time. Let that, however, and our words concerning it, be as is pleasing to God; we will now consider the reason why the soul loses its wings. It is something like this. The natural function of the wing is to soar upwards and carry that which is heavy up to the place where dwells the race of the gods. More than any other thing that pertains to the body [246e] it partakes of the nature of the divine. But the divine is beauty, wisdom, goodness, and all such qualities; by these then the wings of the soul are nourished and grow, but by the opposite qualities, such as vileness and evil, they are wasted away and destroyed. Now the great leader in heaven, Zeus, driving a winged chariot, goes first, arranging all things and caring for all things.

>>15653743
He is followed by an army of gods and spirits, arrayed in eleven squadrons; Hestia alone remains in the house of the gods. Of the rest, those who are included among the twelve great gods and are accounted leaders, are assigned each to his place in the army. There are many blessed sights and many ways hither and thither within the heaven, along which the blessed gods go to and fro attending each to his own duties; and whoever wishes, and is able, follows, for jealousy is excluded from the celestial band. But when they go to a feast and a banquet, [247b] they proceed steeply upward to the top of the vault of heaven, where the chariots of the gods, whose well matched horses obey the rein, advance easily, but the others with difficulty; for the horse of evil nature weighs the chariot down, making it heavy and pulling toward the earth the charioteer whose horse is not well trained. There the utmost toil and struggle await the soul. For those that are called immortal, when they reach the top, [247c] pass outside and take their place on the outer surface of the heaven, and when they have taken their stand, the revolution carries them round and they behold the things outside of the heaven. But the region above the heaven was never worthily sung by any earthly poet, nor will it ever be. It is, however, as I shall tell; for I must dare to speak the truth, especially as truth is my theme. For the colorless, formless, and intangible truly existing essence, with which all true knowledge is concerned, holds this region [247d] and is visible only to the mind, the pilot of the soul. Now the divine intelligence, since it is nurtured on mind and pure knowledge, and the intelligence of every soul which is capable of receiving that which befits it, rejoices in seeing reality for a space of time and by gazing upon truth is nourished and made happy until the revolution brings it again to the same place. In the revolution it beholds absolute justice, temperance, and knowledge, not such knowledge as has a beginning and varies as it is associated with one [247e] or another of the things we call realities, but that which abides in the real eternal absolute; and in the same way it beholds and feeds upon the other eternal verities, after which, passing down again within the heaven, it goes home, and there the charioteer puts up the horses at the manger and feeds them with ambrosia and then gives them nectar to drink. Such is the life of the gods;

>>15650934

The real answer is that human beings cannot judge the morality of an all knowing and all powerful being accurately.

We are not capable of seeing reality through his lens, thus any judgement man makes on the Lord falls short.

>>15653837
literal ontological stockholm syndrome

>>15653786
>>15653743
>>15653713


>How to write over 1k words and say nothing at all, the post

>>15653857
but of the other souls, that which best follows after God and is most like him, raises the head of the charioteer up into the outer region and is carried round in the revolution, troubled by the horses and hardly beholding the realities; and another sometimes rises and sometimes sinks, and, because its horses are unruly, it sees some things and fails to see others. The other souls follow after, all yearning for the upper region but unable to reach it, and are carried round beneath, [248b] trampling upon and colliding with one another, each striving to pass its neighbor. So there is the greatest confusion and sweat of rivalry, wherein many are lamed, and many wings are broken through the incompetence of the drivers; and after much toil they all go away without gaining a view of reality, and when they have gone away they feed upon opinion. But the reason of the great eagerness to see where the plain of truth is, lies in the fact that the fitting pasturage for the best part of the soul is in the meadow there, and the wing [248c] on which the soul is raised up is nourished by this. And this is a law of Destiny, that the soul which follows after God and obtains a view of any of the truths is free from harm until the next period, and if it can always attain this, is always unharmed; but when, through inability to follow, it fails to see, and through some mischance is filled with forgetfulness and evil and grows heavy, and when it has grown heavy, loses its wings and falls to the earth, then it is the law that this soul [248d] shall never pass into any beast at its first birth, but the soul that has seen the most shall enter into the birth of a man who is to be a philosopher or a lover of beauty, or one of a musical or loving nature, and the second soul into that of a lawful king or a warlike ruler, and the third into that of a politician or a man of business or a financier, the fourth into that of a hardworking gymnast or one who will be concerned with the cure of the body, and the fifth [248e] will lead the life of a prophet or some one who conducts mystic rites; to the sixth, a poet or some other imitative artist will be united, to the seventh, a craftsman or a husbandman, to the eighth, a sophist or a demagogue, to the ninth, a tyrant.

>>15653853

Can you judge the actions of an ant to be moral, immoral, good or evil?

>>15653857
>>15653868
Now in all these states, whoever lives justly obtains a better lot, and whoever lives unjustly, a worse. For each soul returns to the place whence it came in ten thousand years; for it does not regain its wings before that time has elapsed, except the soul of him who has been a guileless philosopher or a philosophical lover; these, when for three successive periods of a thousand years they have chosen such a life, after the third period of a thousand years become winged in the three thousandth year and go their way; but the rest, when they have finished their first life, receive judgment, and after the judgment some go to the places of correction under the earth and pay their penalty, while the others, [249b] made light and raised up into a heavenly place by justice, live in a manner worthy of the life they led in human form. But in the thousandth year both come to draw lots and choose their second life, each choosing whatever it wishes. Then a human soul may pass into the life of a beast, and a soul which was once human, may pass again from a beast into a man. For the soul which has never seen the truth can never pass into human form. For a human being must understand a general conception formed by collecting into a unity [249c] by means of reason the many perceptions of the senses; and this is a recollection of those things which our soul once beheld, when it journeyed with God and, lifting its vision above the things which we now say exist, rose up into real being. And therefore it is just that the mind of the philosopher only has wings, for he is always, so far as he is able, in communion through memory with those things the communion with which causes God to be divine.

>>15653857
>>15653868
>>15653879
Now a man who employs such memories rightly is always being initiated into perfect mysteries and he alone becomes truly perfect; [249d] but since he separates himself from human interests and turns his attention toward the divine, he is rebuked by the vulgar, who consider him mad and do not know that he is inspired. All my discourse so far has been about the fourth kind of madness, which causes him to be regarded as mad, who, when he sees the beauty on earth, remembering the true beauty, feels his wings growing and longs to stretch them for an upward flight, but cannot do so, and, like a bird, gazes upward and neglects the things below. [249e] My discourse has shown that this is, of all inspirations, the best and of the highest origin to him who has it or who shares in it, and that he who loves the beautiful, partaking in this madness, is called a lover. For, as has been said, every soul of man has by the law of nature beheld the realities, otherwise it would not have entered into a human being, but it is not easy for all souls to gain from earthly things a recollection of those realities, either for those which had but a brief view of them at that earlier time, or for those which, after falling to earth, were so unfortunate as to be turned toward unrighteousness through some evil communications and to have forgotten the holy sights they once saw.

>>15653867
If I stepped on it, it would have every right to think I was immoral, I'm not going to castigate it for being born with the limitations that I gave it. Why are you making excuses for a creator of fucking realities?

>>15653857
>>15653868
>>15653879
>>15653887
Few then are left which retain an adequate recollection of them; but these when they see here any likeness of the things of that other world, are stricken with amazement and can no longer control themselves; but they do not understand their condition, because they do not clearly perceive. [250b] Now in the earthly copies of justice and temperance and the other ideas which are precious to souls there is no light, but only a few, approaching the images through the darkling organs of sense, behold in them the nature of that which they imitate, and these few do this with difficulty. But at that former time they saw beauty shining in brightness, when, with a blessed company—we following in the train of Zeus, and others in that of some other god—they saw the blessed sight and vision and were initiated into that which is rightly called [250c] the most blessed of mysteries, which we celebrated in a state of perfection, when we were without experience of the evils which awaited us in the time to come, being permitted as initiates to the sight of perfect and simple and calm and happy apparitions, which we saw in the pure light, being ourselves pure and not entombed in this which we carry about with us and call the body, in which we are imprisoned like an oyster in its shell. So much, then, in honor of memory, on account of which I have now spoken at some length, through yearning for the joys of that other time. But beauty, [250d] as I said before, shone in brilliance among those visions; and since we came to earth we have found it shining most clearly through the clearest of our senses; for sight is the sharpest of the physical senses, though wisdom is not seen by it, for wisdom would arouse terrible love, if such a clear image of it were granted as would come through sight, and the same is true of the other lovely realities; but beauty alone has this privilege, and therefore it is most clearly seen [250e] and loveliest. Now he who is not newly initiated, or has been corrupted, does not quickly rise from this world to that other world and to absolute beauty when he sees its namesake here, and so he does not revere it when he looks upon it, but gives himself up to pleasure and like a beast proceeds to lust and begetting;

>>15650934
>Still quote that never existed

>>15653857
>>15653868
>>15653879
>>15653887
>>15653900
he makes licence his companion and is not afraid or ashamed to pursue pleasure in violation of nature. But he who is newly initiated, who beheld many of those realities, when he sees a godlike face or form which is a good image of beauty, shudders at first, and something of the old awe comes over him, then, as he gazes, he reveres the beautiful one as a god, and if he did not fear to be thought stark mad, he would offer sacrifice to his beloved as to an idol or a god. And as he looks upon him, a reaction from his shuddering comes over him, with sweat and unwonted heat; [251b] for as the effluence of beauty enters him through the eyes, he is warmed; the effluence moistens the germ of the feathers, and as he grows warm, the parts from which the feathers grow, which were before hard and choked, and prevented the feathers from sprouting, become soft, and as the nourishment streams upon him, the quills of the feathers swell and begin to grow from the roots over all the form of the soul; for it was once all feathered. Now in this process the whole soul throbs and palpitates, and [251c] as in those who are cutting teeth there is an irritation and discomfort in the gums, when the teeth begin to grow, just so the soul suffers when the growth of the feathers begins; it is feverish and is uncomfortable and itches when they begin to grow. Then when it gazes upon the beauty of the boy and receives the particles which flow thence to it (for which reason they are called yearning),1 it is moistened and warmed, [251d] ceases from its pain and is filled with joy; but when it is alone and grows dry, the mouths of the passages in which the feathers begin to grow become dry and close up, shutting in the sprouting feathers, and the sprouts within, shut in with the yearning, throb like pulsing arteries, and each sprout pricks the passage in which it is, so that the whole soul, stung in every part, rages with pain; and then again, remembering the beautiful one, it rejoices.

>>15653857
>>15653868
>>15653879
>>15653887
>>15653900
>>15653931
So, because of these two mingled sensations, [251e] it is greatly troubled by its strange condition; it is perplexed and maddened, and in its madness it cannot sleep at night or stay in any one place by day, but it is filled with longing and hastens wherever it hopes to see the beautiful one. And when it sees him and is bathed with the waters of yearning, the passages that were sealed are opened, the soul has respite from the stings and is eased of its pain, and this pleasure which it enjoys is the sweetest of pleasures at the time. Therefore the soul will not, if it can help it, be left alone by the beautiful one, but esteems him above all others, forgets for him mother and brothers and all friends, neglects property and cares not for its loss, and despising all the customs and proprieties in which it formerly took pride, it is ready to be a slave and to sleep wherever it is allowed, as near as possible to the beloved; for it not only reveres him who possesses beauty, [252b] but finds in him the only healer of its greatest woes. Now this condition, fair boy, about which I am speaking, is called Love by men, but when you hear what the gods call it, perhaps because of your youth you will laugh. But some of the Homeridae, I believe, repeat two verses on Love from the spurious poems of Homer, one of which is very outrageous and not perfectly metrical. They sing them as follows: [252c] ““Mortals call him winged Love, but the immortals call him The winged One, because he must needs grow wings.”

>>15653891

No, I'm referring to the ant itself. If said ants devour a beetle, is it moral or immoral?

Is the ant capable of judging you immoral for your actions?

We cannot apply our perceptions to G-d, in the same way we cannot apply our perceptions to ants.

>>15653560
okay, answering your question. you can say anything. you can create random words/letters generator and say whatever it generates.

>>15653938
man, really, take your meds.

>>15653948

why


do


you
write
like
this

>>15653982

If you search that it's someone elses thoughts not his own.

Essentially a useless post.

>>15653982
you asked for it, degenerate.

>>15650934
Deism has no problem with this, God never intervenes in human affairs.

>>15653999
>>15653446
>>15653538
>>15650934
>>15653250
>It is in reply to this that they say generation participates in the power of acting and of being acted upon, but that neither power is connected with being.
And is there not something in that?
>Yes, something to which we must reply that we still need to learn more clearly from them whether they agree that the soul knows and that being is known.
They certainly assent to that.
>Well then, do you say that knowing or being known is an active or passive condition, or both? Or that one is passive and the other active? Or that neither has any share at all in either of the two?
Clearly they would say that neither has any share in either; for otherwise they would be contradicting themselves.
>I understand; this at least is true, that if to know is active, to be known must in turn be passive. Now being, since it is, according to this theory, known by the intelligence, in so far as it is known, is moved, since it is acted upon, which we say cannot be the case with that which is in a state of rest.
Right.
>But for heaven's sake, shall we let ourselves easily be persuaded that motion and life and soul and mind are really not present to absolute being, that it neither lives nor thinks, but awful and holy, devoid of mind, is fixed and immovable?
That would be a shocking admission to make, Stranger.
>But shall we say that it has mind, but not life?
How can we?
>But do we say that both of these exist in it, and yet go on to say that it does not possess them in a soul?
But how else can it possess them?
>Then shall we say that it has mind and life and soul, but, although endowed with soul, is absolutely immovable?
All those things seem to me absurd.
>And it must be conceded that motion and that which is moved exist.
Of course.
>Then the result is, Theaetetus, that if there is no motion, there is no mind in anyone about anything anywhere.
Exactly.
>And on the other hand, if we admit that all things are in flux and motion, we shall remove mind itself from the number of existing things by this theory also.
How so?
>Do you think that sameness of quality or nature or relations could ever come into existence without the state of rest?
Not at all.
>What then? Without these can you see how mind could exist or come into existence anywhere?
By no means.
>And yet we certainly must contend by every argument against him who does away with knowledge or reason or mind and then makes any dogmatic assertion about anything.
Certainly.
>Then the philosopher, who pays the highest honor to these things, must necessarily, as it seems, because of them refuse to accept the theory of those who say the universe is at rest, whether as a unity or in many forms, and must also refuse utterly to listen to those who say that being is universal motion; he must quote the children's prayer,1 “all things immovable and in motion,” and must say that being and the universe consist of both.

>>15650934
The malevolent part is where it falls down.
Why would an implicate universal spirit have personal actions and thoughts like a man?
Some entity such he describes is surely preoccupied by maintaining the form of space and the linearity of time?

What does he mean by God?
What does he mean by evil?

>>15650934
Labeling God as "malicious" or "malevolent" is just an act of pride. As the creation, you fundamentally cannot label the creator. That's like trying to repair a robot you created, only for the robot to turn on you, saying that what you're doing is "evil".

>>15653948
>Is the ant capable of judging you immoral for your actions?

yes.

>>15654212
If I built a robot with pain nerves, yes it would have every right to call me evil you fucking retard

>>15654212
oh shut up
>Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

>>15654212
nothing wrong with calling god stupid faggot, if one feels so. the words god and creator were made very toxic, very moral.

>>15654246

Pain is a teacher. It's one of our best methods for learning.

>>15654646
That's not something that can be said to be applied in general

>>15654664

Pretty much every complex biological creature can process pain outside of a few edge cases.

Pain is absolutely critical to the learning process.

>>15650934
God is good, the world is seperated from God, therefore the world can't have the properties of all goodness. So the argument should really be about why God would create a world at all.

>>15652494
Felines are known for toying with their prey before they eat or even when they are not hungry, they torture just for fun
Is that evil?

>>15654808
>the world is seperated from God
It literally isn't. What the fuck are you smoking?

>>15655200
yes you retard but not intentionally, the cosmos is engineered to run on evil and suffering as a matter of course. just because a lion feels no particular malice towards its prey doesn't mean it isn't being eaten alive

>>15655257
>just because a lion feels no particular malice towards its prey
They take pleasure in other's suffering, how is that not malice?

I forget this sub is actually filled with raging depressed catholics

>>15655346
if that's the case, it only supports what I've been saying.

>>15655373
>no matter what argument of the two contradicting ones you make I win
Great stance

>>15655200

Based felines.

>>15655420
>is it evil if animals hunt for sport?
>yes, but you have to be able to think non-intentional evil, and what it implies about the nature of the cosmos
>what if animals enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?
>then that makes it even worse
>NOOO THAT'S A FALLACY

Brainlet.

>>15655356
>this sub
stab yourself in the face

>>15655459
>it does no evil nor it does any good
>maybe it does evil intentionally
>NOOOO THAT'S NOT A FALLACY
Brainlet.

This is what humans are on earth for. https://youtu.be/xlfse-NqaYU
An system can only work if all parts function properly, the only dysfunctional thing in reality is much of humanity, cause of our freedom, thus there is evil.

>>15651966
Free will (without being omnipotent) and omnipotence are mutually exclusive concepts. If omnipotence exists, then all actions man will make and suffer from were knowingly, intentionally decided, and free will cannot be argued.

>>15652270
>>15652289
>>15652306
I'd argue God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, but by definition he'd be giving up omnipotence by doing so. An omnipotent being would theoretically have the ability to stop being omnipotent, but it would also not have the ability to be omnipotent again afterward.

So there's a conundrum, did god give up omnipotence when creating man, or does free will not exist? These are the only two possibilities.

>>15655607
I love you man. you get it.

>>15655798
>Free will (without being omnipotent) and omnipotence are mutually exclusive concepts. If omnipotence exists, then all actions man will make and suffer from were knowingly, intentionally decided, and free will cannot be argued.

Thats not how omnipotence works.

>Omnipotence - the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

God created all and sees all, yet he still gave us a choice on how to live our life.

>>15651037
See>>15650993

>>15655475
catholic?

>>15656279
Omnipotence obviously includes knowing the future, knowing outcomes of actions, and knowing outcomes of outcomes of actions into infinity. If God is omnipotent it already knows the outcome of whatever "choice" it gives to anything, because God personally and knowingly made that thing in such a way it would make such a "choice" in the first place. God can make something it cannot move but that would be an act of giving up its own omnipotence, as being then unable to move something means not being omnipotent. Likewise God making something it doesn't know the outcome of is also giving up omnipotence, as not knowing something is contradictory to being omnipotent. Thus God could have made humans with free will, but that would also be an act of giving up its own omnipotence, as free will contradicts omnipotence as a concept.

Thus you are faced with an unavoidable question: Is god omnipotent or does free will exist?

>>15650934
There is no evil

>>15651039
If God is evil why does good exist? There, good and evil lose their meaning with God, as there is no duality. "God is good or bad according to my finite, human morality." No, God is.

>>15651108
That's what the doctor said when he saw you postpartum

>>15650934
>irrefutable
>implying I don't call him God PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS EVIL
Evil gets shit done. Goodness is for pussies.

>>15657083
Nah, I call bullshit. Evildoing is causing harm to sentient beings.

>>15650993
>restate OP in mockery
>somehow refuted

malevolence is pretty based

he still more powerful than all humanity

>>15653521
If god were nature to people there wouldn’t be a problem. But you worship a god of death, which you call “afterlife”, and say “fuck this world”

You dump your ideology

>WHY GOD MEANIE?
>WHY GOD NOT GOOD?
>WHY GOD NOT JUDGED LIKE A MAN?
Imagine being this much of a bitch.

>>15657614
So you admit Christianity is a contradictory mess?

>>15657624
I admit it's a retarded argument the one in the OP. I doubt he even said that. The idea that God should be judged as a peasant man is ridiculous. He's beyond mortal morals.

If our world with all its atrocities is actually purely good, then paradise may turn out to be a horrible hell and still be perfectly good on a philosophical level.

>>15657614
>o mighty king, why did you kill all my family
>because I have a pet crocodile
Literally the book of Job.

De Maistre already solved this. Iron sharpens iron, hardship strenthens and purifies. Atheists are sophist pussy faggots who will never recognize this.

>>15657740
Then after death you may fall into a lake of fire with all your teeth being continuously pulled out, and that would be good reward.

>>15657750
>Why didn't God give me a participation trophy?
All you faggots do is make emotional arguments

>>15657785
Your bones being permanently broken will be not a participation trophy, but a first place reward.

>>15657740
>>15657785
holy BASED

>>15657750
Israel’s Confession and Comfort

8
Do not rejoice over me, my enemy;
When I fall, I will arise;
When I sit in darkness,
The Lord will be a light to me.
9
I will bear the indignation of the Lord,
Because I have sinned against Him,
Until He pleads my case
And executes justice for me.
He will bring me forth to the light;
I will see His righteousness.
10
Then she who is my enemy will see,
And shame will cover her who said to me,
“Where is the Lord your God?”
My eyes will see her;
Now she will be trampled down
Like mud in the streets.
11
In the day when your walls are to be built,
In that day the decree shall go far and wide.
12
In that day they shall come to you
From Assyria and the fortified cities,
From the fortress to the River,
From sea to sea,
And mountain to mountain.
13
Yet the land shall be desolate
Because of those who dwell in it,
And for the fruit of their deeds.
God Will Forgive Israel
14
Shepherd Your people with Your staff,
The flock of Your heritage,
Who dwell solitarily in a woodland,
In the midst of Carmel;
Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead,
As in days of old.
15
“As in the days when you came out of the land of Egypt,
I will show them wonders.”
16
The nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might;
They shall put their hand over their mouth;
Their ears shall be deaf.
17
They shall lick the dust like a serpent;
They shall crawl from their holes like snakes of the earth.
They shall be afraid of the Lord our God,
And shall fear because of You.
18
Who is a God like You,
Pardoning iniquity
And passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage?
He does not retain His anger forever,
Because He delights in mercy.
19
He will again have compassion on us,
And will subdue our iniquities.
You will cast all our sins
Into the depths of the sea.
20
You will give truth to Jacob
And mercy to Abraham,
Which You have sworn to our fathers
From days of old.

>>15657640
>He's beyond mortal morals.
He is fictional. The saying in the OP is a list to choose from. It debunks Christianity’s loving god

>>15657804
No, a reminder of what you failed to achieve

>>15657740
Lemme take a wild guess: suicide is because you don't have enough faith right? There is no possible way that, when a bomb kills some lady's children and she kills herself, that she was not in fact a pussy but was instead subjected to factors beyond her ability to handle? And that there is never an occasion where this purported constructed suffering is in fact destructive; posing no benefit whatsoever? Whew! Guess that solves that very inconvenient point against your doctrine

>>15657824
It debunks atheism's pretensions toward sophistication.

>>15657614
Answer the goddamn questions, shitbird.

>>15657842
>Suicide is okay because sad
More emotional arguments. Pathetic.

>>15657847

>>15657834
No, that's exactly what you will achieve.

>>15657856
It's been answered, faggot.

>>15657740
So because a kid getting Leukemia gets your dick hard, it's all worth it? You sick fuck.

>>15650934
I love how this thread pops up every other week or so but retards always keep falling for the same bait.

>>15657869
Only if you fail to strive for virtue.
>>15657863
Is this you? A retarded woman?

>>15657870
Stop bluffing and answer the fucking question like a man.

If you are just chilling and enjoying life instead of saving African children, are you malevolent or just neutral?

>>15657860
I never said that. You have yet to explain, rationally, where suicide fits within a paradigm of purposefully contrived suffering with the directed construction of the subject which suffers. Don't bother, because the reality is that your attempt to rationalize suffering in your cute little mind is just as harebrained and useless as anyone else's. It has no explanatory power

>>15657873
Correct, nigger.

>>15657847
Your argument is "God can't be understood." You're arguing against sophistication.

>>15657885
It all boils down to an autistic misunderstanding of what God is. He isn't your rich neighbour. He is fucking GOD.

>>15657885
See
>>15657740

>>15657889
Suicide is a way to avoid hardship. It is cowardly. It deserves scorn.

>>15657899
OP never claimed God was a rich neighbor. Try again, brainlet.

>>15657903
That's even more retarded. See the OP.

>>15657898
We know through history and revelation why God allows suffering.

>>15657932
The op is gay and stupid, like you.

>>15657933
Allows? Yahweh gets off on it.

>>15657932
>OP never claimed God was a rich neighbor. Try again, brainlet.
He implied God should be judged like some mortal man with common morals. Read between the lines, numbnuts. God can't be judged with 21st century meme morals, for morals change.
>inb4 b-but that's an Epicurus quote
No, it isn't. It's a New Atheist revisionist take from the 2010s.

>>15657881
Virtue a shit.

>>15651097
based
>>15651108
faggot

>>15657958
An evil demon is not a god worth worshiping.

>>15657994
Okay... but not sure what does that have to do with God. God is not a demon.

>>15657069
You're commiting an equivocation fallacy of possessing the power to perform an act, with the performance of the act itself. It isn't a quesiton of power, it's a question of will. I have the power to throw the apple in my hand, but because I do not will the act, the apple is not thrown. I still retain the power to throw the apple, but the act is not performed because I do not will it.

God can will autonomy to man's free will, while retaining the power the take that free will away. The power to perform an act is not the same as the performance or non-performance of an act. Human free will is a willed gift of an omnipotent God.

Another analogy from the power/will equivocation fallacy
>the US has the power to nuke China
>the US does not perform the nuking of China
>therefore the US does not have the power to nuke China
Peformance or non-performance of an act does not equate to the power or impotence to peform the act.

>>15657970
Only a faggot would condemn virtue.

>>15653262
Evil is the use of power within a form to direct away from the performance/teleology of a form, a parasticitc existence means its power comes from forms, and utlimately from Good, not an independent principle. Matter is receptacle for form, a good.

We just have to trust that God knows what’s best, it’s not like the world is filled with nothing but evil anyway.

>>15658007
You can only distinguish gods from demons based upon their observed actions.

>>15650934
What are you doing about it?

>>15658033
So rather than blinding himself, God closed his eyes temporarily? That still does not address the fundamental issue, which is the contradiction between God's power and Man's will. As long as will exists, God's power is still lessened. As long as you choose not to throw the apple, the apple remains unthrown. God's eyes remain closed, God's power unused, God's will defied. At any point in which God chooses to have perfect, omniscient knowledge of Man back, free will no longer exists. At any point in which free will exists, God does not have perfect domain over man. The concepts are still exclusive, just less permanent.

>>15658521
Not quite. Demons mess with the material world for the worse. God minimally touches it. There are no gods, only One.

>>15658875
No it doens't limit Gods power, it limits God's acts. Your still comitting the equivocation fallacy of power to will/acts. You have the power to do lots of things, you only do some of those things, not peforming the other things does not mean you lost the power to do those other things. Free will is compatable with God's omnipotence because it does not infringe on Gods power to do anything, it's a willful choice by God to not do things God has the power to do. Will and performance of acts are not equivalent to the power or non-power to perform acts. Your argument comes down the idea that omnipotence means that God has no will to not act, correct?

You're making a second mistake of knowledge of things being an act of performing those things. Knowing some thing doesn't mean acting or not-acting on some thing. Your equivocating will to knowledge, as you've done with power.

>>15651009
You may be right but the epicurean paradox is posited to theists who claim god is loving and good. Not people who claim that god is unknowable.

>>15652669
Holy shit how do you retards miss the point so hard. The epicurean paradox isnt devised to dismiss all possible permutations of how god could exist, just the capital G god, the three O god, which is what's claimed of all Christian's muslims jews

If you fuckers worship dagon or whatever it's not for you.

>>15658875
>>15658969
>I have knowledge of the act of Caesar being stabbed
>Therefore I peformed the act of stabbling Caesar
Can you see the problem of equating the knowledge of acts to the performance of acts.

>>15658898
You are contradicting yourself again.

>>15658969
I am trying to draw attention to the difference between controlled inaction and uncontrolled inaction. Free will is mutually exclusive with control, not action, thus even "inaction", so long as it's "controlled inaction" is still contradictory to free will. Consider the following statements:
>water will pass through this place, I will do nothing and it will arrive at the destination I expect
>water will pass through this place, I will divert it to arrive at a new destination instead of the one expected had I done nothing
>water will pass through this place, I do not know where it will end up but I will not interfere with it
In terms of "acts", the first and third statements are identical. However, the first is intentional and controlling, while the third is not. Power is automatically exerted through knowledge and ability, even if it is not exerted through action, thus as long as God is all-knowing, man's supposed free will has no meaning in comparison. God has the power to grant free will, but insofar as describing the process in a coherent fashion, it requires giving up omnipotence, as to say otherwise would be to claim God is in control and not in control at the same time.

This is especially the case when paired with the assertion that Man is God's creation. As either God created man and granted "free will" knowing what would then transpire through it, or did not. If it was knowing, then they're all just an extension of God's intentional action in the first place, if it was not knowing then God was at that point in time not omniscient or omnipotent.

>>15659081
Control requires performance of positive acts to place a limit on mans freedom to act. What act are you proposing God takes to place a limit on man's free will? Where is the proposed act of control.

>water analogies
You're using tense is these arguments. The knowledge of God isn't temporal, God is outside of time, it isn't foreknowledge of future contingents, it's untensed knowledge of all events that occur in time. The third analogy is outright wrong because of this premise of no knowledge of future contigents. The first two can be rewritten without tense as:
>water passes through this place to another place. I have the power to act to place it at another place. I act to do X.
I don't see the control issue here. Power is retained, performance is a choice of will. As a necessary act the flow of water should be understood as an act of God in the first/all instances and is different in nature to acts of free will by man.

Control of free will is a positive act of constraint. God retains the power to act contrary to human freewill, and wills not to perform acts contrary to human free will. I see nothing incoherent about describing this as God retaining omnipotence to act and the will to not act, call that control and non-control if you like, it's correct to say God has power to control and performs acts and non-acts to grant man control, at the same time. They are referring to two different things that can not be equated: power and performance. God has the power to do all things, God wills only the performance of some things.

I don't follow what the problem of knowledge of acts is with the performance of acts by others. Again it's a conflation of knowledge with performance. I agree that creation is an intentional act. The knowledge is of others performances. You know the lines of Shakepeare's plays, that doesn't make you the performer of them at the Globe on Sunday.

>>15657097
I'm sorry that you're stupid bro. Try again in the next life maybe

>>15650934
This is all solved by God having omni-control over His omniessence.

A God that can't will himself into a pebble, is not God.
("Can't" being the opperative word. A God that "wont" turn into a pebble, is a God").
Much like a God that turns Himself into a man.

>>15650977
fuck off nigger

>>15651010
fuck off nigger

>>15659280
>Control requires performance of positive acts to place a limit on mans freedom to act.
There is no such thing as a "positive act". Moving your arm and not moving your arm are both "actions", distinguishing them is arbitrary, and in either case you are still considered "in control of your arm". God being omnipotent, would obviously have even more perfect domination over you than you do over your arm.
>What act are you proposing God takes to place a limit on man's free will? Where is the proposed act of control.
Just existing is already sufficient.
>God is outside of time
The analogy did not depend on a God-perspective in the first place, it only served to illustrate how the presence of power changes actions without the actions themselves being changed. If you assert that there is no scenario in which God does not have knowledge of outcome, then according to my reasoning you're asserting that free will cannot exist.
>Control of free will is a positive act of constraint. God retains the power to act contrary to human freewill, and wills not to perform acts contrary to human free will.
Why would God need to act contrary to human will when God created humans, created human wills, with perfect knowledge to see every potential outcome, with perfect power to choose one precise outcome, in the first place? God needing to change God's creation after creating it would imply God made a mistake, which is impossible. Therefore the "act" of not acting is redundant, as a perfect God would leave no reason for himself to act in the first place. To claim, as a human, that you could ever have the capability to defy an omnipotent God is simply an irrational overestimation of humanity's ability. It's also strange that you are now describing God "temporally" in the same post where you used that as an excuse to avoid my analogy.

>Again it's a conflation of knowledge with performance.
Knowledge is performance. You might have had a point when you compared action and inaction, but there is no in-knowledge. Knowing is always in effect and omniscience is always being "performed" unless we go back to the previous closed-eyes metaphor.
>I agree that creation is an intentional act. The knowledge is of others performances. You know the lines of Shakepeare's plays, that doesn't make you the performer of them at the Globe on Sunday.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C. God made Shakespeare, therefore God made Shakespeare's plays, the only question that can be raised is if it was intentional or accidental, but Omnipotence/Omniscience by definition means accidents are impossible. Thus "God intentionally created Shakespeare's plays". This is pretty straightforward logic, if you pull the trigger you created the outcome of the bullet.

>>15659441
>Moving your arm and not moving your arm are both "actions"
No, second is inaction.

>>15659302
>joke's on you God can do anything so he can also be a self-contradictory existence

>>15659460
Of course he could. He's God.

>>15659448
Both have verb form, both are willed effects, inaction in this context is simply a category of action.

>>15659469
I mean, I won't say you're wrong but it also makes rational discussion of God impossible.

>>15657927
No. There are situations you can't judge like that. Life is not inherently a superior good

>>15659499
>I won't say you're wrong but it also makes rational discussion of God impossible.
How so?

>>15659533
If got is self-contradictory then any conclusion we draw including god becomes self-contradictory.

>>15659499
>Both have verb form
Just like all antonyms are words of same part of speech. Does not cancel the fact that they are antonyms.

>>15659525
>Life is not inherently a superior good

I don't know what you mean by superior good, but life was not meant to be pleasurable, life is suffering.

>>15659081
You're using "control" to equivocate between potential and actual. Power is potential, acts are actual. Will makes the potential actual by performance. You need to distinguish between control in potential and control in actual. Control in potential is a power to perform an act, control in actuality are acts performed to control.

>>15659441
>There is no such thing as a "positive act". Moving your arm and not moving your arm are both "actions"
They're not at all. You not flapping your wings on Pluto is not an act. It's not an arbitrary distinction, a non-act is no thing, an act is an actual performance.

>water will pass
Future tense. Not applicable to God who does not possess foreknowledge, God possesses knowledge.
>it will arrive at the destination
Future tense. Same as before.

>If you assert that there is no scenario in which God does not have knowledge of outcome, then according to my reasoning you're asserting that free will cannot exist.
Knowledge is not performance. Knowing some thing is not performing that thing.

>Why would God need to act contrary to human will when God created humans, created human wills, with perfect knowledge to see every potential outcome, with perfect power to choose one precise outcome, in the first place?
Your argument doesn't follow here. You're describing the reason why God would act contrary to human free will in the extraordinary, to effect the performance of some thing. Human free wills are created with freedom, so knowledge of the acts of that freedom that occur in time, if desired to be, would be countered by an act of God. Human free will isn't divine determinism, literally the opposite. If God willed to counter human free will it would have to be by an act.

>To claim, as a human, that you could ever have the capability to defy an omnipotent God.
>Just existing is already sufficient
Again the same equivocation between power and act. God has the power to end human free will, God acts to grant human free will. There is no ordinary acts of God to limit (i.e. control) free will. It is not sufficient to have power in potential, that power has to be actualised in acts to be effected in actuality.

>Knowledge is performance
No it isn't. You knowing Caesar is stabbed does not equate to you performing the act of stabbing Caesar. If you're hinging your position on this your argument fails here. Knowing an act is not performing the act.

>>15659548
I'm saying not all situations are alike. You can't judge a person that decides to end his life

>>15659536
except if you place God in a metaepistemic level.

>>15657978
>there are people this stupid on /lit/

>>15657069
Why can’t God know what free creatures will choose to do? Even *I* often know what other humans will freely choose to do. What’s important to freedom is the ability to do otherwise, not being unpredictable.

>>15650936
holy shit you are stupid

>>15659441
>Shakespeare
You're not dealing with the knowledge is not performance problem here, you're making an argument about the efficient cause of acts. The efficient cause of Shakespeare's plays is Shakespeares will. God as efficent cause of creation acts as a contingent cause of Shakepeare's will. A contingent cause is not an effecicnt cause. The ocean does not cause the boat to move, the ocean is a contingent cause of the boats propeller, the efficient cause, moving the boat forward.

>>15659499
Control is a limit. The chain on a dog places a limit on his movement, it does not move him to the end of the chains boundary. It acts to place a force on the dogs body to counter the movement of the dog past the chains length.

Control has to be a positive act of placing a limit and not any other thing. Your retreating from the "power" of omnipotence, which refers to no act only potential acts, to control, which refers to positive acts, but trying to retain the potentiality of power. There not equivalent, you have to choose power in potential or acts of control that effect limits.

>>15659547
Inaction is still willed, is it not?

>>15659552
>You're using "control" to equivocate between potential and actual
No, I'm using power to prove the control in actual.
>Will makes the potential actual by performance. You need to distinguish between control in potential and control in actual. Control in potential is a power to perform an act, control in actuality are acts performed to control.
The only performance needed to make that potential actual already visible to us: Human existence. We exist, therefore God performed. God is perfect, therefore God performed perfectly. God performed perfectly, therefore humanity cannot be imperfect. Humanity cannot be imperfect, thus it cannot contain a will that makes it imperfect. God creating humanity thus proves that humanity cannot have free will.

>They're not at all. You not flapping your wings on Pluto is not an act. It's not an arbitrary distinction, a non-act is no thing, an act is an actual performance.
It is a choice is it not? Every moment we are choosing. You could choose to flap your wings on pluto at this very instant, unfortunately we have human limitations so attempting such a thing doesn't warrant much thought before being disregarded. The same cannot be said for God, God can do anything and everything, action and inaction are equally free for him to use, thus everything in the universe occurs according to God's will. That's what it means to be omnipotent, how could it mean anything else?
>Knowledge is not performance. Knowing some thing is not performing that thing.
Knowing is not performing a thing, but knowing is performing knowing. Couldn't God choose not to know? Then likewise God can also choose to know. Therefore choosing to know, and choosing not to know, is willed and thus performed.
>Human free wills are created with freedom, so knowledge of the acts of that freedom that occur in time, if desired to be, would be countered by an act of God
Is this not the same as admitting any human action that occurs in reality is because God did not desire to counter it? If so where is the freedom if it's already been manipulated?

>>15659663
>God performed perfectly, therefore humanity cannot be imperfect.
A perfection of performance is not
equivalent to perfection of the product. An imperfect product can be produced perfectly.

>Pluto
A choice to not act. God retains the power to perform all acts, the will to perform only some acts. Non-acting is not performance, it's a non-act, the power to act remains potenial, it is not actualised. Performance or non-performance is neutral as to the power in potential of omnipotence. Go back to the apple in your hand example (something within your power). Not doing X with the apple is not an act, there is no movement from potentiality to actuality, the lack of acts means the acts remain in potentiality of your power and are not actualised.

>Couldn't God choose not to know?.. Therefore choosing to know, and choosing not to know, is willed and thus performed
No, a performance in an act in time. A tensed movement from potentiality to actuality. God's knowledge is not an act in time, it is never in potential, it is always actualised in totality.

>If so where is the freedom if it's already been manipulated?
Because you've been granted the ordinary freedom to act. You have the freedom to act therefore you are free.

>>15659663
>Inaction is still willed
To remain in potential and to not be actualised in any act.

>>15659553
I can't. But a God that granted that person life can.

>>15659773
He will understand then.

>>15659706
Potential is an inner act, will energy is an externalized act.
It is called Power for you have the will to do something but have just not willed to actualize it, you don't have potential that isn't powered, as in maintained.
Soul is always in-between time and eternity, there is no 'not acting'. Not changing act is to Remain at rest in the power of your last willed act.
Negation is affirmation for there is no neutrality, only ever some direction—Will always wills towards something.

>>15660016
The *performance* of power remains in potential until an act is performed. Not acting does not diminish the actuality of power-in-itself or the ability of power to perform future acts, but the *performance* of the power remains potential until it is actualised in a performed act.

Consider deadlifting 225 for a clean set of 10. The untrained man possesses the power in potential to deadlift 225 x10 contingent on future training. The trained man possesses the power in actuality to deadlift 225 x10. The trained man actualises the *performance* of deadlifting 225 x10 when he is performing the act of deadlifting at the gym. When the trained man is shopping for chicken and broccoli at the supermarket, he is not actualising the *performance* of the act of deadlifting, but he retains the actuality of the power to deadlift.

>>15650934
It's so funny seeing all these coping incels trying to refute one of the most wise men in history. He figured it out 2k years ago, that's before even your "God" was invented by desert sheepherders.

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

>>15660821
to test his creatures xD

>>15652542
>God does no evil so there is no evil in his creations apart from man whom he endowed with freedom of reason
that line of thinking has always bothered me if thats the case then when a person get randomly killed by a bear or born with blood cancer how is that not vindictive if god cares so much? how was someone's freedom allowed if they are fucked from the get go or just killed by an animal it makes no sense. it god chooses not to intervene does that not make him neglectful? and at worse complicit? it makes much more sense for god to be an a programmer who made minecraft with rng or a space spore who passed by earth cause if god is sentient why is he silent and no claiming luck as god saving you is not a valid excuse cause bad people get lucky all the time

>>15660821
Intersubjectivity.

>>15660989
Why would god that is already perfect would need to test anything he created? xd
>>15661077
In what sense?

>>15660095
>he retains the actuality of the power to deadlift.
which is an act
And if you will to not do something you can do then you are acting against that.
All acts are negations of something, all negations are acts of something.
To Be is to Act, not just because it is to Think and to Know. To not actively will Being, Life, and Mind, is to fall towards non-being, to actively will it is to have Ousia. God is not as slave to what he is, but perfectly wills to be what he is. This produces the eternal Act that is Being. The lotus rising above the waters.