God doesn't do anything. The idea that God knows when we're going to commit a sin and isn't willing to stop us is a midwit take. Time doesn't work the same way for God as it works for us which is going forward. To God everything is present. Thus he knows everything that had and is going to take place.
These pseudo-philosophical inquiries fall on deaf ears with religious people because they preclude any notion of the eschaton.
A Christian will tell you that God permits evil now, so that He can have a more perfect good later. Just as pain in childbirth begets life, and just as man works by the sweat of his brow—in pursuit of a greater fruit of his labor.
What we call evil is a necessary precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Evil is an obstacle to the pursuit of the good, and the pursuit of the good without an obstacle cant even be classified as a pursuit. Free will manifests itself when the spirit pursues despite fleshly incumberances (evil).
>What we call evil is a necessary precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
But it’s not, though. Not when we’re supposing dealing with an all-powerful entity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes it is because we are not all powerful and God concedes some degree of choice to us.
Evil naturally arises in this status. It has to, else man would be all-powerful.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don’t follow. You’re saying that “god. isn’t all-powerful? He can’t make a world that isn’t constrained by this necessity?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I’m saying that the Bible has a consistent portrayal of God and the means which He decides to use to create perfect good. It isnt an inconsistency. To ask why does God permit evil is as stupid as if asking why does life manifest itself as processes. Like, why doesnt everything exist equally at all times and at all quantities? Why do things grow? Why does the earth spin, why does the sun set, why do we desire sleep etc.
The answer is because limits create structure. And God wouldnt be creating anything if it had no limits.
So think of God permitting evil like why does God permit darkness at night. Why arent our bodies optimized 24 hour sun? Why do we need to eat and drink?
Because, those preconditions are what make a structure. Limits give an object it’s identity. So to ask why God didnt just create material reality plus free will but minus evil is ridiculous. Theres no structure to that.
Its like asking why didnt He create a square circle.
Im not saying you have to accept this reality, Im just saying its not a contradiction or a logical hiccup at all. These doctrines have stuck with mankind for millenia for a reason, the seeming contradictions have been ironed out for all of human existence.
Your smug aproach like no religion has ever asked these questions before is obnoxious. Its like when creationists think theyve found the silver bullet against evolution by wondering why monkeys still exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Limits give an object it’s identity
No they don’t.
Or rather, they do... but they only do because that’s the way reality is. Your argument boils down to a shrug, a “c’est la vie”. But that axiom can be turned against you, because it *doesn’t /need/ to be that way*. It’s not *necessary*. And if it is, if god MUST. do this, then god isn’t omnipotent.
You’re damn right people have been tussling with this silver bullet for aeons, because it’s the fricking silver bullet against the tri-attributes given to the Christian god 😛 of course they’re gonna be desperately inventing up copes for it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No they do >OK THEY DO BUT HES STILL WRONG
just give up, you got btfo
2 years ago
Anonymous
No you’re an idiot, it’s > limits are required because... just because, okay? > sure... but what if they weren’t?
We’re literally back at the beginning:
> bad exists because... just because, okay? > sure.. but what if it didn’t?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you prepared to engage in the same sort of pedantic reasoning with all creation then?
Like why stop at questioning why evil exists? Why not just go down the list—why are pandas black and white, why do dogs bark? Why does the tongue taste? Why is facial hair texture different from head hair texture? Why is water wet? Why is the sky blue? Why does the sun give off heat? Why is gravity? How does the question of why in any way refute the notion of a conscious, all powerful and all righteous deity?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How does the question of why in any way refute the notion of a conscious, all powerful and all righteous deity?
It refutes the notion of a righteous deity. Or at least a deity that is righteous in a way we can understand. Nature is brutal and horrifying, as is the universe as a whole. I would say the notion of a benevolent pro human god is inherently disproven by the existence of bot flies long before we get to anything humans do.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Good and evil are defined only by the ends to which they serve. This is my point. You pre exclude any notion of the end times which is central to Christian doctrine and then you try to refute it’s hollowed out husk.
Christians believe that we are heading towards perfect creation, so the evil is a necessary obstacle (limit) for attaining the identity of that perfection. God permitting evil, in the process of creating perfect good, doesnt refute religious dogma regarding the goodness of God at all.
By what standard do you define good?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You pre exclude any notion of the end times which is central to Christian doctrine and then you try to refute it’s hollowed out husk.
Oh, I do not pre exclude it. It's why I view them as a insane doomsday cult. My point is that it's trying to push a idea of goodness along mostly human terms. Which Is moronic.
>Christians believe that we are heading towards perfect creation, so the evil is a necessary obstacle (limit) for attaining the identity of that perfection.
Well, yeah, they are batshit insane.
>By what standard do you define good?
Irrelevant. I am not god.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> Like why stop at questioning why evil exists?
Uhh, hello? Because of this cope?: > What we call evil is a necessary precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Y’know, the topic we’re talking about? Cmon man.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if God MUST do this
What? Nobody said he MUST do anything. Only that He decides to do things in a certain order and decides to rigidly follow those orders. This is my point about smug reasoning. Its just embarrassing dude.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So he decided to include evil in the world. So he's not all-good
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well no, he might still be all-good as a consequence of being able to define himself as all-good, but that’s a bit of a ridiculous position that isn’t going to convince anyone that it’s all a massive cope.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Biblical god was a dragon that ate virgins.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why do we need to eat and drink? Those preconditions are what make a structure
I'm so glad I read Wittgenstein at the right time and can just recognize this kind of sentence as the word salad it is.
you're still stuck with God as the creator of Evil despite being omnibenevolent, which is either a contradiction, or a totally impersonal moral system because not all humans get equal opportunity to sin thanks to stuff like 50% child mortality. like, the majority of souls are placed in bodies in order to be removed from them before getting a chance to start the obstacle course.
I've always thought this but you worded it better than I could have. I'm an atheist but the argument from morality never sat with me since you could easily argue that suffering on Earth is just preconditioning for eternal bliss and that all is made right in the afterlife.
God is transcendent to existence and non-existence, and is the cause of existence. So it is technically wrong to say that He exists, but it makes the argument easier so atheists can join in the discussion.
No, he called the ignorant scientist simpleminded with the use of appropriate imagery. You're the only one who drew a comparison between that imagery and the scientist's race.
Damn, maybe black people don't have souls after all. All those scientific instruments and all Neil had to do was look in the mirror or take a walk in nature.
>Black personman assured in his knowledge that he understands the entirety of the universe. >Black personman sees sleek angular wooden object with light skinned men heading up river toward him. >these must be gods.
Statistically speaking there exists in this universe some being machine, mechanism, or other entity that would and does have the capabilities that we would ascribe to a god. It is utmost hubris to proclaim that because you have no evidence it must not exist, when we are not masters of the universe.
it's not a belief at all lol.
"You don't believe in something? That's a belief!"
before you start your cope, tell me if you consider yourself religious, spiritual or an atheist
I’m not even gonna “cope”, just gonna ask you to define belief, please.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>ATHEISM IS A BELIEF >it's not a belief >DEFINE BELIEF
you're the one that started it bro. Go on and tell me what beliefs I have as an atheist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A belief is a mental construct that attempts to model (mirror, or match) an aspect of reality. Examples include: > we have free will > we evolved from apes > tomorrow I will join the idiot club > this apple is red > OP is a gay
Etc etc
Your turn.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't believe any of those
2 years ago
Anonymous
...You’re not supposed to? You’re supposed to give your definition.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't believe any of those
A belief is a mental construct that attempts to model (mirror, or match) an aspect of reality. Examples include: > we have free will > we evolved from apes > tomorrow I will join the idiot club > this apple is red > OP is a gay
Etc etc
Your turn.
>ATHEISM IS A BELIEF >it's not a belief >DEFINE BELIEF
you're the one that started it bro. Go on and tell me what beliefs I have as an atheist.
> moronic atheist btfo
>if God MUST do this
What? Nobody said he MUST do anything. Only that He decides to do things in a certain order and decides to rigidly follow those orders. This is my point about smug reasoning. Its just embarrassing dude.
> Nobody said he MUST do anything > What we call evil is a //necessary// precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
I’m sorry, are you talking about a different god, who /didn’t/ create the rules of reality?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What we call evil is a //necessary// precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Youre illiterate and my point went entirely over your head. I’m saying God, since He is an all-powerful Deity, defines ultimate good. Anything which is according to His purpose, in the Christian conception of things, is the ultimate good. We have no capacity to define ultimate good outside of the ‘limits’ which God puts upon the processes which govern our reality. >but ‘why’ does God do things in a certain way? Checkmate theists
Again, why does it matter? Christians believe everything leads to ultimate perfect good, therefore the existence of evil currently doesnt disprove an all-righteous Deity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> why does it matter?
Because: > Christians believe everything leads to ultimate perfect good
They worship their god /despite/ the evil it created.
But more to the point: What the frick does any of this have to do with the necessity of evil? > God, since He is an all-powerful Deity, defines ultimate good.
Okay. Yes. > Anything which is according to His purpose, in the Christian conception of things, is the ultimate good.
Right. Got it. > We have no capacity to define ultimate good, etc etc, limits
Wtf are you on about? Are you saying we can’t imagine a reality without evil? This isn’t even about evil, this is about the necessity of *any* aspect of reality, and how they would negate omnipotency.
Also; > Youre illiterate
2 years ago
Anonymous
I’m saying that what we consider evil is defined by what we consider good.
Good can only be defined by our conception of the source of existence.
The source of all existence is necessarily the ends to which existence serves.
Therefore, evil is only evil insomuch as it is contrary to the will of God.
So then your question comes in. If God is all-powerful why doesnt He prevent any and all evil? I’m saying that that question is as foolish as asking why we are all originally fetuses. The fact that we were all fetuses at one point doesnt mean God doesnt have the capacity, will, or desire to form us into human adults.
So your contention with the notion of an all-righteous God is actually a contention of the time which allocates between the beginning of a process and it’s perfect end. And to ask the question why does God form structures using the process of time is an ontological question—not a moral one. Just because something is imperfect at first and then formed into perfection doesn’t mean God desires that the thing be imperfect. It doesnt mean He creates imperfection either. He’s merely constraining Himself to the structure of time in forming a perfect thing.
So think of all existence as in the imperfect fetus stage. If He was unconstrained by time then the thing He was creating would have no identity of it’s own. Again, limits create identities.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now you might ask why cant God give something a unique identity without constraining. He’s God so He’s all powerful, right? The answer is the same reason why God cant make Himself not God. Because the very possibility of such a thing makes the question impossible. Obviously God cant deny Himself, but this doesnt mean He’s not all-powerful.
2 years ago
Anonymous
To phrase it even more simply.
God creates identities through structuring them within the confines of time. Nothing can have an identity apart from God unless it is constrained by the passage of time. Asking God why He created something within the confines of time is like asking Him why He didn’t create a square circle. Its an incoherent question.
2 years ago
Anonymous
(If you want to take this even further this is why the concept of the Biblical Godhead exists. The book of John says Jesus is the Word. He’s the internal logic of things personified. So the Father constrains Himself to these principles which are personified by the Son. But if this entire conversation has gone over your head up to this point then I fully expect you to dismiss this entirely.)
2 years ago
Anonymous
Okay, I think I see where you’re coming from now. But there’s issues:
> Good can only be defined by our conception of the source of existence.
I think this is incorrect. Maybe it works for the concept of “ultimate” good, but there’s certainly models of good that don’t give a monkey’s toot about extrareal or prime-mover entities.
> evil is only evil insomuch as it is contrary to the will of God.
Nothing in existence can truly be contrary to the will of an omnipotent, omniscient god. He can /pretend/ that it’s against his will - and pretence is a great analogy, because we can draw an analogy between god’s adherence to structure and the structure of a game (I.e. “I can only move my pawns forward, not backwards”) - but he’s still complicit in the pretence. You /can/ physically move you pawn backwards, but you’re instead choosing to be limited by the rules of chess. > It doesnt mean He creates imperfection either
This is exactly what he does do, as imperfection doesn’t exist without it existing. The terms, the structure witch which he’s playing, is defined by him.
> the question why does God form structures using the process of time is an ontological question—not a moral one.
An ontological question, the answer to which could have drastic consequences on this being’s morals. Semantics.
> Just because something is imperfect at first and then formed into perfection doesn’t mean God desires that the thing be imperfect
He desires that it be imperfect first. He desires that it be imperfect.
>If He was unconstrained by time then the thing He was creating would have no identity of it’s own.
Untrue. Or, if true, then not omnipotent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is no concept of moral good apart from the standards of a deity, so what I believe you are attempting to do (correct me if im wrong) is argue that God is immoral by His own standards. That the words described in His Bible are internally inconsistent.
My point this entire discussion has been that the God of the Bible’s morality is internally sufficient, because He is operating within a system which will lead to greater perfection in the end. Youre saying since He is all-powerful then He tacitly permits evil. I’m saying that any tacit permission of evil on God’s part is in service towards and with knowledge of greater ends, therefore is not in and of itself an evil act.
>imperfection doesnt exist without it existing
Now this is just silly. Imperfection is only imperfection insomuch as it is measured against it’s perfect end. That perfect end doesnt exist without God actively moving creation towards that end.
So youre asking why doesnt God just create things in their perfect form instantly. To which i refer again to the fetus argument. Does God desire that we all are fetuses, or does he desire that we grow out of being one? Why are we not fully adult humans at birth? Because growth is part of what creates our identity as fully adult humans, and that fully formed identity is a greater good than that of a perpetual fetus or perpetual man. The growth into perfection is an inherent good, surpassing the harm caused by evil in pursuit of that perfection.
So God in this example permits evil, because pursuit towards perfection is a greater good than perfection in a perpetual status.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> There is no concept of moral good apart from the standards of a deity
There is, though. Man-made moral judgement of what constitutes “good” are abundant.
> Youre saying since He is all-powerful then He tacitly permits evil.
I think that’s what he’d like to believe. But he’s fooling himself: because he’s /actively/ playing a game with evil as a component. > the ends justify the means
A prickly axiom, I’ll give you that. One I disagree with, given how unnecessary the means are.
> that fully formed identity is a greater good than that of a perpetual fetus or perpetual man
No it isn’t, not by my judgement or by a god’s. If a perpetual being, defined as perfect by god, /is/ greater than a grown being (of a perfection /also/ defined as perfect by god), then that’s implying a whoooole new system that’s vastly superior than what that god is, and questions whether he’s omnipotent or just relatively powerful. If god A creates a man, and god B creates a fetus that grows up to be a man, god A’s man is still a man: /because he defines what a man is!/
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If a perpetual being, defined as perfect by god, /is/ greater than a grown being (of a perfection /also/ defined as perfect by god), then that’s implying a whoooole new system that’s vastly superior than what that god is, and questions whether he’s omnipotent or just relatively powerful.
You have it wrong. I’m not saying inherent perfection in and of itself inferior. I’m saying inherent perfection, apart from the passage of time, is indistinguishable from God Himself. Thus no identity. Thus less desirable.
>given how unnecessary the means are
Ludicrous. Evil is that which leads, on some position on the scale, to complete absolution—i.e. against the will of God, the source of existence.
There has never been a moral framework which hasnt appealed to death for proof of its efficacy.
Something being constrained to the passage of time is a precondition of creation. It has to be, as the thing was not and then was. The passage of time is inevitably in there. In other words there was a time in which it didnt exist (imperfection) and then it did. (Perfection).
So to cast aspersions on the notion of something being formed into perfection with the passage of time (passage of time being entirely irrelevant to an eternal God btw) is to cast aspersions on the very notion of creation itself. This is your central error.
Creation is an intrinsically good thing. The act of nothing becoming something is intrinsically good. The act of imperfection becoming perfection is intrinsically and morally good and always will be by it’s very nature. If God wills into existence the process by which imperfection (sinful creation) becomes perfection, then this process is, by it’s very nature, good.
This must be an axiomatic principle if we care to have any sort of coherent moral framework.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> inherent perfection, apart from the passage of time, is indistinguishable from God Himself
But.. it’s not. The innately perfect man that god A creates is still a man that god A created, as opposed to god A. You’re making it sound like god can’t see a distinction, or is somehow chained to desire. Like god’s lonely. Pretty major limitations there.
> Something being constrained to the passage of time is a precondition of creation
Only from the god’s perspective, and you point out: the passage of time is completely irrelevant to this god.
For example, could this god not create something that had (from its perspective) always existed?
> There has never been a moral framework which hasnt appealed to death for proof of its efficacy.
I’m curious - could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
> This must be an axiomatic principle if we care to have any sort of coherent moral framework.
Hard disagree. But I find substituting “good” for “existent” is often a good way of decrypting the stubborn insistence on objective good, so we’re at least talking in similar circles, opinions aside.
[...]
This might sound insane, but “The end justifies the means” is the axiomatic principle which underlines any and all moral frameworks, for good or for ill. All moral frameworks appeal to the ends of a thing, process, or philosophy, in order to judge it’s status within said moral framework.
For human-built moral frameworks, perhaps. I’d expect something a little less crude from an all-good being.
The ends justify the means is the argument behind the common saying:
We can't understand God's plan. And the idea God has a plan for us all and therefore everything happens for a reason. Some things may seem evil and unnecessary but it must have some reason and was necessary for the grand plan
> we can’t understand god’s plan
...then why are you talking about god’s plan? Stfu?
>maybe it works with the concept of ultimate good
You just undermined your entire argument with this statement. If one cannot appeal exclusively to the concept of the ultimate good when judging the moral status of THE LITERAL SOURCE OF ALL CREATION, then no moral system is sufficient enough to judge Him, and that includes midwit secularized christian agnostic takes
Says who? I’ll judge him as I please, to the standard of my picking. That’s what “free will” allows me to do, right?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If a perpetual being, defined as perfect by god, /is/ greater than a grown being (of a perfection /also/ defined as perfect by god), then that’s implying a whoooole new system that’s vastly superior than what that god is, and questions whether he’s omnipotent or just relatively powerful.
You have it wrong. I’m not saying inherent perfection in and of itself inferior. I’m saying inherent perfection, apart from the passage of time, is indistinguishable from God Himself. Thus no identity. Thus less desirable.
>given how unnecessary the means are
Ludicrous. Evil is that which leads, on some position on the scale, to complete absolution—i.e. against the will of God, the source of existence.
There has never been a moral framework which hasnt appealed to death for proof of its efficacy.
Something being constrained to the passage of time is a precondition of creation. It has to be, as the thing was not and then was. The passage of time is inevitably in there. In other words there was a time in which it didnt exist (imperfection) and then it did. (Perfection).
So to cast aspersions on the notion of something being formed into perfection with the passage of time (passage of time being entirely irrelevant to an eternal God btw) is to cast aspersions on the very notion of creation itself. This is your central error.
Creation is an intrinsically good thing. The act of nothing becoming something is intrinsically good. The act of imperfection becoming perfection is intrinsically and morally good and always will be by it’s very nature. If God wills into existence the process by which imperfection (sinful creation) becomes perfection, then this process is, by it’s very nature, good.
This must be an axiomatic principle if we care to have any sort of coherent moral framework.
This might sound insane, but “The end justifies the means” is the axiomatic principle which underlines any and all moral frameworks, for good or for ill. All moral frameworks appeal to the ends of a thing, process, or philosophy, in order to judge it’s status within said moral framework.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think you're getting way too semantic here.
"The end justifies the means" specifically pertains to the idea that you can do a bad thing for a good reason and still be moral. There are frameworks that reject this, just as there are frameworks that accept this. There are some that would even reject the concept of morality, but thats another issue.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The end justifies the means" specifically pertains to the idea that you can do a bad thing for a good reason and still be moral. There are frameworks that reject this, just as there are frameworks that accept this
Yes but when dealing with the morality of God, (or for atheists existence itself) everyone believes in the end justifying the means.
Nobody rejects the terms of reality outright
2 years ago
Anonymous
Actually there are some Hindu sects I can think of that see god as a non-agent just witnessing the world. There is no morality applied to god, as he is only viewing this world and not in control of it. Existence to them is suffering, and just is because it is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The ends justify the means is the argument behind the common saying:
We can't understand God's plan. And the idea God has a plan for us all and therefore everything happens for a reason. Some things may seem evil and unnecessary but it must have some reason and was necessary for the grand plan
2 years ago
Anonymous
I guess it was in gods plan for over half of his creations to suffer for all eternity 🙂
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't agree with it I'm just saying this is the explanation
2 years ago
Anonymous
Which is what people have a problem with. >Why do people suffer?
B-Because they just DO, OK!? >So when that kid got cancer and then his Dad killed himse-
God's plan!
homosexuals.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree. It's not hard to find inconsistency in religion. It's so old and been rewritten, translated, retranslated, rebranded, added and subtracted to by hundreds of cultures across thousands of years. It'd be a miracle more astonishing than any in the bible if it were logically sound and consistent
2 years ago
Anonymous
The "gods plan" argument also falls flat when you consider that there definitely could be another way for god to get the same end result while causing much less suffering.
On the lighter end of things, why does he not do anything about the sects of Christianity? A little clarification, or even some hints on which one is right would be helpful
On the darker end, there were over 600,000 kids molested in the US last year. Was there really no way to get to his ends without that happening? Not even just a couple hundred thousand less?
But way back when he was so keen to fix humanity he flooded the earth and killed all of us. God seems to be really comfortable being a non-agent when it suits him, and if he's real, that's my main issue.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>maybe it works with the concept of ultimate good
You just undermined your entire argument with this statement. If one cannot appeal exclusively to the concept of the ultimate good when judging the moral status of THE LITERAL SOURCE OF ALL CREATION, then no moral system is sufficient enough to judge Him, and that includes midwit secularized christian agnostic takes
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What we call evil is a //necessary// precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Youre illiterate and my point went entirely over your head. I’m saying God, since He is an all-powerful Deity, defines ultimate good. Anything which is according to His purpose, in the Christian conception of things, is the ultimate good. We have no capacity to define ultimate good outside of the ‘limits’ which God puts upon the processes which govern our reality. >but ‘why’ does God do things in a certain way? Checkmate theists
Again, why does it matter? Christians believe everything leads to ultimate perfect good, therefore the existence of evil currently doesnt disprove an all-righteous Deity.
One more qualification so you cant weasle your way out of the discussion again—ahem.
The current existence of evil doesnt disprove the existence of an all righteous Deity, anymore than the current existence of a fetus de-facto disproves the notion of a Deity with the capacity to create an adult.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Correction: capacity, or ‘desire’ to create an adult
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist, then yes,that's a belief.
Theism = I believe that God/s exist.
Agnosticism = I don't or can't know that God/s exist.
Athism = I believe that God/s don't exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I believe that specific gods asserted by others do not exist, i.e. the Christian God makes no sense.
I do not believe that no god exists, I simply do not know.
I half agree with that notion insofar that I accept that it's possible that there might be a god or a god like entity. The idea that any religion is true however is on it's face ridiclous and is literally no different from claiming fairies or Santa Claus are real.
Yeah, when he could have.. y’know, not. Not given us the choice. And then nothing would be bad. > “I didn’t hurt you, it was the sword! The sword I swung at you, but the sword has its own free will so there!”
Yes. It already happened. The Big Bang was God killing himself. Existence is just maggots festering on his corpse. The Heat Death of the universe is God's suicide plan as he splits himself into infinite, disconnected pieces before one day all of existence is quiet, cold and still.
I have no idea who or what that is. People can come up with things independently, especially those who want to resolve scientific facts with the idea that some God could or has existed.
Not that other guy, but I looked him up. Setting aside the discussion in this thread completely, I can respect this Mainlander guy as a anti-life schizo that actually bothered to kill himself, instead of persisting in suffering and trying to convince others to suffer with them. I imagine he got there by dodging nihilism completely, instead choosing to believe in death as the purpose of having lived.
if you are superficial, your appreciation will be very poor.
(1/2) It was an analogy for Christianity. (spoilers abound)
The Grabber represents Satan, he grabs us and holds us under. We have all the necessary tools to escape from his clutches but the only way to do that is if we have faith. In this film faith is represented by The Black Phone (and also literally by Jesus in the form of Finn's sister praying for answers.)
Even though it seems like everything is for naught and you have no idea why God isn't answering your prayers, He IS, you just are too shortsighted to see the pieces he's laying down that will come in use later. This happens when Finn breaks into the steak freezer and can't get out, it feels like everything he's been doing has made no progress. But it actually has. He wasn't supposed to escape via the freezer, the freezer was there so he could grab a steak at the end and save Max's body from the Grabber's dog. Responsibility and Respect for the dead.
(2/2) At the end when Finn finally escapes his sister realizes he wasn't even in the house she thought he was, he was in the one across the street. The ONLY way he could've gotten out of his torment was through The Black Phone. Just like how Jesus is the only way through life and into heaven.
There's also a message about violence and anger being necessary against violence. This is EXTREMELY rare to find in modern hollywood, where the protagonist is stripped of all his notions of "righteous" anger in favor of apathy and loss of individualism. It's meant to discourage you. Look at The Batman, The Northman, Under The Silver Lake, A Monster Calls, etc. It's all told in the name of moderation, but it really just exists to weaken you and siphon your Will and Energy out of you.
This is not the case in this film, which was written and directed by a known Christian man (Scott Derrickson).
The message of this film is that there are evil, wicked people out there who want to hurt you and your family and friends. They're bullies, but fully grown and more malicious.
(2/2) At the end when Finn finally escapes his sister realizes he wasn't even in the house she thought he was, he was in the one across the street. The ONLY way he could've gotten out of his torment was through The Black Phone. Just like how Jesus is the only way through life and into heaven.
There's also a message about violence and anger being necessary against violence. This is EXTREMELY rare to find in modern hollywood, where the protagonist is stripped of all his notions of "righteous" anger in favor of apathy and loss of individualism. It's meant to discourage you. Look at The Batman, The Northman, Under The Silver Lake, A Monster Calls, etc. It's all told in the name of moderation, but it really just exists to weaken you and siphon your Will and Energy out of you.
This is not the case in this film, which was written and directed by a known Christian man (Scott Derrickson).
The message of this film is that there are evil, wicked people out there who want to hurt you and your family and friends. They're bullies, but fully grown and more malicious.
(2/2) At the end when Finn finally escapes his sister realizes he wasn't even in the house she thought he was, he was in the one across the street. The ONLY way he could've gotten out of his torment was through The Black Phone. Just like how Jesus is the only way through life and into heaven.
There's also a message about violence and anger being necessary against violence. This is EXTREMELY rare to find in modern hollywood, where the protagonist is stripped of all his notions of "righteous" anger in favor of apathy and loss of individualism. It's meant to discourage you. Look at The Batman, The Northman, Under The Silver Lake, A Monster Calls, etc. It's all told in the name of moderation, but it really just exists to weaken you and siphon your Will and Energy out of you.
This is not the case in this film, which was written and directed by a known Christian man (Scott Derrickson).
The message of this film is that there are evil, wicked people out there who want to hurt you and your family and friends. They're bullies, but fully grown and more malicious.
>It was an analogy for Christianity.
The director already said the film is a representation of abuse and the people that sacrifice everything to help you pull you out of that cycle.
The film wasn't bad, but it's needlessly convoluted with pointless shit like the visiting brother, the drunken father trope, and wandering and ineffective cops.
(2/2) At the end when Finn finally escapes his sister realizes he wasn't even in the house she thought he was, he was in the one across the street. The ONLY way he could've gotten out of his torment was through The Black Phone. Just like how Jesus is the only way through life and into heaven.
There's also a message about violence and anger being necessary against violence. This is EXTREMELY rare to find in modern hollywood, where the protagonist is stripped of all his notions of "righteous" anger in favor of apathy and loss of individualism. It's meant to discourage you. Look at The Batman, The Northman, Under The Silver Lake, A Monster Calls, etc. It's all told in the name of moderation, but it really just exists to weaken you and siphon your Will and Energy out of you.
This is not the case in this film, which was written and directed by a known Christian man (Scott Derrickson).
The message of this film is that there are evil, wicked people out there who want to hurt you and your family and friends. They're bullies, but fully grown and more malicious.
(2/2) At the end when Finn finally escapes his sister realizes he wasn't even in the house she thought he was, he was in the one across the street. The ONLY way he could've gotten out of his torment was through The Black Phone. Just like how Jesus is the only way through life and into heaven.
There's also a message about violence and anger being necessary against violence. This is EXTREMELY rare to find in modern hollywood, where the protagonist is stripped of all his notions of "righteous" anger in favor of apathy and loss of individualism. It's meant to discourage you. Look at The Batman, The Northman, Under The Silver Lake, A Monster Calls, etc. It's all told in the name of moderation, but it really just exists to weaken you and siphon your Will and Energy out of you.
This is not the case in this film, which was written and directed by a known Christian man (Scott Derrickson).
The message of this film is that there are evil, wicked people out there who want to hurt you and your family and friends. They're bullies, but fully grown and more malicious.
Based take, and I really enjoyed the film too. Ignore the other morons.
Because He hates you. That's why I'm posting this response - some inexplicable inclination, completely impersonally motivated, was sent to me which I now obey. He's a piece of shit, but He didn't tell me to say that.
Did God ever even claim to be all good? If you read the bible, it's pretty clear he's more like a tyrant that you should fear than a best friend or a dad
God is a fricking prom night drama queen in the bible. Half the shit it does is because some lowly human decided to question it or say in more or less words "go frick yourself". Look at the Egyptians, God had a b***h tantrum because a group of people with a clearly defined religion decided not to listen to one schizo that said "free my people". Like imagine getting your crops destroyed and catching disease because god is upset you're not believing in him instead of never letting the Egyptian religion to get this far to begin with.
Seems abstracted for literally no reason, if you're gonna tell one person might as well let everyone else know since that's your intention to start with
Atheism is arrogance, so is Christianity. Why not just admit that we don't know, and will probably never know, the reason behind life and the universe?
most atheists agree with that. I just don't think the specific Christian God as described in the Bible exists. Some kind of God could absolutely exist. But not the schizo one detailed in the Bible, he's plainly nonsensical and the lore is moronic and changes between books and authors. Awful worldbuilding and inconsistent characterization.
Agree with this. It's impossible for the Christian god to exist as characterized in the Bible since it contradicts itself constantly. Could there be something sort of like a Christian god if you were to pick and choose certain traits? Sure.
Yeah, because it's even more terrifying than atheism. Just straight up lovecraft esque "We are tiny specks and there are entities out there that could erase us without even trying to just by their presence".
Why do religions always try to pretend god follows human morality? When humans kill millions of plants and insects to build a home, would you call that evil?
>If God is all powerful he will use that power to remove evil and give me an easy existence.
Only a coddled and childish generation could come up with something so fricking stupid.
Buddhism is a suicide cult that seeks destruction of their soul.
The only reason people from civilization give a single shit is because wisdom always seems more wise if its from a long way away.
>the religion you were born into is automatically the true and only one
lmao
There may be a god or not, but it definitely didn't happen as described in all those "holy" books.
I mean, yeah. It's why I can't take most religious people serious in a serious debate. It would be one thing if they just admitted "It's probably nonsense but I agree with it philosophically" or even "It's probably nonsense but the sheep have to be herded". But the moment you go "Nope, my religions is correct and the rest is false" you lose any intellectual credibility in my eyes.
>if god is all powerfull then aaaah fart burp shids tips fedora >hello, mr. Darksite from planet Apkolpolypse? Zuckerberg here I project schizo shit about my dad on a guy here, I know you are 100x times stronger than him, but can we join forces to take him down to prove that he is not le God?
you know what’s really weird is all the extra headcanon the church has created
like the idea of the Virgin Mary, when the gospel of matthew says that Joseph had sex with her after Jesus’s birth
Even the trinity isn’t anywhere in the NT
People want to be led into paradise. It's a valid desire. They don't like making so many mistakes and dealing with other people's mistakes, and they start to wonder why God uses words more often than more compulsory tactics.
>No! I feel pain in my life, how come God isn't stopping it! He caused it! I definitely didn't do anything in my life to deserve it! I definitely haven't done bad things since the day I was born! There definitely isn't anything after this life because I used my logic to think about it! Since it doesn't make sense to me, it isn't plausible! >Here's an instance of something really horrible happening to an innocent person! Why did God do this! Why did God cause a country to nuke poor people?! Why did God cause a crazy person to stomp on a starving crackhead?! >Why God, why?! In response to this revelation, I must disown you, for I cannot believe such evil exists! Now, I'm gonna go jerk off and believe that I turn to dust after I die and can do anything as long as it doesn't get me in trouble because I can't fathom the fact that I deserve any sort of hardship!!
Anon, you can’t ignore an argument simply because someone has a reason for making that argument. Incentive invites scrutiny sure.. but then scrutinise the argument. Otherwise btfo.
But if the incentive itself is the main flaw in the argument, then there's no need to argue against the rest.
The idea of being mad at God for bad things happening to you is stupid. You have done bad things, therefore if bad things happen to you, it is no one's fault but yours.
That's the end of the discussion.
Good, well done. So it’s god’s fault that eve ate the apple.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, it's Eve's. God put the fruit there and gave her the choice. God saw two choices. Her eating it, and her not eating. Which path she took doesn't matter, because he knows either one.
Satan deceived Eve. And you might ask, "Why did God let Satan run free in the garden?" Because he knows that we need challenge to reap the ultimate goal.
What good would it do to let everyone go to heaven? To achieve and embrace paradise, beings lesser than their creator must endure pain to achieve perfection. Since God never endured pain, we must in order to be near Him since we are inherently lesser.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon, I’m going to throw a grenade at you. Inside the grenade is a coin: if it lands heads up, the grenade explodes and maims you. The result of the coin flip is completely beyond my control (with the caveat that the result is heads or tails, as opposed to a null result).
Who will you be prosecuting, if the grenade takes your arm off?
>I love you so I'm going to give you free will >but if you use your free will to do something I don't like then I'm going to torture you forever after you die
The free will part is easy to understand...would you rather have someone with no mind of their own say they love you like a robot, or would you rather have a person genuinely love you of their own free will?
The big question is why god expects his children to love him unconditionally when he literally shows no proof he even exists and allows them to suffer so.
Hence why he made humans with free will, then like an autistic moron forgot to give them any reasons to love him and decided to punish them for all eternity when they don't.
Satan literally did nothing wrong, he saw through all that bullshit.
Yeah but allegedly there were miracles people could literally see so that kindadiscounts that; some are given the answer key while others aren't even given the test material to begin with
But that's moronic from our feeble human perspective.
It's like buying a dog, throwing it in a pen with a bunch of other shitty dogs and then leaving, and expecting that dog to unconditionally love a human it's never even seen.
Well as I said its not my belief I'm just giving the explanation.
But to add. Unlike your example. The idea is If you live by God's word you will benefit in life and/or you will, in death enter his kingdom and enjoy eternal paradise.
This is called the problem of evil. Its a philisophical argument about gods omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection with the existence of suffering.
It goes like this,
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist
He was legitimately correct about having an unstoppable entity being dangerous.
If superman was more realistic he'd likely be tyrannical to some extent. Forcing his own moral belief on humanity.
Or even going full homelander. And without any means of neutralising him we're reliant on his good will. Lex is even proven right in the universe with superman becoming corrupt later on.
The only logical argument I've ever heard for how evil exists if there is an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing deity is if there are a non-infinite number of states in the universe and our universe is the best possible solution. All other solutions result in more evil/suffering, this is the best he can do with what he has to work it. Now, I still think its a *flawed* argument because its skirts the all-powerful trait, god *cant* force the universe to have better resolutions? But at least its an attempt at an argument that isn't "because a book written by dumbass sheep herders said so".
Already debunked
God doesn't exists
God exists
False
What is "evil"?
If God did everything what is even the point of us?
God doesn't do anything. The idea that God knows when we're going to commit a sin and isn't willing to stop us is a midwit take. Time doesn't work the same way for God as it works for us which is going forward. To God everything is present. Thus he knows everything that had and is going to take place.
no one likes a know it all
We are god
Evil and morality are subjective and why do you think an omnipotent being would be trapped under the guise of human morality?
These pseudo-philosophical inquiries fall on deaf ears with religious people because they preclude any notion of the eschaton.
A Christian will tell you that God permits evil now, so that He can have a more perfect good later. Just as pain in childbirth begets life, and just as man works by the sweat of his brow—in pursuit of a greater fruit of his labor.
What we call evil is a necessary precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Evil is an obstacle to the pursuit of the good, and the pursuit of the good without an obstacle cant even be classified as a pursuit. Free will manifests itself when the spirit pursues despite fleshly incumberances (evil).
>What we call evil is a necessary precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
But it’s not, though. Not when we’re supposing dealing with an all-powerful entity.
Yes it is because we are not all powerful and God concedes some degree of choice to us.
Evil naturally arises in this status. It has to, else man would be all-powerful.
I don’t follow. You’re saying that “god. isn’t all-powerful? He can’t make a world that isn’t constrained by this necessity?
I’m saying that the Bible has a consistent portrayal of God and the means which He decides to use to create perfect good. It isnt an inconsistency. To ask why does God permit evil is as stupid as if asking why does life manifest itself as processes. Like, why doesnt everything exist equally at all times and at all quantities? Why do things grow? Why does the earth spin, why does the sun set, why do we desire sleep etc.
The answer is because limits create structure. And God wouldnt be creating anything if it had no limits.
So think of God permitting evil like why does God permit darkness at night. Why arent our bodies optimized 24 hour sun? Why do we need to eat and drink?
Because, those preconditions are what make a structure. Limits give an object it’s identity. So to ask why God didnt just create material reality plus free will but minus evil is ridiculous. Theres no structure to that.
Its like asking why didnt He create a square circle.
Im not saying you have to accept this reality, Im just saying its not a contradiction or a logical hiccup at all. These doctrines have stuck with mankind for millenia for a reason, the seeming contradictions have been ironed out for all of human existence.
Your smug aproach like no religion has ever asked these questions before is obnoxious. Its like when creationists think theyve found the silver bullet against evolution by wondering why monkeys still exist.
>Limits give an object it’s identity
No they don’t.
Or rather, they do... but they only do because that’s the way reality is. Your argument boils down to a shrug, a “c’est la vie”. But that axiom can be turned against you, because it *doesn’t /need/ to be that way*. It’s not *necessary*. And if it is, if god MUST. do this, then god isn’t omnipotent.
You’re damn right people have been tussling with this silver bullet for aeons, because it’s the fricking silver bullet against the tri-attributes given to the Christian god 😛 of course they’re gonna be desperately inventing up copes for it.
>No they do
>OK THEY DO BUT HES STILL WRONG
just give up, you got btfo
No you’re an idiot, it’s
> limits are required because... just because, okay?
> sure... but what if they weren’t?
We’re literally back at the beginning:
> bad exists because... just because, okay?
> sure.. but what if it didn’t?
Are you prepared to engage in the same sort of pedantic reasoning with all creation then?
Like why stop at questioning why evil exists? Why not just go down the list—why are pandas black and white, why do dogs bark? Why does the tongue taste? Why is facial hair texture different from head hair texture? Why is water wet? Why is the sky blue? Why does the sun give off heat? Why is gravity? How does the question of why in any way refute the notion of a conscious, all powerful and all righteous deity?
>How does the question of why in any way refute the notion of a conscious, all powerful and all righteous deity?
It refutes the notion of a righteous deity. Or at least a deity that is righteous in a way we can understand. Nature is brutal and horrifying, as is the universe as a whole. I would say the notion of a benevolent pro human god is inherently disproven by the existence of bot flies long before we get to anything humans do.
Good and evil are defined only by the ends to which they serve. This is my point. You pre exclude any notion of the end times which is central to Christian doctrine and then you try to refute it’s hollowed out husk.
Christians believe that we are heading towards perfect creation, so the evil is a necessary obstacle (limit) for attaining the identity of that perfection. God permitting evil, in the process of creating perfect good, doesnt refute religious dogma regarding the goodness of God at all.
By what standard do you define good?
>You pre exclude any notion of the end times which is central to Christian doctrine and then you try to refute it’s hollowed out husk.
Oh, I do not pre exclude it. It's why I view them as a insane doomsday cult. My point is that it's trying to push a idea of goodness along mostly human terms. Which Is moronic.
>Christians believe that we are heading towards perfect creation, so the evil is a necessary obstacle (limit) for attaining the identity of that perfection.
Well, yeah, they are batshit insane.
>By what standard do you define good?
Irrelevant. I am not god.
> Like why stop at questioning why evil exists?
Uhh, hello? Because of this cope?:
> What we call evil is a necessary precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Y’know, the topic we’re talking about? Cmon man.
>if God MUST do this
What? Nobody said he MUST do anything. Only that He decides to do things in a certain order and decides to rigidly follow those orders. This is my point about smug reasoning. Its just embarrassing dude.
So he decided to include evil in the world. So he's not all-good
Well no, he might still be all-good as a consequence of being able to define himself as all-good, but that’s a bit of a ridiculous position that isn’t going to convince anyone that it’s all a massive cope.
The Biblical god was a dragon that ate virgins.
>Why do we need to eat and drink? Those preconditions are what make a structure
I'm so glad I read Wittgenstein at the right time and can just recognize this kind of sentence as the word salad it is.
you're still stuck with God as the creator of Evil despite being omnibenevolent, which is either a contradiction, or a totally impersonal moral system because not all humans get equal opportunity to sin thanks to stuff like 50% child mortality. like, the majority of souls are placed in bodies in order to be removed from them before getting a chance to start the obstacle course.
I've always thought this but you worded it better than I could have. I'm an atheist but the argument from morality never sat with me since you could easily argue that suffering on Earth is just preconditioning for eternal bliss and that all is made right in the afterlife.
Why are you an atheist?
epicurus was around when christianity was found?
Epicurus never even said this. He was also devoutly religious to the Grecian religion.
It's called free will.
Christopher Langan basically
I thought he was a Hindu
God is transcendent to existence and non-existence, and is the cause of existence. So it is technically wrong to say that He exists, but it makes the argument easier so atheists can join in the discussion.
*She
She really doesn’t like people getting her pronouns wrong, but that’s because she’s autistic, not because she’s an sjw
This is the exact moment Werner became Heisenberg
>some old-ass homie who died before shit like m-theory
try again
Heisenberg? HEISENBERG!?
HAHAHA WTF
I'm an atheist but god damn is this a horrible take on the subject. Typical Neil, why is he so simpleminded ffs
Neil be like "hmmmm no God here"
oh what a retort
you called the black man a monkey
No, he called the ignorant scientist simpleminded with the use of appropriate imagery. You're the only one who drew a comparison between that imagery and the scientist's race.
Damn. That proves it
Dud's foot is so far down his throat at this point it'd take a crane to get it out
Holy fricking idiot
Damn, maybe black people don't have souls after all. All those scientific instruments and all Neil had to do was look in the mirror or take a walk in nature.
this guy just worked out god does not live in a cloud americans are hilarious
you got filtered by NDT
Dunked on and Spunked on. Cinemaphile will never recover from this
>Black personman assured in his knowledge that he understands the entirety of the universe.
>Black personman sees sleek angular wooden object with light skinned men heading up river toward him.
>these must be gods.
Statistically speaking there exists in this universe some being machine, mechanism, or other entity that would and does have the capabilities that we would ascribe to a god. It is utmost hubris to proclaim that because you have no evidence it must not exist, when we are not masters of the universe.
can he detect who owned the slave ships and who sold all the Blacks to the slavers?
>his only argument is a fictional person written by a woman
Lol
>his only argument was ripped to shreds by a fictional person written by a woman
Sad!
Shut up
Yeesh, dunked on by fukkin Rowling? Religidiots on an hero watch
what she says means that atheism is a belief
you can either be religious or agnostic unless you can prove a god does not exist
Atheism *is* a belief, but it’s not necessarily a religion.
it's not a belief at all lol.
"You don't believe in something? That's a belief!"
before you start your cope, tell me if you consider yourself religious, spiritual or an atheist
Agnostic schizophrenic, actually.
I’m not even gonna “cope”, just gonna ask you to define belief, please.
>ATHEISM IS A BELIEF
>it's not a belief
>DEFINE BELIEF
you're the one that started it bro. Go on and tell me what beliefs I have as an atheist.
A belief is a mental construct that attempts to model (mirror, or match) an aspect of reality. Examples include:
> we have free will
> we evolved from apes
> tomorrow I will join the idiot club
> this apple is red
> OP is a gay
Etc etc
Your turn.
I don't believe any of those
...You’re not supposed to? You’re supposed to give your definition.
> moronic atheist btfo
> Nobody said he MUST do anything
> What we call evil is a //necessary// precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
I’m sorry, are you talking about a different god, who /didn’t/ create the rules of reality?
>What we call evil is a //necessary// precondition of pursuing the ultimate good.
Youre illiterate and my point went entirely over your head. I’m saying God, since He is an all-powerful Deity, defines ultimate good. Anything which is according to His purpose, in the Christian conception of things, is the ultimate good. We have no capacity to define ultimate good outside of the ‘limits’ which God puts upon the processes which govern our reality.
>but ‘why’ does God do things in a certain way? Checkmate theists
Again, why does it matter? Christians believe everything leads to ultimate perfect good, therefore the existence of evil currently doesnt disprove an all-righteous Deity.
> why does it matter?
Because:
> Christians believe everything leads to ultimate perfect good
They worship their god /despite/ the evil it created.
But more to the point: What the frick does any of this have to do with the necessity of evil?
> God, since He is an all-powerful Deity, defines ultimate good.
Okay. Yes.
> Anything which is according to His purpose, in the Christian conception of things, is the ultimate good.
Right. Got it.
> We have no capacity to define ultimate good, etc etc, limits
Wtf are you on about? Are you saying we can’t imagine a reality without evil? This isn’t even about evil, this is about the necessity of *any* aspect of reality, and how they would negate omnipotency.
Also;
> Youre illiterate
I’m saying that what we consider evil is defined by what we consider good.
Good can only be defined by our conception of the source of existence.
The source of all existence is necessarily the ends to which existence serves.
Therefore, evil is only evil insomuch as it is contrary to the will of God.
So then your question comes in. If God is all-powerful why doesnt He prevent any and all evil? I’m saying that that question is as foolish as asking why we are all originally fetuses. The fact that we were all fetuses at one point doesnt mean God doesnt have the capacity, will, or desire to form us into human adults.
So your contention with the notion of an all-righteous God is actually a contention of the time which allocates between the beginning of a process and it’s perfect end. And to ask the question why does God form structures using the process of time is an ontological question—not a moral one. Just because something is imperfect at first and then formed into perfection doesn’t mean God desires that the thing be imperfect. It doesnt mean He creates imperfection either. He’s merely constraining Himself to the structure of time in forming a perfect thing.
So think of all existence as in the imperfect fetus stage. If He was unconstrained by time then the thing He was creating would have no identity of it’s own. Again, limits create identities.
Now you might ask why cant God give something a unique identity without constraining. He’s God so He’s all powerful, right? The answer is the same reason why God cant make Himself not God. Because the very possibility of such a thing makes the question impossible. Obviously God cant deny Himself, but this doesnt mean He’s not all-powerful.
To phrase it even more simply.
God creates identities through structuring them within the confines of time. Nothing can have an identity apart from God unless it is constrained by the passage of time. Asking God why He created something within the confines of time is like asking Him why He didn’t create a square circle. Its an incoherent question.
(If you want to take this even further this is why the concept of the Biblical Godhead exists. The book of John says Jesus is the Word. He’s the internal logic of things personified. So the Father constrains Himself to these principles which are personified by the Son. But if this entire conversation has gone over your head up to this point then I fully expect you to dismiss this entirely.)
Okay, I think I see where you’re coming from now. But there’s issues:
> Good can only be defined by our conception of the source of existence.
I think this is incorrect. Maybe it works for the concept of “ultimate” good, but there’s certainly models of good that don’t give a monkey’s toot about extrareal or prime-mover entities.
> evil is only evil insomuch as it is contrary to the will of God.
Nothing in existence can truly be contrary to the will of an omnipotent, omniscient god. He can /pretend/ that it’s against his will - and pretence is a great analogy, because we can draw an analogy between god’s adherence to structure and the structure of a game (I.e. “I can only move my pawns forward, not backwards”) - but he’s still complicit in the pretence. You /can/ physically move you pawn backwards, but you’re instead choosing to be limited by the rules of chess.
> It doesnt mean He creates imperfection either
This is exactly what he does do, as imperfection doesn’t exist without it existing. The terms, the structure witch which he’s playing, is defined by him.
> the question why does God form structures using the process of time is an ontological question—not a moral one.
An ontological question, the answer to which could have drastic consequences on this being’s morals. Semantics.
> Just because something is imperfect at first and then formed into perfection doesn’t mean God desires that the thing be imperfect
He desires that it be imperfect first. He desires that it be imperfect.
>If He was unconstrained by time then the thing He was creating would have no identity of it’s own.
Untrue. Or, if true, then not omnipotent.
There is no concept of moral good apart from the standards of a deity, so what I believe you are attempting to do (correct me if im wrong) is argue that God is immoral by His own standards. That the words described in His Bible are internally inconsistent.
My point this entire discussion has been that the God of the Bible’s morality is internally sufficient, because He is operating within a system which will lead to greater perfection in the end. Youre saying since He is all-powerful then He tacitly permits evil. I’m saying that any tacit permission of evil on God’s part is in service towards and with knowledge of greater ends, therefore is not in and of itself an evil act.
>imperfection doesnt exist without it existing
Now this is just silly. Imperfection is only imperfection insomuch as it is measured against it’s perfect end. That perfect end doesnt exist without God actively moving creation towards that end.
So youre asking why doesnt God just create things in their perfect form instantly. To which i refer again to the fetus argument. Does God desire that we all are fetuses, or does he desire that we grow out of being one? Why are we not fully adult humans at birth? Because growth is part of what creates our identity as fully adult humans, and that fully formed identity is a greater good than that of a perpetual fetus or perpetual man. The growth into perfection is an inherent good, surpassing the harm caused by evil in pursuit of that perfection.
So God in this example permits evil, because pursuit towards perfection is a greater good than perfection in a perpetual status.
> There is no concept of moral good apart from the standards of a deity
There is, though. Man-made moral judgement of what constitutes “good” are abundant.
> Youre saying since He is all-powerful then He tacitly permits evil.
I think that’s what he’d like to believe. But he’s fooling himself: because he’s /actively/ playing a game with evil as a component.
> the ends justify the means
A prickly axiom, I’ll give you that. One I disagree with, given how unnecessary the means are.
> that fully formed identity is a greater good than that of a perpetual fetus or perpetual man
No it isn’t, not by my judgement or by a god’s. If a perpetual being, defined as perfect by god, /is/ greater than a grown being (of a perfection /also/ defined as perfect by god), then that’s implying a whoooole new system that’s vastly superior than what that god is, and questions whether he’s omnipotent or just relatively powerful. If god A creates a man, and god B creates a fetus that grows up to be a man, god A’s man is still a man: /because he defines what a man is!/
>If a perpetual being, defined as perfect by god, /is/ greater than a grown being (of a perfection /also/ defined as perfect by god), then that’s implying a whoooole new system that’s vastly superior than what that god is, and questions whether he’s omnipotent or just relatively powerful.
You have it wrong. I’m not saying inherent perfection in and of itself inferior. I’m saying inherent perfection, apart from the passage of time, is indistinguishable from God Himself. Thus no identity. Thus less desirable.
>given how unnecessary the means are
Ludicrous. Evil is that which leads, on some position on the scale, to complete absolution—i.e. against the will of God, the source of existence.
There has never been a moral framework which hasnt appealed to death for proof of its efficacy.
Something being constrained to the passage of time is a precondition of creation. It has to be, as the thing was not and then was. The passage of time is inevitably in there. In other words there was a time in which it didnt exist (imperfection) and then it did. (Perfection).
So to cast aspersions on the notion of something being formed into perfection with the passage of time (passage of time being entirely irrelevant to an eternal God btw) is to cast aspersions on the very notion of creation itself. This is your central error.
Creation is an intrinsically good thing. The act of nothing becoming something is intrinsically good. The act of imperfection becoming perfection is intrinsically and morally good and always will be by it’s very nature. If God wills into existence the process by which imperfection (sinful creation) becomes perfection, then this process is, by it’s very nature, good.
This must be an axiomatic principle if we care to have any sort of coherent moral framework.
> inherent perfection, apart from the passage of time, is indistinguishable from God Himself
But.. it’s not. The innately perfect man that god A creates is still a man that god A created, as opposed to god A. You’re making it sound like god can’t see a distinction, or is somehow chained to desire. Like god’s lonely. Pretty major limitations there.
> Something being constrained to the passage of time is a precondition of creation
Only from the god’s perspective, and you point out: the passage of time is completely irrelevant to this god.
For example, could this god not create something that had (from its perspective) always existed?
> There has never been a moral framework which hasnt appealed to death for proof of its efficacy.
I’m curious - could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
> This must be an axiomatic principle if we care to have any sort of coherent moral framework.
Hard disagree. But I find substituting “good” for “existent” is often a good way of decrypting the stubborn insistence on objective good, so we’re at least talking in similar circles, opinions aside.
For human-built moral frameworks, perhaps. I’d expect something a little less crude from an all-good being.
> we can’t understand god’s plan
...then why are you talking about god’s plan? Stfu?
Says who? I’ll judge him as I please, to the standard of my picking. That’s what “free will” allows me to do, right?
This might sound insane, but “The end justifies the means” is the axiomatic principle which underlines any and all moral frameworks, for good or for ill. All moral frameworks appeal to the ends of a thing, process, or philosophy, in order to judge it’s status within said moral framework.
I think you're getting way too semantic here.
"The end justifies the means" specifically pertains to the idea that you can do a bad thing for a good reason and still be moral. There are frameworks that reject this, just as there are frameworks that accept this. There are some that would even reject the concept of morality, but thats another issue.
>The end justifies the means" specifically pertains to the idea that you can do a bad thing for a good reason and still be moral. There are frameworks that reject this, just as there are frameworks that accept this
Yes but when dealing with the morality of God, (or for atheists existence itself) everyone believes in the end justifying the means.
Nobody rejects the terms of reality outright
Actually there are some Hindu sects I can think of that see god as a non-agent just witnessing the world. There is no morality applied to god, as he is only viewing this world and not in control of it. Existence to them is suffering, and just is because it is.
The ends justify the means is the argument behind the common saying:
We can't understand God's plan. And the idea God has a plan for us all and therefore everything happens for a reason. Some things may seem evil and unnecessary but it must have some reason and was necessary for the grand plan
I guess it was in gods plan for over half of his creations to suffer for all eternity 🙂
I don't agree with it I'm just saying this is the explanation
Which is what people have a problem with.
>Why do people suffer?
B-Because they just DO, OK!?
>So when that kid got cancer and then his Dad killed himse-
God's plan!
homosexuals.
I agree. It's not hard to find inconsistency in religion. It's so old and been rewritten, translated, retranslated, rebranded, added and subtracted to by hundreds of cultures across thousands of years. It'd be a miracle more astonishing than any in the bible if it were logically sound and consistent
The "gods plan" argument also falls flat when you consider that there definitely could be another way for god to get the same end result while causing much less suffering.
On the lighter end of things, why does he not do anything about the sects of Christianity? A little clarification, or even some hints on which one is right would be helpful
On the darker end, there were over 600,000 kids molested in the US last year. Was there really no way to get to his ends without that happening? Not even just a couple hundred thousand less?
But way back when he was so keen to fix humanity he flooded the earth and killed all of us. God seems to be really comfortable being a non-agent when it suits him, and if he's real, that's my main issue.
>maybe it works with the concept of ultimate good
You just undermined your entire argument with this statement. If one cannot appeal exclusively to the concept of the ultimate good when judging the moral status of THE LITERAL SOURCE OF ALL CREATION, then no moral system is sufficient enough to judge Him, and that includes midwit secularized christian agnostic takes
One more qualification so you cant weasle your way out of the discussion again—ahem.
The current existence of evil doesnt disprove the existence of an all righteous Deity, anymore than the current existence of a fetus de-facto disproves the notion of a Deity with the capacity to create an adult.
Correction: capacity, or ‘desire’ to create an adult
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist, then yes,that's a belief.
Theism = I believe that God/s exist.
Agnosticism = I don't or can't know that God/s exist.
Athism = I believe that God/s don't exist.
I believe that specific gods asserted by others do not exist, i.e. the Christian God makes no sense.
I do not believe that no god exists, I simply do not know.
I half agree with that notion insofar that I accept that it's possible that there might be a god or a god like entity. The idea that any religion is true however is on it's face ridiclous and is literally no different from claiming fairies or Santa Claus are real.
Scientism is satanic pride at it's finest.
Frickin GOTTEM!!!!! Goddamn just absolutely fricking ruthless. Jesus Christ go easy on them
samegay
That's not what the OP said moron
he can't disprove I fricked his mom, rekt
This exchange between OP and himself is indeed based and kino.
Obligatory link to physical evidence of Christ's resurrection and of Christ's divinity:
This is the burial cloth of Christ by the way, and it has infrared markings burned into it that left an impression of Christ.
what a homosexual failure of logic
disprove my wiener
god is obviously a myth
>disprove zeus
fricking homosexual
>disproving a negative
lmao ghosts confirmed real
The inability to prove something doesn't exist isn't a legitimate argument.
If it were then we'd have to concede that anything could exist simply because we can't prove they don't.
I'm not an atheist but this argument is weak
Snyder is a hack
God can do whatever he wants
how can he do something if he doesn't exist?
> LE EPIC ALLEGORY
That's not an allegory.
If God exists why bad things happen
Because he gave us the choice to do bad things.
Yeah, when he could have.. y’know, not. Not given us the choice. And then nothing would be bad.
> “I didn’t hurt you, it was the sword! The sword I swung at you, but the sword has its own free will so there!”
Without choice we'd be slaves, and being a slave would be worse.
Amen brother
No? No it wouldn’t, lol.
It would be bad if he decided it was bad, sure. But “god” decides what is bad and good.. right? Or is he limited by a “higher” moral standard?
Gnostics solved this problem
Gnosticism is just the escoteric Christian flavor of LARPaganism
Can God kill himself?
Judging by the state of the world, he already has
Yes, but not Herself
Yes. It already happened. The Big Bang was God killing himself. Existence is just maggots festering on his corpse. The Heat Death of the universe is God's suicide plan as he splits himself into infinite, disconnected pieces before one day all of existence is quiet, cold and still.
You're just copying Philip mainlander
I have no idea who or what that is. People can come up with things independently, especially those who want to resolve scientific facts with the idea that some God could or has existed.
Look up his Wikipedia page and his main ideas, literally the same thing
ok
Not that other guy, but I looked him up. Setting aside the discussion in this thread completely, I can respect this Mainlander guy as a anti-life schizo that actually bothered to kill himself, instead of persisting in suffering and trying to convince others to suffer with them. I imagine he got there by dodging nihilism completely, instead choosing to believe in death as the purpose of having lived.
The heat death is just the corpse running out of juice.
Every day, with every death he dies with every birth he is born.
In general? Yes. In the way we humans experience death or finite existence? No. God is like a Phoenix, death is part of its cycle.
He can let his son die
I watched the Passion and Ben-Hur what are some other epic Christ films
boring horror flick
if you are superficial, your appreciation will be very poor.
(1/2) It was an analogy for Christianity. (spoilers abound)
The Grabber represents Satan, he grabs us and holds us under. We have all the necessary tools to escape from his clutches but the only way to do that is if we have faith. In this film faith is represented by The Black Phone (and also literally by Jesus in the form of Finn's sister praying for answers.)
Even though it seems like everything is for naught and you have no idea why God isn't answering your prayers, He IS, you just are too shortsighted to see the pieces he's laying down that will come in use later. This happens when Finn breaks into the steak freezer and can't get out, it feels like everything he's been doing has made no progress. But it actually has. He wasn't supposed to escape via the freezer, the freezer was there so he could grab a steak at the end and save Max's body from the Grabber's dog. Responsibility and Respect for the dead.
(2/2) At the end when Finn finally escapes his sister realizes he wasn't even in the house she thought he was, he was in the one across the street. The ONLY way he could've gotten out of his torment was through The Black Phone. Just like how Jesus is the only way through life and into heaven.
There's also a message about violence and anger being necessary against violence. This is EXTREMELY rare to find in modern hollywood, where the protagonist is stripped of all his notions of "righteous" anger in favor of apathy and loss of individualism. It's meant to discourage you. Look at The Batman, The Northman, Under The Silver Lake, A Monster Calls, etc. It's all told in the name of moderation, but it really just exists to weaken you and siphon your Will and Energy out of you.
This is not the case in this film, which was written and directed by a known Christian man (Scott Derrickson).
The message of this film is that there are evil, wicked people out there who want to hurt you and your family and friends. They're bullies, but fully grown and more malicious.
I’m not reading this btw loser
>It was an analogy for Christianity.
The director already said the film is a representation of abuse and the people that sacrifice everything to help you pull you out of that cycle.
The film wasn't bad, but it's needlessly convoluted with pointless shit like the visiting brother, the drunken father trope, and wandering and ineffective cops.
Who cares, he's just the director
And writer, also Joe Hill, the writer of the original short story said the story is just about overcoming fear.
Holy meds
Based take, and I really enjoyed the film too. Ignore the other morons.
Ethan Hawke is still making movies??
.
..
the omen, house of 1000 corpses
If God real then why I stub my toe?! Checkmate theists!
If god is no-cap, he cannot be sussy. If god is sussy, he cannot be fr fr
If God is real how come I can't believe in him even if I want to?
Because He hates you. That's why I'm posting this response - some inexplicable inclination, completely impersonally motivated, was sent to me which I now obey. He's a piece of shit, but He didn't tell me to say that.
why does God hate me? I thought I was a good person.
You are conversing with a demon
>inb4 you call me schizo
Demons live in computers.
If you think that then you aren't one. Do better.
He is such a shitty actor.
>God created us so that he could kill himself (who is also his son, somehow) to save us from a punishment that he would give us
You have it backwards. God resurrected so that we can resurrect.
God is essentially the obama medal meme.
My balls are sweating
If evil didn't exist, how would you know what good was in the first place
Did God ever even claim to be all good? If you read the bible, it's pretty clear he's more like a tyrant that you should fear than a best friend or a dad
The word good is derived from God, so he's good by definition. Whatever God approves of is good and whatever he doesn't approve of is bad.
God is a fricking prom night drama queen in the bible. Half the shit it does is because some lowly human decided to question it or say in more or less words "go frick yourself". Look at the Egyptians, God had a b***h tantrum because a group of people with a clearly defined religion decided not to listen to one schizo that said "free my people". Like imagine getting your crops destroyed and catching disease because god is upset you're not believing in him instead of never letting the Egyptian religion to get this far to begin with.
He didnt throw all the plagues on them from the go. He tried to make the Pharaoh believe by showing him miracles and that Moses was indeed a messanger
Seems abstracted for literally no reason, if you're gonna tell one person might as well let everyone else know since that's your intention to start with
Pic unrelated i guess? It sounds like the shit i would say when i was an edgy 12 year old atheist trying to piss off my teachers in my catholic church
>Evil exists therefore God doesn't
Has to be the most midwit take atheists have
Atheism is arrogance, so is Christianity. Why not just admit that we don't know, and will probably never know, the reason behind life and the universe?
Because humans are moronic and want to be sure of themselves.
Oh, sorry.
Maybe because humans might be moronic and might want to be sure of themselves.
most atheists agree with that. I just don't think the specific Christian God as described in the Bible exists. Some kind of God could absolutely exist. But not the schizo one detailed in the Bible, he's plainly nonsensical and the lore is moronic and changes between books and authors. Awful worldbuilding and inconsistent characterization.
Agree with this. It's impossible for the Christian god to exist as characterized in the Bible since it contradicts itself constantly. Could there be something sort of like a Christian god if you were to pick and choose certain traits? Sure.
Most atheists are indeed agnostic and don't hold a belief either way. There are very few "hard atheists" by comparison.
Atheists are actually either agnostic or anti-theists
Agnostic here
The real truth both atheists and theists refuse to admit is: God exists but it doesn't give a shit about you.
Yeah, because it's even more terrifying than atheism. Just straight up lovecraft esque "We are tiny specks and there are entities out there that could erase us without even trying to just by their presence".
Reddit moment.
Why do religions always try to pretend god follows human morality? When humans kill millions of plants and insects to build a home, would you call that evil?
>If God is all powerful he will use that power to remove evil and give me an easy existence.
Only a coddled and childish generation could come up with something so fricking stupid.
>God is a angsty drama writer.
Only a generation of mentally rejects refusing to face reality could come up with something so fricking stupid.
The point of this planet is to overcome it.
To become perfected through overcoming challenges. The war in heaven was about agency. Take the LDS pill.
>The point of this planet is to overcome it.
Buddhist cope much?
Buddhism is a suicide cult that seeks destruction of their soul.
The only reason people from civilization give a single shit is because wisdom always seems more wise if its from a long way away.
Reddit moment
>the religion you were born into is automatically the true and only one
lmao
There may be a god or not, but it definitely didn't happen as described in all those "holy" books.
I mean, yeah. It's why I can't take most religious people serious in a serious debate. It would be one thing if they just admitted "It's probably nonsense but I agree with it philosophically" or even "It's probably nonsense but the sheep have to be herded". But the moment you go "Nope, my religions is correct and the rest is false" you lose any intellectual credibility in my eyes.
>if god is all powerfull then aaaah fart burp shids tips fedora
>hello, mr. Darksite from planet Apkolpolypse? Zuckerberg here I project schizo shit about my dad on a guy here, I know you are 100x times stronger than him, but can we join forces to take him down to prove that he is not le God?
Worst Luthor ever.
Why not?
you know what’s really weird is all the extra headcanon the church has created
like the idea of the Virgin Mary, when the gospel of matthew says that Joseph had sex with her after Jesus’s birth
Even the trinity isn’t anywhere in the NT
Virgin Mary refers to her being a virgin at the time of conception. Another moronic atheist gotcha rendered moot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
>ITT zoom-zooms hear this argument for the first time
'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.' - AALewis
'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.' - AABased
Agnosticism is the redpill. These arguments are always the same tired bullshit and shit flinging. Simply exposes the hubris of man
I would argue atheism is the redpill, agnosticism is the blackpill.
People want to be led into paradise. It's a valid desire. They don't like making so many mistakes and dealing with other people's mistakes, and they start to wonder why God uses words more often than more compulsory tactics.
What a toddler-level take. You can still be a good parent even if you spank your kids.
No you can’t.
My biggest gripe with his lex is how much of a brainlet he is.
They need to just cast Clancy Brown and shave his head
>My biggest gripe with his lex is how much of a brainlet he is.
He gets superman killed, something no other lex has managed.
Brainlet
This thread is a shining example of how people simply didn't get BvS despite not being that complicated.
The entire point of this scene was a setup to prove him wrong with Superman's forthcoming actions, that a benevolent, all-powerful god exists.
Why not? It does better numbers every time.
If God is ALL he cant be a he.
adressed in Job
>No! I feel pain in my life, how come God isn't stopping it! He caused it! I definitely didn't do anything in my life to deserve it! I definitely haven't done bad things since the day I was born! There definitely isn't anything after this life because I used my logic to think about it! Since it doesn't make sense to me, it isn't plausible!
>Here's an instance of something really horrible happening to an innocent person! Why did God do this! Why did God cause a country to nuke poor people?! Why did God cause a crazy person to stomp on a starving crackhead?!
>Why God, why?! In response to this revelation, I must disown you, for I cannot believe such evil exists! Now, I'm gonna go jerk off and believe that I turn to dust after I die and can do anything as long as it doesn't get me in trouble because I can't fathom the fact that I deserve any sort of hardship!!
Anon, you can’t ignore an argument simply because someone has a reason for making that argument. Incentive invites scrutiny sure.. but then scrutinise the argument. Otherwise btfo.
But if the incentive itself is the main flaw in the argument, then there's no need to argue against the rest.
The idea of being mad at God for bad things happening to you is stupid. You have done bad things, therefore if bad things happen to you, it is no one's fault but yours.
That's the end of the discussion.
So all those innocent children who've died of cancer, them getting cancer is somehow their own fault?
Anon, you’ve been /made/ to do bad things.
> muh free will
Goalpost moving - who gave you free will?
Bad things occurred after Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit.
God gives free will.
Good, well done. So it’s god’s fault that eve ate the apple.
No, it's Eve's. God put the fruit there and gave her the choice. God saw two choices. Her eating it, and her not eating. Which path she took doesn't matter, because he knows either one.
Satan deceived Eve. And you might ask, "Why did God let Satan run free in the garden?" Because he knows that we need challenge to reap the ultimate goal.
What good would it do to let everyone go to heaven? To achieve and embrace paradise, beings lesser than their creator must endure pain to achieve perfection. Since God never endured pain, we must in order to be near Him since we are inherently lesser.
Anon, I’m going to throw a grenade at you. Inside the grenade is a coin: if it lands heads up, the grenade explodes and maims you. The result of the coin flip is completely beyond my control (with the caveat that the result is heads or tails, as opposed to a null result).
Who will you be prosecuting, if the grenade takes your arm off?
If God and heaven are real, then it's morally ok to kill children.
I love this scene so much. It's the greatest pleb filter of all time.
> pleb filter
Sure, anon. They just can’t appreciate the symbolism, or w/e
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
>I love you so I'm going to give you free will
>but if you use your free will to do something I don't like then I'm going to torture you forever after you die
Then why give us free will in the first place?
The free will part is easy to understand...would you rather have someone with no mind of their own say they love you like a robot, or would you rather have a person genuinely love you of their own free will?
The big question is why god expects his children to love him unconditionally when he literally shows no proof he even exists and allows them to suffer so.
there are creatures whose job is just to fly around god's throne and worship him 24/7 (revelation 4)
Hence why he made humans with free will, then like an autistic moron forgot to give them any reasons to love him and decided to punish them for all eternity when they don't.
Satan literally did nothing wrong, he saw through all that bullshit.
Not religious but the answer to why he expects love without any proof is that only blind love and worship is sufficient.
If he showed humanity his existence then everyone would believe obviously. But that belief would be weak, based on physical proof only which is easy.
Faith when there's no proof is hard requiring effort and therefore it's powerful and genuine
Yeah but allegedly there were miracles people could literally see so that kindadiscounts that; some are given the answer key while others aren't even given the test material to begin with
Like I said I'm not religious so I agree there's alot of plot holes. There isn't really a good explanation for that.
I guess he sometimes showed himself to particular people to get them to do something?
But that's moronic from our feeble human perspective.
It's like buying a dog, throwing it in a pen with a bunch of other shitty dogs and then leaving, and expecting that dog to unconditionally love a human it's never even seen.
Well as I said its not my belief I'm just giving the explanation.
But to add. Unlike your example. The idea is If you live by God's word you will benefit in life and/or you will, in death enter his kingdom and enjoy eternal paradise.
>Cinemaphile - Television & Film
He can do anything so he can't do that. Is think to hard
This is called the problem of evil. Its a philisophical argument about gods omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection with the existence of suffering.
It goes like this,
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist
>le magic super man in the sky
morons with a totally bankrupt concept of what religion even is
He was legitimately correct about having an unstoppable entity being dangerous.
If superman was more realistic he'd likely be tyrannical to some extent. Forcing his own moral belief on humanity.
Or even going full homelander. And without any means of neutralising him we're reliant on his good will. Lex is even proven right in the universe with superman becoming corrupt later on.
Not defending the problem of evil concept just pointing it out
I was hoping for a BvS thread, not a bunch of fedoras seething over having microdicks
who said God is all good, at least from our perspective?
The frickers worshipping him (gnot the Gnostics, tho)
All followers of monotheistic religion
Gee, I don't know, the fricking Bible?
The only logical argument I've ever heard for how evil exists if there is an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing deity is if there are a non-infinite number of states in the universe and our universe is the best possible solution. All other solutions result in more evil/suffering, this is the best he can do with what he has to work it. Now, I still think its a *flawed* argument because its skirts the all-powerful trait, god *cant* force the universe to have better resolutions? But at least its an attempt at an argument that isn't "because a book written by dumbass sheep herders said so".