/lit/ - Literature

>>16419348
if god no exist why good thing happen

>>16419348
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/

>>16419348
bad thing happens so God can experience bad things through you otherwise God being an unlimited being couldn't experience what it means to struggle for something out of your reach

>>16419348
You wouldn't have thoughts nor creativity if it wasn't for evil

>>16419348
>Why isn't earth heaven?

>>16419365
If God's willing to make humans suffer for the sake of intellectual curiosity, he's not all-loving. This is why the Problem of Evil has never been solved. God is (according to theologians) all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing, that precludes any possibility of evil existing, Theologians usually try to solve the problem by redefining God in order to make him less then all-powerful, less then all-knowing or less then all-loving. But the problem is that most other theologians just ignore that person's work and continue to assume that God fits with the typical definition.

>>16419430
if I make a computer simulation full of agents, am I not omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniscient from their perspective just because I let some agents experience suffering?
I don't think so. The agents I simulate cannot validly claim that I am anything other than omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniscient, no matter what they experience.

>>16419348
>no good response to this other than its gods plan

>>16419540
>if God doesn't give me what I want, then He's bad

>>16419525
Isn't this just a circuitous way to say "God is not all loving"? The idea that God does not regard us as living beings, but only as playthings?

>>16419430
there is no suffering, you are an eternal spiritual being, any length of suffering inside Time is absolutely nothing in comparison to the eternity outside of Time. All suffering dilutes into eternal joy and wholesomeness, untill it is nothing but a distant dream. Your suffering is a work of fiction

>>16419348
>unloads magazine into a crowd of people
>"Why did God do this"

>>16419348
The instant before each person dies, God makes that person a pedophile. Or at least that's my theodicy.

>>16419594
>if you make something to play with, you can't love it

>>16419605
Sorry if this sounds belligerent, but that's not an answer, that's just equivocation. What you've done there is you've redefined suffering to solely refer emotional/spiritual suffering, Physical suffering exists, perhaps it's not as important as emotional/spiritual suffering,but it exists and for an all-powerful, all-knowing being it should be trivial to eliminate it.

>>16419635
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as i thought, what I meant was: "If you make something to play with and disinterestedly watch as it suffers, then you don't care about it." To take a (somewhat juvenile) example, if a man were to make a crude robot and then sat idly by as the robot habitually bounced off a closed door, causing serious damage to itself. I think it would be fair to say that the man has no genuine interest in the robot's existence.

Bad things are just particular movements in the grand symphony of creation. We perceive reality as cacophonous due to not being able to see the thing in itself.

>>16419348
because demiurge

>>16419654
yes and even if you were to live an entire lifetime in absolute pain it would be about 80 or so years of pain. In contrast, before and after that you had and will exist for infinity years without pain. You do the math bud, tell me what fraction of infinity is 80

To pass the time.

>>16419680
>man is watching the robot
>man isn't interested in the robot
lol
>robot created by man
>robot can validly say man isn't interested in it
lol a robot doesn't get to decide what I love / don't love.

hou grievest where no grief should be! thou speak'st
Words lacking wisdom! for the wise in heart
Mourn not for those that live, nor those that die.
Nor I, nor thou, nor any one of these,
Ever was not, nor ever will not be,
For ever and for ever afterwards.
All, that doth live, lives always! To man's frame
As there come infancy and youth and age,
So come there raisings-up and layings-down
Of other and of other life-abodes,
Which the wise know, and fear not. This that irks —
Thy sense-life, thrilling to the elements —
Bringing thee heat and cold, sorrows and joys,
'Tis brief and mutable! Bear with it, Prince!
As the wise bear.

>>16419709
I fully agree with you that Physical pain is a trivial thing. But for an all-powerful being it would be even more trivial thing to eliminate it, especially if he is all-loving, so it's not really an answer to the Problem of Evil.

Because god is a grey jedi demiurge

Why not? What does god or anyone owe you?

>>16419725
>man isn't interested in the robot
He may be interested in the robot, but he's not interested in it's well-being. At best, he's amused by it's haplessness, at worst, he's just incredibly bored.
>lol a robot doesn't get to decide what I love / don't love.
It's not really about opinion, it's about behaviour and what you can deduce from that behaviour. For example, multi-national corporations frequently say catchphrases like "Love trumps hate" or "Hatred will not be tolerated", but it doesn't really matter what they say, their behaviour shows that they're spiteful people and they loathe anybody who won't bow down to them. To to clarify: that was merely an example. I am not claiming that God is as evil as the Google corporation, because he isn't, nobody is.

>>16419801
>man literally creates robot
>robot says man isn't interested in the robot's wellbeing
lol
>>16419801
>a robot trying to deduce the man who made it

who say bad thing really bad, maybe good?

>>16419430
Your suffering is as real as the suffering of a character in a novel you are about to finish reading.

>>16419348
bad things happen because God wants to watch us kill each other for fun with our free will

>>16419348
What is 'god'?

>>16419348
The hubris, to think God cares about us. I wouldn't if I were Him.

>>16419430
what I'm going to say is purely speculative based on a dream i once had,
God didn't create us to suffer or to not suffer we exist as one of the "x" number of ways that God has to expand himself throughout the realm of possibility within a system, we're God's way to experience things not because he specifically willed it but because it was inevitable but then again inevitability and god's will can be argued to be the same thing, God being boundless can feel nothing but completeness in a way this means an all loving God, our subjective points of view are vast and different this makes us important to God because we help God expand and grow,

I'll end my blog post by saying you're confusing suffering with evil, Evil is nothing but a viewpoint, suffering however is a more complicated topic

>>16419840
>man literally creates robot
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I think it's entirely possible to make something, without genuinely caring about it. Especially for an all-powerful being, By definition, because he possesses infinite power it takes God no effort whatsoever to do anything. I see no reason why he wouldn't do something and cease to care about the outcome.
>a robot trying to deduce the man who made it
Why even have theology if we're just going to say: "It's not for us to know"? That answer can be applied to any question and over the years, it has been applied to many questions, many of which we have since answered with little effort.
>>16419848
Humans feel suffering, characters in novels don't. As an all-knowing being, God is aware of this. To say human suffering isn't real is to redefine suffering so as to make it meaningless. To say human suffering is meaningless from God's point of view is to redefine omniscience so as to make it meaningless.

>>16419883
You have an interesting philosophy, but what you're describing isn't the Christian god, what you're describing is more akin to the Hindu concept of "Atman". The Problem of Evil doesn't really apply there, because Atman isn't a being, with a will and a plan. We're talking about the Christian conception of God as an intelligent being with an interest in saving as much of mankind as possible and a plan to achieve it.

Consider an omniscient and disembodied being, X.
If X is omniscient, that entails that X knows everything, including how to do gymnastics and play golf.
If X is disembodied, that entails that X doesn't have a body.
In order to know how to play golf and do gymnastics, one needs to have a body.
X doesn't have a body.
Therefore, X doesn't know how to play golf or do gymnastics.
If X doesn't know how to play golf or do gymnastics, X is not omniscient.
If one of X's attributes causes another of X's to not be true, X's attributes are in conflict.
Therefore, X's attributes of omniscience and disembodiedness are in conflict.
If X's two attributes of omniscience and disembodiedness are in conflict, X cannot exist.
Therefore, X doesn't exist.
Thus, if the Judeo-Christian God has the same attributes as X, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.
The Judeo-Christian God has the same attributes as X.
X doesn't exist.
If X doesn't exist, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.

>>16419920
>robot gets created then has the gal to say its creator doesn't care about it

>>16419348
Why do you assume God should or would care about the suffering of others? God, in my opinion, is the force, entity, or set of laws that is ultimately highest and responsible for the phenomenon of existence itself. By this (admittedly vague) definition, the existence of "god" is self-evident and irrefutable. We "exist", the universe "exists", so something had to lead to this state of existence. But is God conscious? Does god have a personality? Is god simply "the universe" itself? I don't know. No one knows. And anyone who claims to know has their blind faith confused with knowledge. I believe god exists, but I also believe god is unknowable, and is completely indifferent to suffering.

>>16419348
Because... it's authentic... Dasein....

>>16419348
He does not exist or He is not supreme.
>>16419349
I don't know if you think that is a point, but it is not one. No God existing while good or bad things happen is not a problem. God existing as a supreme being who is omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omniscient while evils are allowed to happen is the problem.
>>16419416
Good question, actually.
>>16419365
If He is omnipotent, then presumably He could experience what it means to struggle for something out of your reach without needing to prove his abilities.
>>16419387
>>16419624
Explain. If you mean because God gave us have free will (presuming free will is a cohesive concept and that we do have it), then why does he allow natural disasters to happen?
>>16419702
>>16419847
>bad things aren't bad
That is a possible explanation, but there is no reason to accept it. If we cannot understand God's doings and His morality behind it, then we can only accept on faith alone that what He is doing is omnibenevolent.
>>16419795
>>16419983
God is assumed to be the supreme and omnibenevolent among some other qualities. How could he be omnibenevolent with all the terrible evils in the world? God might not be supreme in these ways, and that could solve the problem.
>>16419709
A small amount of time of an experience =/= that experience did not exist. By that argument, everything that has happened since the universe began is nothing (x billion years of everything that has happened / infinity = 0).
>>16419848
Can you provide an argument for that point?
>>16419716
>>16419854
>>16419861
Then He is not omnibenevolent.
>>16419857
In this question, what is significant is that He is the supreme being who is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. There are other qualities that are believed, too, obviously, but they are less relevant here.
>>16419965
>In order to know how to play golf and do gymnastics, one needs to have a body.
That is the premise everyone will have trouble accepted.

>the source of all good who is both able and willing to get rid of even the smallest instance of suffering and death
>couldn’t even be bothered with babies that starve to death
Nice ‘god‘ you got there, losers

>>16420002
always find it hard to believe people like you exist

>>16420002
>That is the premise everyone will have trouble accepted
Procedural knowledge requires a body

because is the unknown, not the good

>>16419348
>if god cry out in pain when he hit you why you not think love

>>16419972
>robot gets created then has the gal to say its creator doesn't care about it
You're straying very far from the original point. The question isn't whether God exists, this is a theological question, so we both have to assume God exists and that he created man, or the question can't even get started. But it's not logical to say: "God exists and he created man, therefore God loves man". Because it's not a logical contradiction to create something without caring about it's long-term well-being.

>>16420002
>Then He is not omnibenevolent.
No, he's not omnibenevolent. Tough luck.

>>16419348
Ying and Yang

>>16419965
>Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.
I kind of agree, in that the commonly held idea of this kind of God can't exist. I think God exists, but humanity's attempts to understand and define god will always be futile. If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then by definition, God is all of creation, all of life, all of conscious experience, and everything that potentially exists beyond our potential to ever comprehend or be aware of. So is God "good" or benevolent? Well, if God is the source of all of life and all of creation, then it depends on your point of view. I don't think God plays favorites, so God is not necessarily any more benevolent to humans than to ants or trees. Yet, without god, or some similar concept fulfilling the same role, nothing could exist. Thus, god is responsible for everything we perceive as both "good" and "bad". Is God worth worshipping? That's up to you.

God is simply a higher level of consciousness

>>16420029
Not for an omnipotent being. God isn't bound by the rules that govern biological beings, if he was, he couldn't exist.

>>16420002
>God is assumed to be the supreme and omnibenevolent among some other qualities.
And I believe this assumption is either wrong, or simply depends on perspective. What is benevolence to the prey is malevolence to however, you could argue god is "omnibenevolent" by being responsible for allowing life to exist in the first place. Generally speaking though, I reject the assumption that God is specifically benevolent towards humans in particular. The idea just doesn't make any sense, as all evidence suggests that God is in different and does not play favorites. Everyone suffers and everything dies eventually.

>>16420002
>In this question, what is significant is that He is the supreme being who is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. There are other qualities that are believed, too, obviously, but they are less relevant here.
If God is all of these things, then how can He be any less than the Totality of existence? It's not possible to be omniscent, omnipotenent and ominbenevolent without being literally *everything*, is it?

>>16420054
This guy gets it. Life as we know it is like all the countless billions of various organisms that make up the human body without being remotely aware of the human or it's perspective. In this analogy, God would be the human from the perspective of these organisms. Nature always continually organizes all life as we know it into increasingly complex systems. God is whatever is at the top of this hierarchy, assuming that it even has a top or an end of some kind.

>>16420106
>If God is all of these things, then how can He be any less than the Totality of existence?
>>16420081
Bingo. I came to the same conclusion a long time ago. See:
>>16420052
>>16420110

>>16420036
>God exists and he created Man, Man says God doesn't love Man.

>>16420127
Because it's possible to create something without caring about it's long-term well-being. We see examples everyday, we see negligent and abusive parents. We see buildings that are falling to bits, because the architects that designed them didn't really care how long they lasted. I've probably drawn millions of sketches in my life and I have no idea where the majority of them are. And bear in mind that God is infinitely more powerful then any human. It takes humans months to create buildings and people and they still can't be relied upon to look after the fruits of their labour. God can create an entire universe, full of stars and planets with no effort whatsoever, what reason is there to believe that God looks after everything he makes?

>what is free will

>>16420127
If god created everything then by this logic he loves everything equally, and doesn't particularly love humans any more or less than any other form of life. God simply is. God's love, if God does love, cannot ever be compared to typical human concepts of love. God may love all of life itself, but then God also can not elevate the importance or significance of any particular form of life over any another.

>>16419348
Because you are nigger and deserve it

>>16420192
>Man isn't capable of loving all of his creations, therefore God isn't either.

>>16419348
Read The Book of Job.
Job, 28:28

And he said to the human race,
“The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.”

Bad things happen because God exists. That's why we should say fuck you to him and accept his torment happily.
>inb4 t. Satan

>>16420192
I think God looks over life the same way a healthy person looks over their body. What is good for one cell is not necessarily good for the body. Our white blood cells constantly seek out and killing recycle cancer cells for the "greater good". God doesn't mourn necessary sacrifices for the survival of life itself anymore than you would mourn the loss of a tumor or a scab.

>>16420212
I'm saying that it's not logical to say "All creators love their creations". We've already taken it as self-evident that God is the creator, if you want to then claim that he loves mankind, you need a logical proof. That's how theology works.
>>16420238
The problem is, if God can't save the majority of mankind without making some of mankind suffer, he's not all-powerful.

>>16420265
>if you say God is all-loving, then you're saying all creators are all-loving

>>16419348
yea why

>>16420285
You said:
>God exists and he created Man, Man says God doesn't love Man.
The implicit premise here is that creation requires love. If not, what other reason do you have to suppose that God is all-loving?

>>16420029
The last thread I thought would be boring so I didn't get to see that part. I'm not very interested in that problem, but
>Procedural knowledge requires a body
Is nearly a restatement of the premise I quoted. That is not any evidence for that premise, and presumably God does not have to abide by that rule (like >>16420057 says).
>>16420031
>>16420032
Can you rephrase that?
>>16420021
Why?
>>16420041
>>16420081
>>16420054
>>16420110
If He is not omnibenevolent in any way,
1. That is a conception of God that most people do not have.
2. Then it is easy to argue from there that He is not worthy of worship.
Those problems still exist if God is not supreme in other ways, perhaps to varying degrees.
>>16420051
I assume that you mean that the bad goes along with the good to complement the good to make it better, or something like that. That doesn't explain, let's say, babies who are born with terrible pain all their life until they shortly die. Also, if God is omnipotent, then He could have made humans who did not need the bad to complement the good.
>>16420106
I don't know what you mean, exactly. God could also be said to be omnipresent, of course, but I don't know how that is particularly relevant. That is not my original conception of God. That is just how most people conceptualize God in most contexts, or at least such a significant amount of the time that it is worth considering the view.
>>16420201
Why does God allow natural disasters? Not all suffering is from the result of humans alone.
>>16420226
I honestly don't know what that is trying to say.
>>16420228
Are you trying to say we should not question God or His qualities of being supreme because only Satan would do that?
>>16420238
>God doesn't mourn necessary sacrifices for the survival of life itself anymore than you would mourn the loss of a tumor or a scab
If He doesn't care, then He is not omnibenevolent. If He cannot help, then He is not omnipotent.

>>16420265
>can't
This view is extremely narrow minded and egotistical. God has already provided everything humans need to live without harming each other. We harm each other by our own choices, not necessity or by God's will. Death is a part of life. There can be no joy without suffering. If God simply made it impossible for us to experience suffering, it would also be impossible for us to experience joy or anything resembling free will. There is no hot without cold, both are just temperature. Try to explore the implications of this fact. For life to exist, death must also exist.

God is just acknowledgement of a noumenal absolute. There's no link between god and morality.

>>16420323
>1. That is a conception of God that most people do not have.
>2. Then it is easy to argue from there that He is not worthy of worship.
And? It simply is what it is. Im not arguing anyone should or should not worship God.
>If He doesn't care, then He is not omnibenevolent. If He cannot help, then He is not omnipotent.
Omnibenevolence and a bias towards being benevolent towards humans are not the same thing. God is benevolent to life itself, not necessarily every single individual life. Just as you might try to be benevolent to your child, but you aren't going to mourn any time their body destroys a cancer cell. You're too zoomed in on humanity, try to imagine the bigger picture.

>>16419348

Because God (In the Abrahamitic Sense) doesn't exist.

>>16420332
> narrow minded and egotistical.
That's just ad hominem, I'm conceiving of God as a being beyond all-limits, as is the traditional, Christian idea. You're conceiving of him as a well-meaning but impotent public servant, who sometimes has to do bad things, you're reducing the Christian God to nothing more then a cosmic Policeman.
>God has already provided everything humans need to live without harming each other.
You're assuming that the state of affairs as it exists is the best of all possible worlds. We have no reason to make that assumption.
>We harm each other by our own choices
You're reducing the definition of God again. It does not matter how much people want to hurt each other, an all-powerful being could stop them all with no effort. You're taking a Buddhist approach, assuming that suffering is inevitable and that humans are obligated to make peace with it. Buddhism is interesting, but this is a discussion of a Christian theological matter.
> If God simply made it impossible for us to experience suffering, it would also be impossible for us to experience joy or anything resembling free will.
That's just an assertion. God is bound by nothing, he could make free will exist without suffering if he so chose. You're veering into Taoist ideas about duality, those are interesting and I'm ashamed to admit I know very little about them, but we're trying to explore this problem from the Christian context, it becomes meaningless if we redefine God into some kind of non-interventionist, Eastern sort-of "higher power".

>>16420323
>I honestly don't know what that is trying to say.
I understand it like, we have to fear God, avoid evil and follow His rules. All the rest we may not be capable to understand as humans.

The Book of Job is a great example, why bad things happen to good people.
God experiences us whether we will still follow His rules, after all these bad things.

Just my thoughts I'm not a theologian.

>>16420308
>Man doesn't love everything he creates, therefore neither does God

>>16420424
All I'm saying is: "What are you basing that on?"

>>16419348
because opinion
opinion I state as universal fact

>>16420432
What are you basing your assertion, that Man's inability to love all of his creations is somehow evidence for God not being able to, on?

because divinity is outside of being

>>16419430
we are all god

>>16420448
That wasn't an assertion, it was "Disproof by Counterexample". I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't love man. I'm highlighting the fact that God's act of creation is not evidence of anything except for the fact that God is the creator. All other claims about God are only claims and must be demonstrated logically.
>>16420462
I take it you've never read: "The Man Who Could Work Miracles"? If men were gods, we'd know about it by now.

I made this thread as a joke but it actualy turned out pretty good
take psychedelics if you can lads, experiencing beats speculation

>>16420358
>And? It simply is what it is. Im not arguing anyone should or should not worship God.
That's alright. What I wrote are just some reasons why those are not satisfying answers for people who conceptualize God in that way or who believe He is worthy of worship (plenty of religious people).
>God is benevolent to life itself, not necessarily every single individual life
Maybe if God was only benevolent and not omnibenevolent, I would accept that. I just don't understand how he could be all-loving but not loving to all individual lives.
>>16420484
>experiencing beats speculation
In terms of coming up with what conclusions? Feeling something hard enough will not necessarilly convince you of much if you think about it again after you're high as nonsense.

>>16420483
>Man doesn't love every creation, therefore God doesn't either.

>>16420509
We're travelling in circles, man. I'm not making any claim about God's love, I'm saying it could go either way. If you think you've solved it, show me your logical proof.

>>16420518
>Robot says the Man who created it doesn't love it.

>>16420417
>ad hominem
That's not what ad homing means, anon. It's narrow minded because you're stuck on the assumption that God must be the how you imagine God to be. It's egotistical because it assumes humans are more important than other life. I'm not insulting you, I'm critiquing your ideas.
>you're reducing the Christian God to nothing more then a cosmic Policeman.
I never once said "Christian God". Just God.
>You're assuming that the state of affairs as it exists is the best of all possible worlds.
No, you're assuming that's what I meant. I mean nature provides all the resources necessary for humans to survive in harmony with each other and nature, yet we choose to over consume and take from each other. God does not force us to do these things, we choose to do them.
>this is a discussion of a Christian theological matter
No, it isn't. We're taking about God in general. Even then, many Christians would reject your idea of their God. Not all Christians interpret their faith the same way you might.
>That's just an assertion.
It's a universal and self-evident fact. Cold and heat are relative terms that cannot exist without one another. Joy and suffering are the same. If you are suffering, physical pain, say 10/10 pain, having it reduced to a 7/10 would bring you some joy. Conversely, having your pain increased from a 3 to 5 would cause tou suffering. Without context, suffering and joy are meaningless and abstract concepts and for all intents and purposes, do not exist.
>it becomes meaningless if we redefine God into some kind of non-interventionist, Eastern sort-of "higher power".
I disagree. God is whatever god is. No human paradigm will ever perfectly capture God in a way that everyone will universally find agreeable. The Christian God and the Vedic Brhaman are the same. The only difference is in how we attempt to define god.

My concepts of god come from a multidisciplinary approach. I draw my opinion largely from Christian and Vedic inspiration, but also from observation of nature and the demonstratably holographic nature of conscious experience. I agree on your critiques of the definition of God you are assuming others hold, but I don't think its fair or honest to project that definition onto others' beliefs. No two people ever experience the same things. No two people will ever read the same book and walk away with an identical interpretation or impression of they ideas they just read. People tend to get trapped in assumptions and caught up in arguing over semantics when the subject of god comes up. It reminds me of an old Buddhist proverb.
>I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don't look at me; look at the moon.

God is the moon. All of the different religions, arguments, and beliefs about what exactly God is are the fingers. Don't get to tripped up on the fingers and thier flaws, just try to look at where they are pointing. That is God.

>>16420540
I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're an Atheist who's trolling me. There are thousands of years of serious, logical Christian thought to draw from, some of the finest minds in human history and you just keep saying: "because I say so".
>>16420551
>you're stuck on the assumption that God must be the how you imagine God to be.
We're talking about a very specific God here. All powerfull, all loving, All knowing. The God who gave his only begotten son to save man. If we're talking about some other kind of God, then the discussion is completely academic, because the Problem of Evil only applies to the Christian God.
>It's egotistical because it assumes humans are more important than other life.
I know that isn't the case in reality, but we're looking at this from a Christian perspective, from that point of view, we are special because God sent Jesus to save us.
>I never once said "Christian God". Just God.
Then, the Problem of Evil does not apply, because this God does not have to meet the criteria for the Christian God which preclude the existence of evil.

Your thoughts on divinity in general are quite interesting and worthy of discussion. But, I don't want to derail the thread. So I think we should stay with the Judeo-Christian conception of God. It may not be the correct view of God and it certainly isn't the only view of God, but it's the only God which works for the purposes of this particular thought experiment.

>>16420636
>God doesn't love me because I say so

>>16420641
I'm not saying anything. I'm taking the default position that we can't know until we have some reason to go one way or the other.

>>16420660
>admitting to not being right

>>16420676
There is no wrong or right, I'm posing a question. You claim to have the answer, but you won't show your working.

>>16420688
>I'm not right!

>>16420700
A question isn't wrong or right. Only answers can be wrong or right.

>>16420636
OP simply said God, but I get what you're saying. In my opinion, the "Problem of Evil" is pointless, because it starts with false assumptions which stem from very poor interpretations of Christian scripture. Christ spoke in parables, and he made it clear several times that he did so intentionally to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's regrettable that most Christians fall into the assumption that God is uniquely benevolent towards humans, because Christ never explicitly states anything like this. It's assumed because the Bible states that God provided plants and animals for us to eat and use, but they forget that God also provides bears with salmon and berries. Everything has its place. We just happen to have risen to the top of the food chain on this planet, and too many people let that go to their heads. I reject the Problem of Evil as a topic even worth discussion on the basis that it makes assumptions which aren't supported by anything but human error and ego.

>>16420735
I agree that The Problem of Evil doesn't really apply to reality. Whatever God is, he probably doesn't fit the classic, Judeo-Christian definition, it's too anthropocentric. But I think of the Problem of Evil the same way I think of Descartes' Deamon or Mary's Room it's entirely theoretical, but it's endlessly fascinating to think about.

>>16420032
this

>>16419348
>Why can't I comprehend the actions of an omniscient omnipotent being

I always wonder why people think that god can't be evil
I actually don't accept the idea of god, but being evil or good is totally irrelevant to an omnipotent and omniscient form of consciousness
I don't think that it's an argument against the existence of god
Why is it necessary that a god HAS to be good? I mean he's god he can do whatever the fuck he wants

>>16420827
If God can't be comprehended, then all theology and scripture is useless and the whole discussion becomes moot.

>>16420827
See >>16420002
>That is a possible explanation, but there is no reason to accept it. If we cannot understand God's doings and His morality behind it, then we can only accept on faith alone that what He is doing is omnibenevolent.
>>16420832
See >>16420323
>If He is not omnibenevolent in any way,
>1. That is a conception of God that most people do not have.
>2. Then it is easy to argue from there that He is not worthy of worship.

>God created random horrifying rare diseases like fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva that turns your flesh into bones all because of some master plan he made us too stupid to possibly understand

>>16420866
Bro you just need to read the Bible harder bro.