[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Godpill.png (389 KB, 1595x895)
389 KB
389 KB PNG
You can't refute this.
>>
File: Capture.jpg (12 KB, 271x303)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
free will
>>
>>19742665
You are man, you do not know what evil is.
Read Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger."
>>
>>19742665
This has become a tired meme
It’s not to refute. It’s to choose from. The result tears the christian in two and he runs in circles contradicting himself forever, but that’s it.
Please read something of Epicurus besides this misattribution
>>
>>19742665
Why would I want to refute a good quote?
Give me something controversial, only religiouscucks get mad at this.
>>
>>19742683
lightning strikes, child cancer, genetic diseases, etc.
>>
>>19742719
Without bad there is no good.
>>
>>19742665
You cannot judge God as if he were a person as God is morality itself, thus, you cannot call him malevolent. There, refuted.
>>
>>19742665
Just because you can't imagine an answer that seems satisfactory doesn't mean one doesn't exist. We're all limited by the capacity of our conception.
>>
>>19742727
perhaps, but even if so we could still appreciate good if the amount of bad in the world was less than it is now
>>
>>19742745
>God is morality itself
What an garbage argument. Pure feels > reals.
Morality transcends any person or entity.
>>
We use evil to denote that which generally lessens our power of acting. In order to meditate on God one must stop viewing Him as a servant of man. Evil is an abstraction that breaks down when one considers the affairs of the not-human.
>>
>>19742745
>>19742747
>>19742702
>God is too stupid to understand what his flea like creations are feeling. He doesn’t care really anyway.
,malevolent is your choice.
>>
>>19742719

these aren't evil they're just unfortunate or bad
>>
>>19742760
>Morality transcends any person or entity.
Human 'morality' doesn't transcend God. Nothing does.
>>
>>19742665
in a nutshell:

God gave Adam and Eve a perfect life, but also free will.

Using their free will, the chose to throw everything away to shit.

God said “Ok, you don’t wanna live in my kingdom with it’s rules, bye, live your own”

So Adam and Eve and their descendants were cursed to live in this material, Sisyphean world, were people toil for little, and all wastes away.

But God gave us a chance, he threw us a bone; if you can love Him, and then love one another and thus follow His commandments, you’ll prove you belong in His Kingdom which he will establish at a time nobody but Himself knows. And he will get rid of this world and death and loss and evil people.
>>
>>19742747
as an atheist, i've always enjoyed this argument because it does make sense on an emotional level. my dog knows i love him and gets a sense that i love him, but sometimes i will do things that he doesn't like (like take him to the vet) and he just has to trust that i do this with love.

though he knows i love him he is incapable of understanding my love for him because his his ability for thought just doesn't allow him to access that kind of intelligence. though he gets a sense that i love him, he will never understand my love.
>>
>>19742794
allowing them to occur when you could easily stop them is evil
>>
>>19742665
This question seems to posit a personal God, who is a thing in such a way as I am a thing. Plato btfo’d this conception 2400 years ago.
>>
Maimonides did
>>
>>19742809
Why?
>>
>>19742809
says who? who determines what is evil
>>
>>19742822
this is like asking who determines 2+2=4 or that g=9.8m/s^2
>>
>>19742827
God
>>
>>19742827
Not at all. Morality without God is entirely subjective.
>>
>>19742834
divine command theory is subjective
>>
>>19742827
>murder is bad
>i disagree gigachad.jpg

Without God there is no objective basis for moral principles.
>>
>>19742842
god is a subject.
>>
>>19742848
Not quite. God is the Absolute.
>>
>>19742851
the Absolute is a subject
>>
File: 1576517594023.jpg (2.1 MB, 3437x2681)
2.1 MB
2.1 MB JPG
>>19742665
Cruelty is the kindness of the wise.
>>
You cannot refute this.
>>
>>19742859
now you're just saying shit
>>
File: E8yXcS9X0AMEZFm.jpg (2.05 MB, 1467x2400)
2.05 MB
2.05 MB JPG
>>19742665
How come nobody ever bothers to bring up life after death in these threads? It's the easiest solution to the problem. Those who are not rewarded for good in this life will be rewarded in the next. Those who are not punished for evil in this life will be punished in the next. In the life to come everything will be put to right.

Maybe your counter-argument is that there's no proof of life after death. But I'm assuming that, by your standards of proof, there's no "proof" for God, either. If we're starting with the assumption that God is real, then we get to assume other things are real, too.
>>
>>19742802

False sentimentality. He also made the mistake of falling into sentimentality with his universalizing remark about morality, but the canard that "god is good because he just is okay" is unsatisfying in every way that it is possible for a justification to be unsatisfying. You people really do close your minds and make a lower order of argument when you parrot that stuff.
>>
>>19742870
everything is permitted in nature, but it doesn't mean we have to permit it as a society. part of the burden of consciousness is the development of proportionality and morality.
>>
>>19742870
The State is God.
>>
>>19742875
The existence of some just world in the next life does not absolve the question of why evil must exist in this one.
>>
>>19742870
And it was so.
>>
>>19742884

They don't even manage to reasonably conceive of what a just afterlife would look like in the first place.
>>
>>19742884
It very pointedly solves the paradox because it offers a way out of it. It shows that God will allow things to happen in this world to ensure that justice occurs in the next. Epicurus' paradox posits that this world is the only world that exists, and thus the problem of preventing evil and creating good is a problem confined merely to this world. But if there are other worlds in play the nature of the issue changes.
>>
>>19742914
kek you can't be serious
>>
>>19742665
Refute these numbers that I got in ascending order:
>>19743044
>>19743055
>>19743066
>>
>>19742827
are you really suggesting that what is 'good' or 'bad' is as plainly defined as either of those two things?
>>
>>19743083
Yes, I am.
>>
>>19742914
>suicidal people are allowed to commit mass genocide
>masochists are allowed to torture people
>>
Refuted by Leibniz.
>>
>>19743193
Anonymous celebrates these two.
But of course rational people don’t put up with a murderer. They’ll go after him and kill or contain him.

>>19743201
In no way.
>>
>>19743228
>But of course rational people don’t put up with a murderer.
Kek. Society was built by murderers.
>>
>>19743183
Then you are retarded.
>>
File: _.jpg (87 KB, 976x850)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>19742665
Define evil.
>>
>>19743248
And their various control devices, I know. Including an evil god
>>
>>19743286
I can’t imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance you have.
>>
File: 8947589734.jpg (101 KB, 720x699)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>19742665
>>
>>19743302
You didn’t even read it.
>>
>>19743309
Read it all, sweaty.
>>
>>19743305
I don’t get your meme.he died as well as could be expected. He wrote down the experience of his last days
>>
>>19743305
Just because I disagree with him doesnt mean he deserved a horrible death like that.
>>
>>19743314
God punished him
>>
>>19743316

Listen to these assholes and they'll defend every suffering in the name of their false god, who /even and especially/ in the case that he is real, ought to be rejected. They're the true baddies and they don't even realize it, always ready to give "reasons" when convenient (everyone has at least a little tendency toward logos), and to dispense with reason in favor of mystery when also convenient.
>>
>>19742665
human interpretation of evil != god's interpretation of evil
>"but bad things like child cancer!"
if they are truly good, they go to heaven. what makes this evil? you can only call it evil if heaven is worse than earth.
>>
>>19743317
Puerile nonsense. The childishness of these cultists
>>
God is wicked.
He corrupts his will to allow for evil.
Then he makes an apt sacrifice (the Logos in place of Himself) to make reparation and purify His Will. It's a matter of Justice.
"Glorify Yourself God through me, so that we may share the Glory we had in the beginning."
>>
File: bflies-071.jpg (783 KB, 2592x1944)
783 KB
783 KB JPG
>>19743359
go away bug
>>
>>19743420

I hate her and wish her dead but she's not wrong on the god stuff.
>>
>>19743493
>for nothing
again you assume that heaven is nothing.
>parents
they should be happy that their children will be at peace
>filtered
by what? are you using that meme correctly?
>>
There is no "good and evil," only good and bad. Read Spinoza
>>
>>19742703
Someones going to hang you from a fucking tree you dyke cunt
>>
>>19743359
the state you loathe so much is the only thing keeping the mob from gutting you like the vile dyke you are
>>
>>19742759
And you know that how?
>>
>>19742883
why and how?
>>
>19743615
>19743612
>>
File: the bible.jpg (30 KB, 322x499)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>19743622
Because it is the Law.
>>
>>19742870
this 'everything' that becomes permitted then becomes subject to a network of natural egoists that punish deviation from a broad system of morals derived from the norm.
>>
>>19742870
Of course you can, even evolution implies antinatalism is wrong.
>>
>>19742822
i do
>>
>>19742805
bullshit. u don't deserve to be punished because your great great great grandfather owned slaves. is god retarded?
>>
>>19742870
look around u. what is not permitted? the elites drop nuclear bombs on city centers. thousands of kids are raped and murdered daily. anything goes and there is no god to intervene
>>
>>19742665
the fucking hubris to think your limited, sinful human reasoning can indict God, who, by definition, is the absolute arbiter of good and evil
>>
>>19743774
You don't understand evolution
>>
>>19743812
>God is LE GOOD because... he just is okay!?
Do you really believe this garbage or are you just full NPC-parroting this same line on auto mode?
>>
>>19743818
You don't understand understanding.
>>
This board is weird. There are that many christians here? None of the other boards seem to have this.
I'm ex-muslim. I once considered looking at christianity but it turns out the bible is also full of some nasty passages.
How do you guys justify verses like this?
>You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
>>
>>19743881
> Why are there two Testaments?
kek.
>>
>>19743881
Most things in the Bible that conflict with today's standards are just ignored. Most Christians give few shits about the Bible and recognize it was something created by humans of the time.
Why they still believe in it is absurd to me. Force of habit, I'm sure. As a Texan in the suburbs a great deal of people are mild Christians, and they all basically don't look into religion more than what they hear at church (if they do go).
>>
>>19743854
>know everything
>create the very concept of morality
>define every aspect of reality
>one day some fucking monkey you made decides he knows better than you because of some bullshit he made up called "logic"
>>19743881
the relevance of Mosaic Law to Christianity is pretty minimal
>>
>>19743896
Jesus said the old testament applies. Try again.
>>
>>19743612

lmao seethe
>>
>>19743896
This is from the new testament
>Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your master, not only to those who are good and considerate, but those who are harsh.
>>
>>19742719
>lightning strikes
Dodgeable. Git gud
>child cancer
Who's to say they wouldn't grow up to be evil?
>genetic diseases
Eugenics is based.
>>
>>19743812
>Allow children to be raped
>Allow genocides to happen
>Allow natural disasters to kill millions
>Allow disease to kill millions
>Have the power to stop it all with the snap of your fingers, but decide not to because you still hold a grudge at humanity because one guy ate an apple 6000 years ago.

A being that allows that is evil by any sensible definition, think for yourself you absolute nitwit.
>>
>>19743998
I can't wait for the "a world without suffering is emotionless" retort from the Christards.
A world without suffering is different than a world without the incredible, ceaseless amounts of misery a significant portion of humanity has went and continues to go through.
>>
who even said god had to be all those things in the first place? He didn’t appear to everyone and say he was. These old faggots all just debated random hypotheticals for years on end
>>
>>19743317
ywngth
>>
>>19743998
>my definition of evil is more sensible than God's because I am infallible and a beacon of reason
>>
>>19743944
>>19743904
Read your Catechism, retard.

> The unity of the Old and New Testaments

> 128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

>129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

> 130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."108 Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.
>>
>>19742665
What is "evil", and why is it something that God should prevent? What is "good" without "bad"?
>>
>>19744142
if evil is an unknowable quality, how is it fair or reasonable that God demands we do good and avoid evil?
>>
>>19742665
Wow, how original OP. As if it wasn't posted 100s of times on this board already
>>
>>19744197
Just because God is perfect doesn't mean the world can be perfect, or that it could be perfect from the start. The Revelation is an ongoing process, which is why the Bible's Word must be interpreted historically.

> The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
>>
>>19742665
This is not a pro-atheist statement. It is about caring what is in your power, and not caring what is not.

Read the Stoics.
>>
>>19744142
>What is "evil", and why is it something that God should prevent?
A place without evil is literally heaven
>>
>>19742719
lol atheists are such whiny moralfags. This shit isn’t an argument. You think maybe if you just list more things that hurt your feefees people will realise that the world is all ugly and bad. Good and evil don’t exist, the world generated by God is perfect. Your arguments are emotional.
>>
>>19742805
So the sins of the father ARE the sins of the sons.
>>
>>19742719
None of these have anything to do with morality/ethics. Nature is not a moral agent. Nor is God. Here's a mnemonic for you: what defines a cube is not a cube. God lies beyond good and evil. God is that which defines good.
>>
>>19742665
Yeah I can.
Moral realism is false, so the whole thing falls apart.
>>
>>19742665
>Browses /lit/
>Prob reads books
>Doesn't understand the Logos
Many such cases.
>>
>>19742665
>>19742719
Humans must have free will for their decisions to be meaningful. Otherwise, they have no choice, so they have no free will.
There are natural struggles, scarcitys, problems, etc. so to challenge us. Otherwise. moral choice would be simple, so their free will would be a mockery.
>>
>god
>duality
pick one
>>
File: 1632869785762.jpg (33 KB, 462x416)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>he doesn't know
>>
Define evil, Epicurus
>>
>>19742665
Doesn't this presume God is willful?
>>
>>19742665
"Bad" things that happen in life are merely experiences to grow from. Even if it kills you.
Our lives are like metal being tempered. The metal goes through "pain" but comes out better on the other side. The metal doesn't understand it, but the smith does. Do you really think you know more than your smith? You are the very definition of arrogance.
>>
>>19745220
define anything, anyone
I am so smart
>>
>>19745500
You saying that everything happens for a reason and that “reason” I assume you mean to be the the will of God.
Do you then believe we live in a prefect and just world?
>>
>>19742665
Myriad gods > Loner cuck god
Can't refute this.
>>
>>19744411
Yes but this augment falls apart when you presume an all knowing all powerful God.
Because if God is indeed omniscient then he certainly already knows what decision an individual will make and weather that individual will end up in Heaven or Hell.

If you want to continue to believe in both free will and an omniscient God you have to accept the paradox but since
paradoxes are necessarily illogical you must also accept that God is an illogical concept; this is for you, your reason, and your faith to decided, but if you do decide to believe you have to understand then that there is no point trying to have a logical discussion about an illogical concept like a world created with free will but an omniscient God.
>>
>>19745500

Fuck off with this incorrect "it's all a test!" cope shit, complete with a cringe and clumsy "swords 'n forgery" ooh so masculine so truth so logos analogy. Life is a bitch and then you die. You are not in the truth until you understand that, otherwise you deluse yourself.
>>
>>19742805
But wouldn’t God have known that Adam was going to eat the apple?
>>
>>19742805
>>19746155
Jesus bloody Christ.
> 390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265
> 392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies".271
> 393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272
> 396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
> 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
>>
>>19742665
believers in shambles
>>
>>19746335
I sorry but how does any of this disprove that God created Adam knowing he would eat the fruit and hence condemning him and his offspring to suffering? If you reject this and you reject that the christian God is all knowing and all powerful
>>
>>19746449
> 410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium ("first gospel"): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

> 411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

> 412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'"308
>>
>>19746481
I see, so it seems like your saying that God allowed Adam to eat the fruit and hence cause the events that transpired in order to lead to Jesus, which is somehow better and Holyer than man’s first covenant with God, correct?
I’m not going to go through the bother of discussing why God would go through this first agreement if he know already knew it’s out come and not just implement Jesus as the first convent as you can just answer that we can’t know the mind of God, but more importantly I want to know how you grapple with the paradox of free will and an omniscient God.
How can God have known that Adam was going to eat the fruit and also Adam have eaten it out of free will?
>>
File: 220px-Tao.svg.png (5 KB, 220x214)
5 KB
5 KB PNG
>>19742665
>giving it the limitation of needing to be called God
ngmi
>>
>>19743804
>>19744274
Imagine God’s Kingdom and This World are different rooms, it just so happened that your mom and dad had you when they chose to come into This World.

This World is not a prison, you’re not locked in forever, This Life is like a walk through a show-home.

God leaves the door to his Kingdom open and gives you a choice; His Kingdom, or This World.

There’s nothing coercive about him giving you the choice to stay here and not go into His Kingdom.

The fact that you think living a life outside His Kingdom and in This World is a punishment means you share God’s and Christian’s opinions, as Nietzche said, you’re share their life-denying, philosophy. Which is weird for an atheist.

How do you get into God’s Kingdom?
Using your freewill, you have to continuously choose to accept God in your life.
Choosing God is a persistent process, not a one time thing, you choose God and through that he will work through you so you can lead a life appropriate for a Christian. Proving you’re worthy of His Kingdom.

He understands we are not perfect, and we will do wrong things from time to time, but if your heart and soul and mind are in the right place, you’ll be capable.

>>19746155
1. He refused to know, in order to respect their free will.

2. Saying things like that or “Can God create an immovable object?” is autistic thinking. Autistic as in self-referential.

We cannot more define and judge God or his actions or how the universe works in absolute accuracy than a computer or mathematics can judge and define you, or anything in the universe for that matter.

*In reality everything we know about anything is only an approximation of reality.*

(This isn’t even a theological argument, this is a truth that scientists, engineers, physicists and mathematicians know.)

God is something that could approximate our understanding of omnipotent, not because he is less powerful than we think, but because OUR idea of omnipotence is not an absolute reflection of the reality of omnipotence.
>>
>>19746571
>How can God have known that Adam was going to eat the fruit and also Adam have eaten it out of free will?
Why do you see a contradiction in those terms? I don't... Can't you yourself predict the actions of free agents up to a certain degree of accuracy?
All these contradictions in the mind of non-Catholics stems from the simple fact that they don't understand that God and his Creation are radically, eidetically different. Perfection is an attribute of God, therefore perfectibility cannot, by definition, be one. God, for whatever purpose we believe we must trust him with, did not want to create more perfection, because that would have entailed creating more of Himself. He created something radically different, imparted it with Grace through its benevolence, and let it go, occasionally acting in it as to guide it, and imparting it with the Revelation in due time, so that we could act according to his Will.
God seemingly wishes us to reach back a state of Grace that is both immanent and transcendent, rather than one of the other. That process is ethico-historical, and so must be our understanding of the meaning of the Revelation.
Our destiny is to create Arcadia on Earth, and gain access to Heaven in death. God wants us to become the Gardeners of Eden, in accordance to our greatest duty and most glorious achievement, that of universal love.

> 1If I speak in the tongues a of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, b but do not have love, I gain nothing.

> 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

> 8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

> 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
>>
>>19742665
Tl;dr
>>
>>19746449
He didn’t condemn Adam, Adam chose to live this life.

If you think this life is bad, that’s because you agree with God.

You don’t have to believe this life is bad, not everyone thinks it is.
>>
>>19742665
Refuted by Aquinas and every single Church Father who ever lived. Read more.
>>
>>19746786
God didn’t predict that Adam would eat the fruit, God necessarily through being omniscient knew prior to even creating Adam that Adam would eat the fruit.
God being omniscient means that there is a future that God has total control and total knowledge of.
Free will necessarily implies that the future actions of an individual are solely based on his will alone; he may be guided, tricked, or something else but ultimately he is the one who chooses.
So I ask you, how can God have total knowledge of future events while man has the sole ability to choose his future actions.
The answer is that this is a paradox and therefore necessarily illogical.
It’s fine if you except this paradox but you should acknowledge that you are not arguing from a standpoint of reason and logic but of pure faith.
>>
>>19746795
If you create some thing already 100% knowing what the outcome is going to be, you are condemning the creation to that outcome.
>>
>>19746932
God does not predict because prediction implies temporality, and God is outside of time.
> " As taught by the Church, "All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures" (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise.
>>
>>19746155
thing is that we have this false dichotomy in our minds where God's omnipotence contradicts human free-will. but it isn't true. yes, God knew everything from the beginning, and has absolute power, but we're still free to choose. it's only a contradiction from our limited flawed understanding
>>
>>19746932
> God being omniscient means
You are not even talking about God, the problem is not the reality of God, but the English language’s system of definitions and logic which are based on human minds.

If you were to ask:
“If God is omnipotent, can he create an immovable object?”

Clearly that’s not a criticism of God, but of human conception of omnipotence. And the human error of applying that definition in describing God.

“Can the omnipotent create an immovable object?”

A paradox is a flaw of the human mind, paradoxes of any kind do not exist in reality.

You can’t use logic to disprove God, the same way I can’t use a computer program to disprove your existence.
>>
Capitalism - corporations facing fierce competition continually improve their products, employ cost-cutting measures and seek new product niches. Corporations shielded from competition just collect rent profits and do not engage in any productive investments. When market barriers are removed, latter corporations fall prey to dynamic, competitive corporations.

Natural selections - fierce selection pressure is highly eugenic. Human brain was increasing generation-on-generation basis at unprecedented rate when survival rates were low. As Neolithic revolution came about, selective pressure was much reduced, life became easy, human brain growth stagnated.

That is just how life works. Life is a struggle. You keep avoiding "evil" and stay at mom's basement - you will grow up a weakling. You keep fighting through all the difficulties, all the obstacles in this life, you keep overcoming this harsh reality - you will be victorious.

Genocide by evil dictator? Better develop powerful military and state next time to hold your ground. God is omnipowerful and we should aspire to be like God.

Child cancer? Better study natural laws and come up with treatment. God is omniscient and we should aspire to be like God.

Unbelievers run away from the fire. With the help of Faith, we overcome the fire. After all, we never forgot, what was told to us.

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
>>
>>19742665
God being all-powerful includes having the power that He determines what being good means. So God can make it so he is both good and evil exists
>>
File: 1624606218424.png (326 KB, 1663x1054)
326 KB
326 KB PNG
>>19742665
>You can't refute this.
>>
>>19742665
This assumes categories such as "malevolent" which Epicurus cannot justify. If there is no God then there is no good or evil which later philosophers discovered, so condemning God on account of being "malevolent" is meaningless.
>>
File: 1629966888430.png (853 KB, 800x600)
853 KB
853 KB PNG
>>19743305
allah doesn´t exist
>>
>>19742665
I can simply refute it by pointing out the fact that your 17 yo and don't have a brain developed enough or experienced enough to under stand why this co.ment is dump.
>>
>>19743612
yeah but she's right
>>
>>19742719
Global warming, gmo's, race mixing.
You have to be at least 26 to properly refute these points.
>>
>>19742719
Muslim here.
There are natural laws made by God some diseases are caused by humans free will and mistakes from eating or pollution or whatever. Some bad things could be because you did something bad in previous world or to prevent you from doing something just like the guy with mosses killed child not to become criminal and hurt his good mother and father. Other than all that in judgment day God reward us for our patience and instead of the bad things happened to us. Also this life isn't important it's short and low. All of us will die and criminal are allowed to have free will. Dying by cancer or whatever.
>>
>>19742665
This is such a retarded bullshit argument doesn't accept the actual implications of God existing would mean. I mean logically if God is God he is omnipotent and all-powerful he is the ultimate determiner of morality, in fact reality itself may as well be him, so whatever he says is good is good. Any argument against this is literal cope. You don't have to believe in God but to say if God is real and he's not all good... I mean you really haven't fully thought through that actual full implications of what God being real means.
>>
>>19747405
Why won't God do what I wants him to do the quote.
>>
File: gigachad a.png (110 KB, 1278x429)
110 KB
110 KB PNG
>>19742665
God is the pinnacle of the universal hierarchy and the universe itself, he is the beginning and the end, he is the determiner of all fates. He is consciousness and the reality we interact with, as well as the ultimate archetype we strive to become. If you accept this line of reasoning you are a pitiful fool that hates reality. True wisdom only comes when you figure reality and everything that occurs within it is fully good.
>>
File: 1641480817880.jpg (128 KB, 520x526)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
>>19747492
>of course the tolkienfaggot had to appear
>>
>>19742665
did Epicurus really say this.
>>
>>19742665
Epicurus never said that
I fucking hate redditor atheists
>>
>>19747582
go back to /qa/
>b-but /qa/ is dead!!!
then follow suit
>>
>>19747524

>childish "I win by definition, I'm wearing class four armor and my guy has all the good attributes" babbling
oof
>>
>>19746802

Doesn't count as a refutation if it fails to satisfy in any way.
>>
File: dog shit books.png (628 KB, 682x807)
628 KB
628 KB PNG
>>19747695
>>
>>19747697
You can say the same thing about the laws of physics, I'm not winning I'm simply explaining how it is. For once in your life get out of your room and experience the beauty of this world.
>>
>>19747702

No, you're not (explaining how it do), you're doing the same nonsense that you people have always done: gibbering, and with the gall to proclaim the gibbering a "proof" when convenient, or else repairing to faith and mystery when it suits you. All cults are intellectually unsatisfying, use pretty words, and lack explanatory power. You are no better than an astrologer.
>>
>>19747726
My guy you've done exactly what you've exactly what you accused me of doing. Have you actually read what I said? Then break down whats wrong. To be clear I base what I'm saying on a degree in neuroscience.
>>
>>19747678
no, he didnl't even believe in a single god
>>
>>19742665
Evil happening on Earth =/= Evil happening in Heaven
God is running a Stanford marshmallow experiment with comically exaggerated consequences for eating the single marshmallow and major rewards for waiting
>>
>>19747751

I am not your "guy", bruh. What you've done >>19747524 is to assign a typical series of arbitrary and unwarranted properties to your god, which doesn't actually say anything, and merely "sounds nice". This plainly applies to every clause in the first two sentences, and I already correctly said as much, so cue you to double down on the "nuh uh I made a sensible remark man actually explaaaaaain yourself" when I already did. There's no point in engaging with patent nonsense, and I am foolish to the extent that I am bothering to write this reply.

You would make better use of your degree if you endeavored to bring about the cessation of religious feeling in human beings. I understand that magnets are promising, and the negative side effects are quite acceptable for the gain to be had.
>>
>>19747838
>unwarranted properties to your god
He's God my guy. You're coping. If God exists he is what I say. If there's nothing like I say there is no God. I can accept someone not believing in God but you really haven't thought too deeply into this if you pretend God isn't God.
>>
>>19747838
>This plainly applies to every clause in the first two sentences, and I already correctly said as much, so cue you to double down on the "nuh uh I made a sensible remark man actually explaaaaaain yourself" when I already did. There's no point in engaging with patent nonsense, and I am foolish to the extent that I am bothering to write this reply.
Again you do exactly what you accused me of doing. You could've just said "I disagree but I won't explain why". Would've sounded better too without your teenage angst pretentiousness.

>You would make better use of your degree if you endeavored to bring about the cessation of religious feeling in human beings. I understand that magnets are promising, and the negative side effects are quite acceptable for the gain to be had.
I'll rebut with Christopher Hitchens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLJRhOV_HrI&ab_channel=EdmundMusasira
>>
>>19747854

> I can accept someone not believing in god

Clearly, you can't, and your second sentence betrays even more hubris than anything I've written. The arguments and demonstrations are always unsatisfying, every time. This-or-that "gotcha by-definition" ultimate property (first cause, necessary existence, etc) is usually invoked, and ta-da, QED. Well, no. It is only ever a word game, and not even a very clever one.
>>
File: white face wojak.jpg (44 KB, 645x773)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>19747890
Again you've said and explained nothing with your pretty words my guy. A lot like the cults you described. That's beginning to sound more and more like projection. Your point was that God could be God with being an allpowerful ominpotent. If he is an all poweful omnipotent he is what I say. If he's not an all powerful omnipotent he's not God, yet you say he can be. I'm just making sure we're working with the correct definitions here. Now point out any incorrection in my logic if you my guy, but this is starting to get a bit cringe.
>>
>>19747918
*without
>>
>>19744135
you just admitted that your god is a sadistic malevolent being
>>
>>19747929
>>my definition of evil is more sensible than God's because I am infallible and a beacon of reason and virtue
Read the Bhagavad Gita before blathering like an idiot.
>>
>>19747264
My ribs
>>
>>19747943
your "god" is nothing but a sadistic and malevolent desert being from the imagination of goat fuckers
your retarded cope of "muH gOd HaS a betTeR deFinItiOn oF eVil" is just "I win by definition, I'm wearing class four armor and my guy has all the good attributes" babbling
>>
>>19747969
He has attained perfect impassibility; life and death are equally indifferent to him, the collapse of the universe would cause him no emotion.
By dint of search, he has reached the immutable truth, the unique universal Principle. He lets all beings evolve according to their destinies ...
The outward sign of this inner state is imperturbability: not that of the hero who hurls himself alone, for love of glory, against an army in line of battle,
but that of the spirit, which, higher than heaven, earth and all beings, dwells in a body to which it is indifferent, taking no account of what its senses convey to it,
and knowing all by global knowledge in its motionless unity. That spirit, absolutely independent, is the master of men; if he cared to call them all together in their multitude,
they would all rally on the appointed day; but he has no desire for their service.

Zhuangzi - chapter 5

I am death, the destroyer of all; I have come to consume the world. Even without your participation, everyone gathered here will die.
At the sight of my myriad eyes and mouths, arms and legs, stomachs and feaful teeth, the entire universe shakes in terror of me. They look at me and lose all courage, everyone rushes into my awful jaws; crushed by my teeth. As rivers flow into the ocean, all the people of this world pass into my fiery jaws; all creatures rush to their destruction like moths to a flame

Bhagavad Gita - chapter 11
>>
>>19747918

You are misattributing to me the sentiment that god "could be god with being an allpowerful ominpotent [sic]", which is a poorly constructed and nearly incoherent phrase, although it still suggests the usual properties attributed to god.

>If he is an all poweful [sic] omnipotent he is what I say.

Okay, fine. More of the "I'm right be definition" stuff, which I what I reject.

>If he's not an all powerful omnipotent he's not God, yet you say he can be

Now you're the one projecting, I never said anything like that. You're the one stuck on god and the historical fallacious proofs of his existence.

>I'm just making sure we're working with the correct definitions here

You're doing a terrible job of it, in this post especially.

>Now point out any incorrection [sic] in my logic if you [?] my guy...

&c. No ad hom, but this post especially gives me the idea that English isn't your first language, and you're worked up a bit. It might explain your misreadings of me. I take you at your word about the neuroscience degree but still, oof. Here, post some more fedoras or something.
>>
>>19747980
>>If he is an all poweful [sic] omnipotent he is what I say.
>Now you're the one projecting, I never said anything like that. You're the one stuck on god and the historical fallacious proofs of his existence.
>>>unwarranted properties to your god
>>
>>19747119
Your post interest me very much although I feel an innate disagreement to it. I definitely need to read up on the philosophy of language and logic to give a proper retort.
Let me ask you something though, what system can we use to prove or disprove the existence if God if at all possible?
>>
>>19746072
Thanks Soren.
>>
Fuck Christoids!!!
>>
>>19746091
Thanks. I’ve crossed off half my reading list now that it’s been refuted by this axiom.
>>
>>19748030
Anon samefagging is really cringe
>>
>>19742719
not evil
>>
>>19747582
>>19747701
>Popular thing is... LE BAD!
>Epic Troll!
Faggot.
>>
>>19748058

You've misread the exchange. I wrote the initial post, and the retort (which I did not write) was clearly sarcastic and therefore not a validation of what I'd written. So, unless someone is having a contradictory giggle (admittedly this happens all the time), there isn't a good reading which assigns the two posts to the same author. Rather, a stupid reading (yours) takes the latter sarcastic post literally, as validating the first.
>>
God doesn't stop children from getting raped and killed. He won't answer the prayers of the most vulnerable so why would he answer yours

He can't even beat Satan who he created.

He either doesn't exist or he's a tard. And that's all there is to it.
>>
File: 112.png (83 KB, 1088x672)
83 KB
83 KB PNG
>>19748293
Just from a logical perspective do you think you would actually comprehend the thought processes of the creator of the universe?
>>
>>19748293
>>19747969
>>19747929
Is God to Blame for Our Suffering?

The Bible emphatically answers no! Suffering was not part of Jehovah God’s purpose for mankind. However, the first human couple rebelled against God’s rulership, choosing to set their own standards of good and bad. They turned away from God and suffered the consequences.

Today we are experiencing the effects of their bad choice. But in no way did God originate human suffering.

The Bible says: “When under trial, let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God.’ For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (James 1:13) Suffering can afflict anyone—even those who are favored by God.

>>19746936
>>19746932


“Perhaps they will listen and each one will turn back from his evil way, and I will change my mind concerning the calamity that I intend to bring on them because of their evil deeds.” --Jeremiah 26:3

The Bible does teach that God is Almighty, that his power is not limited by anyone other than himself. (Job 37:23; Isaiah 40:26) However, he does not use his power to control everything. For example, the Bible says that God was “exercising self-control” toward ancient Babylon, an enemy of his people. (Isaiah 42:14) Similarly, for now, he chooses to tolerate those who misuse their free will to harm others. But God will not do so indefinitely.—Psalm 37:10, 11.
>>
File: 1623919053214.png (2.09 MB, 2160x1884)
2.09 MB
2.09 MB PNG
>>19743317
>evil person suffers misfortune
God punished him
>evil person receives good fortune
God will surely punish him in the afterlife
>good person suffers misfortune
God will surely reward him in the afterlife
>good person receives good fortune
God rewarded him
>>
>>19742665
Well the obvious answer is that evil does not exist as an actual force but as a lack of connection to GOd. It cannot be positively defined and is therefore not a discrete or unique entity. HRTP0
>>
>>19744135
>Child rape and genocide aren't wrong

Christcucks are retarded
>>
The real answer is that there is no such thing as evil. All works to God's favor.
>>
>>19748514
>Is God to Blame for Our Suffering? The Bible emphatically answers no! Suffering was not part of Jehovah God’s purpose for mankind
Why would he punish flawed beings HE designed to be imperfect and easily tempted, other than being a psychopath
>However, the first human couple rebelled against God’s rulership, choosing to set their own standards of good and bad. They turned away from God and suffered the consequences.
Only an insane malevolent retard would make thousands of generations later pay for the mistakes of a couple.

You are insane as well.
>>
>>19748658
>Why would he punish
He doesn't?
Earthly suffering is caused by the the Fall, which He offers us a way out of.
Spiritual suffering (Hell) is caused by our having rejected Him consistently throughout our lives.
>>
File: laf4.jpg (40 KB, 499x470)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>19746779
the mental gymnastics religious people go through is just fascinating.

a simple, rational look at the reality around us immediately disproves 99 of religious texts. 5 minutes of logical thinking easily defeats the remaining 1%

and yet these people will bend and twist words, logic, reality, perception, common sense, the laws of nature to try to convince us (but really they are trying to convince themselves) that 2+2=52,613

this isn't just cope. it is psychosis



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.