Theodicy is impossible because "Justice" is just thin air with no physical cause-and-effect relationship. It has always been the politically and physically stronger who have defined justice.Hard mode: Don't use analogies.
>>13525447The problem of evil is nonsense because "evil" is just thin air with no physical cause-and-effect relationship. It has always been the politically and physically stronger who have defined evil.
>>13525467How does it relate to how Justice is not a real universal?
>>13525447>It has always been the politically and physically stronger who have defined justice.>thus justice can and has been defined>thus theodicy is possibleBy the premises you set, theodicy only really involves political supremacy. What's so impossible about that?
>>13525484Affirm the consequent. Invalid form.
>>13525482>evil is subjective>benevolence is subjective>justice is subjectiveThen there's no reason to engage in the argument. Nothing can be meaningfully said from this point
>>13525467Yeah you're right, If you have evil you have no theology due lack of sin, punishment and sacrifice. Retard.
>>13525447Was he right? Is this really the best of all possible worlds?
>>13526090Yes, no amount of seething can change that and you don't even need to be a theist of any kind to understand that. Think of it in terms of multiple universes/realities. First of all, the only universe we get in this life is this one. Even if others do exist, it's impossible to reach them from here. Any changes we make to improve society, ourselves etc.. will be changes to THIS universe. So whether or not it was decided by The Big Bang, God, nothing, whatever you want to say, this truly IS the best possible world that we could be living in, because it is the only possible world we could be living in.
>>13525447The Problem of Evil: A Christian Responsehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei0gPoqx_bQ
>>13527363> Being is Good!
>>13527481Take this boomer shit outta my sights
>>13526090No. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God were to exist, He would not need to allow evil in order to obtain a greater good out of it. An all-powerful being has no need to employ any particular means to achieve his ends; He would simply actualize those ends ex nihilo, just as the biblical God created the world in the same manner. Furthermore, the Bible heavily implies that the vast majority of mankind will end up in Hell (see Luke 13:24, for example), and this has been the mainstream view amongst most saints and doctors of the Church (St Leonard of Port Maurice's sermon "On the Fewness of the Saved" is the best summary of this). Therefore, Leibniz's view that God's objective is to achieve the maximun possible happiness for the highest possible number of humans already comes into conflict with his commitment to the Christian faith.
>>13526090This isn't the best of all possible worlds. A better world would be one where I wasn't sweating like a pig, which is relatively easy to accomplish, yet isn't real atm.
>>13525447I will kill you
>>13527635As God said to Job, "If you don't like it, make a better universe then faggot">>13527624And as we say to all antinatalists, "Just fucking kill yourself"
I asked you for an actual argument last time and you just let your thread 404
>>13527742Who're you're trying to fool, you don't care about arguments, never conceding when you're wrong about something.
>>13527749Sure I do