Has there been an actual good response to this?

>If baby Mao or baby Stalin or baby Hitler died you'd say the same thing.
lolwut. guess the babies all deserve it then!

You said that evil was added as well as good. So therefore one of two is true: god can’t prevent it or won’t. Even if good can’t be good without evil that still means there can’t be a perfect way to make good. So if it exists only in the mind then no perfect being exists.

Why are christcucks like this

Well yeah, if you disregard the first premise, the argument is simple to disprove haahah. But that's not really... anything. Anon's argument stands.

Somehow I think "I disagree with your premise" doesn't need a metaphorical representation. I'm not sure that free will does need evil either, but "wow you disproved your argument because I don't believe in those premises actually" is a pretty odd way to go about it, I'm just saying.

>if you can't make an accurate premise for your argument, then you don't understand your own argument
Yeah, this is exactly how it doesn't work. Again, disagreeing with Anon's premise doesn't mean he disproved his argument.

>evil is... actually good

Why doesn't your God do something about it?

this world needs fires, hunters and prey, winners and losers, calamities, wars, etc for progress only because god made it this way. gnostics knew this 2 thousands years ago, the universe's imperfection causes suffering. god designed the universe to be this way then did nothing about it

What good came out of pic rel?

He probably did. This is just one universe and timeline of many. Physics tells us this.

So the judeo-christian god created the one universe where free will exists and evil doesn't, then proceeded to create many more worlds where evil did exist...because?

in what way is being deceived sinful?

I still don't get why God didn't discourage (more strongly?) Eve from eating the fruit
I get that it's important for free will or something that it isn't impossible for her to eat it
But like, if Snake can tempt her, it seems symmetrical that God could put up a fence that is pretty hard to climb, or something like that

>he was deceived into killing that guy don't throw him in jail!

If I had a recipe for pancakes with eggshells in it would you not be able to complain because "that's just how you make shellcakes"?

Then why are you assuming this a fact?

It doesn't matter who I am. So then, why are you assuming something you don't know as fact?

You just said there's no way to know if all babies that die due a miscarriage are predestined to do evil or not.
Why are you assuming that, to use it as a talking point?

Anon this is very very simple.
Your entire argument relies on babies dying because they're evil. You asserted that you don't know if all babies that die due miscarriage are predestined to do evil.
This equals: you don't have an argument anymore, by your own words.

He's just being extremely disingenuous and dishonest about it, while trying to obfuscate the problem by using fancy and sophisticated (for him) philosophical terms so he doesn't appear stupid (to him).

> It’s a mere possibility
Okay, so why do you worship and revere a being that might just be letting babies die for the frick of it? The frick? Lmao

You still haven’t answered why Adolf fricking Hitler and other horrific leaders made it through the cracks. I’m supposed to believe that all those babies might have been worse than Hitler? I can’t even believe I’m typing this shit out. It’s so moronic that i can’t even fathom how many gold medals your mind has won for gymnastics.

This is moronic. Are all Babies that die through a miscarriage predestined to do evil later on or not? If yes, why are such Babies born at all? Why cant the Parents give Birth to someone who wouldnt?

Humans can't know if they would've been evil or not, but God does. That's kind of the whole point of the "all-knowing" thing.
Because it's a possibility (and likelihood in my view) that fits within the idea of "God" existing. Nothing is absolute to the human observer in this universe.

> It’s a mere possibility
Okay, so why do you worship and revere a being that might just be letting babies die for the frick of it? The frick? Lmao

You still haven’t answered why Adolf fricking Hitler and other horrific leaders made it through the cracks. I’m supposed to believe that all those babies might have been worse than Hitler? I can’t even believe I’m typing this shit out. It’s so moronic that i can’t even fathom how many gold medals your mind has won for gymnastics.

>letting babies die for the frick of it?
You are an idiot. A profoundly moronic individual.
Did you even read our conversation? Look to the pancake analogy. The almighty pancake analogy would reveal all if you would could read.
It is plausible (and in my view likely) that the death of those infants, by the inclusion of nearly infinite factors, is necessary to the goal of THIS particular universe. The moral law promulgated by the idea of "God" in THIS PARTICULAR UNIVERSE--THE ONE WE LIVE IN--necessitates the death of the particular infant.
>I'm supposed to believe that all those babies might have been worse than Hitler?
Might have (plausibility), yes. It's absolutely true: they might have been worse. We literally will never know. What's moronic about that? Why do you ASSUME that it's incorrect for them to have POSSIBLY been worse? Seriously, why make that assumption? Without being able to know, it's possible. It's unlikely in my view that ALL of them would have been worse or as bad, obviously, but it's the possibility that is true and that matters.
>why hitler and others made it through the cracks?
Again, it's plausible that for this universe, it was necessary. Ultimately it is hitler who decided to do the things. Even if God knew he would decide to do these things, it may be (and some would argue WAS) necessary to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal for our universe/timeline.

>You've decided that God is good
Where?
>because you're scared of going to hell
Don't believe in a metaphysical hell.
>or because you don't have the critical thinking ability to objectively analyze the Bible or your religion
My religion? Which one is that? I'm not a Christian.
>so you've come up with these absolutely absurd rationalizations
What's absurd about them? The only think I've seen from you is logical fallacy or misreading after misreading.
>that you wouldn't accept from an adherent of any other religion.
I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in literally anything metaphysical in the way a true Christian would or as any of the church doctrines teach.

>muslim
allah allah mohamed lol I'm not some goat fricking moron.
I'm a deontologist first and foremost who views "God" as a system of moral law that contains physical and mathematical law in our universe. I speak in terms of "God" and that sort of stuff because it's the most convenient word without writing a paragraph every time I want to explain my beliefs. The problem with that (especially here) is that people make false assumptions about what "God" means (even to a learned Christian). I don't believe in the Christian God, but I believe the system/thing I call "God" is transcendent and immanent (just like the Christian God). I believe God is no different than the laws of math. But instead of 2+2=4, it's an all-encompassing moral law. Think of the system/concept of evolution if that helps you. That is within the umbrella system/concept of "God," as I see it.

What happens in your belief after death?

>I'm not convinced
Too bad

Seems you can already access the reading material, so there's nothing else I can suggest.

Help me understand where I've gone wrong then. So far everything you or that other anon, whoever I've been responding to, has mischaracterized, ignored, or assumed away arguments that I've made.

Do you seriously not know that omni properties are self contradictory, and contradictory to each other?

I don't know false facts like that, no
But how does that at all engage with your wiki quote?

Do you have an argument?

He's pseud posting let him have his moment. He can't even explain his own argument without wikipedia.

>What if the judeo-christian god simply removed all the reasons why school shootings occur in the first place
What do you mean by that? The reasons why school shootings occur are predicated on choices made by humans, either individually or collectively.
>do you think people free willingly commit school shootings for no reason?
They have their reasons, anon. They do evil, they get punished in this life and the next. What's your point?

Why don't you give me some examples of those reasons?

That's a vague, thought-terminating reason. Plenty of mental illnesses are caused by human action, either by individuals or collective social practices. Mental illness can be treated. And plenty of mentally ill people don't go on to commit school shootings. I don't see where free will goes out the window.

Mental illness is a catchall label for all kinds of biological, psychological, and social deficits. Plenty of people have mental illnesses and yet don’t choose to commit school shootings.

It still boils down to an individual’s choice. Almost always, the shooter was a depraved individual who routinely chose to do bad things, like torture animals, write hateful screeds, etc.. Some people want to reduce all dysfunctions to a problem of health while ignoring the moral dimension entirely. If you don’t believe in free will, then just say so, and we can just agree to disagree.

Everybody has reasons for their actions. What’s your point?

There are billions of possible actions you can take for every reason you have, moron. Just because you hate society doesn’t mean you have to go shoot up a school of innocent children. You can try to fix it. You can try to withdraw from it. You can make your peace with it as best you can. Hell, if you’re going to commit wanton acts of murder, maybe choose a more guilty target. That’s the whole point of free will. You play the cards you’re dealt.

They choose it for a reason. But these reasons are more internal than external.

Yes. Things that happened to you, that you’re aware of versus what you want, what you value, what you hope to accomplish, etc. There’s a whole range of calculative, evaluative, and moral elements that you’re ignoring.

They come from experience and judgment. It's a two-fold, repeating, and self-generative process.

There's no experience without the mind.

What's your point? I don't deny the necessity of experience. But there's more going on there, like the ability to deliberate, judge, and reflect.

That's weird because that's exactly the opposite of my position. You can form yourself from experience just as much as you can be formed by experience. The determinist position reduces a person to that of a conscious machine.

That is what I take people to be doing, when they are exercising their free will

>those things can obviously exist, and free will still be a thing
If slavery and free will are compatible, god is straight out evil and abetting for allowing innocents to suffer from the actions of people he couls stop without infringing on their free will.

>Okay, so what?
So your argument fails to beat Epicurus's, dumbass.
>Your take on free will was moronic
Your concept of free will is meaningless though.

yeah but like, how does he know???
did he read it in a book, or did God tell him or something?

I understand it well and I'm sorry if it upsets you, but it's really full of holes. The handful of implications you could extract from it have little to no weight in monotheistic frameworks.

Preventing temporary evil is not the top priority. Simple as. Now we're going to get into all the particular angles "what if the universe were like XYZ" and "why responsibility" etc. and there all the things I mentioned before will provide sufficient answers or in some cases, I admit, a mere sweeping away of the angle. But then we're still left with a fairly comprehensive take on evil.

>Preventing evil is not the top priority
If it is not the top priority, you are saying god must allocate what or what not to change. If you're saying he does not change because he leaves humans to work out the truth, he is a different type of benevolent to what we understand.

Instead of doubling down why don't you just admit you're using a different definition of all good.

>Ethical monism. Meaning that evil is a semantic way to put an absence of good.
Then God is not omnipotent because he can't create a reality of all good

Says the definition of omnipotent. God could've easily just created a world where we can conceptualize what evil is but not actually commit it

If your next response is "free will" then see

I can't fly. I can conceptualize what it's like to fly, I can have a desire to fly, but no matter how hard I try I can't fly in the air like Superman

Does that mean I have no free will? If the answer is no, then why couldn't God just do the same thing with evil?

Ah okay if that's your definition then sure. It still doesn't work in monism, but I probably won't get into that.

Says the definition of omnipotent. God could've easily just created a world where we can conceptualize what evil is but not actually commit it

If your next response is "free will" then see [...]

No, who says he couldn't? Such a random proposition.

Again lol says who? You guys need to start providing a bit of reasoning with the random claims. What is it exactly God can't do and who said he can't?

I'm not changing anything. If your understanding of "omnibenevolence" is that all will be good all the time, then God is not omnibenevolent, you're right. I'm fine with that.

Sure.
I wish I could tell you but I didn't use that word and neither does OP so it really begins and ends with your argument which I fully grant to you. Shame that you're still unhappy with it lol

>It's because he finds it entertaining
Conclusion based on?

If you stick around Oyish for like 3 weeks you'll see all these arguments debunked on exactly this thread, because it gets made over and over. Some of the answers are here already:

>Does God want to prevent Evil?
>NO
>Then God is not good / God is not loving
False. What us humans consider to be "evil" is simply part of God's plan and design. We can't understand His motives because they're beyond us. Besides, punishment is part of fairness. God wouldn't be good if He wasn't fair. Being fair includes punishing and applying "evil" when necessary.

The rest of the diagram is a non-sequitur from there.

,

Monism, delegation of responsibility, inability to judge potential alternative universes, loophole in "then why is there evil" and "then why didn't he" not actually being a conclusion but a point of ignorance.
The 'problem of evil' has emotional potency. Analytically it's worthless against monotheism.

,

>equally probable he's just evil
We're discussing this point right now, how did we manage to "establish" it already haha. Most people don't seem to feel like their life is a work of a sadistic monster. You seemingly do and furthermore you suggest his motives are entertainment. I aska again, what is this idea based on?
>Why would it be "fair" to allow children to die in school shootings, anyways?
It wouldn't. We should prevent it. Keyword: we.

>If you are admitting his intentions are unknowable then that's also you admitting it's equally possible he's just evil.
No. It's not equally possible. The fact you have 2 options doesn't mean it's 50-50.
>You haven't actually debunked anything I've said.
And you haven't actually answered anything I asked.
>So God is willing to just sacrifice children like pawns to ensure that we do things?
>we do things
>not killing each other
>"do things"
Weak rhetoric move.

Answer questions, then maybe this discussion gets somewhere.

>How do you know that? You just admitted that his intentions are unknowable and incomprehensible. That means it is just as equally probable that he's evil than that he's good.
I feel like you're trolling at this point because this was addressed literally in the post you just replied to.
The fact he could be one or the other doesn't mean it's equally likely. I could be a German or not. You know nothing about this. Doesn't mean both options are equally likely.

Anyway, this is the third time you bailed on answering very simple questions about your propositions so have a great rest of the day and good luck with your life that must have been so apparently a work of a sadistic evil mastermind... I guess.

God wanted to make us so he did. God has desires. It is mentioned several times in the Bible.

Because then we would not have true free will. We would be like babies, mindless wandering the world. God understood this, which is why he originally made man without the knowledge of good and evil. He left the fruit in the garden because God knew that man would desire this knowledge of good and evil, but gave them the free will to stay with God in Eden. Ultimately, Adam and Eve made the conscious choice to disobey God and that is what caused the Fall.
As for that other post, man has invented things to allow him to fly. We desired to fly, and God provided us with the intellect to invent ways to fly so that deduction is a irrelevant.

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." -Genesis 3:6
They were tempted by the Serpent and ate the fruit, actively disobeying God. This was a conscious decision. That is why God punished them, for disobeying him and trusting the Serpent instead of him

A baby is conscious is it not? Even if it doesn't know language, morals, laws, etc.?

If told it would be good for them, then yes.

Because the baby can simply choose not to eat it if there is no indication that it's in their benefit to do so

No, they can still choose not to do something if that is what they desire. If a baby wants attention then it cries, if it doesn't then it doesn't cry

Are we assuming the baby was not warned what might happen if they ate the fruit? Because in that case i think anyone would have ate the fruit, because they didn't know what it did.
If we're assuming that the baby was told that eating the fruit would be fatal, then I don't think that it would eat it. (like Adam and Eve initially)
And if we're assuming the baby was told what Eve was told, then yes i think it would it the fruit.

I had to include ifs because you didn't clarify the situation moron.
Adam and Eve had never experienced lying up to that point. They expected everything told to them to be true, since God never lied to them. They assumed that what the Serpent said was true and thus ate the fruit. Babies can be deceived too. I don't understand how being deceived necessarily destroys free will.

>makes flimsy argument
>makes me fill in the blanks
>"haha tricked you"
Are you being moronic on purpose?

>What do you think free will is?
The ability to make a conscious choice in a situation with multiple options. Eve had the choice to listen to either God or the Serpent then chose the Serpent.

because they were in direct contact with God

>I said fly in the air like Superman. What about firing heat ray vision from my eyes, do I not have free will because I can't do that?
there's nothing stopping you from trying to make that a reality is there?

What lead Eve follow one instead of the other?

The desire to be like God, knowing good and evil.

They didn't. They still knew to obey though.

I don't undestand your question. You can desire to posess knowledge that you don't understand, can't you?

It doesn't take knowledge of good and evil to tell species and entities apart. They knew like dogs know their owners.

No.

They were punished because they didn't obey God. As mentioned in

It doesn't take knowledge of good and evil to tell species and entities apart. They knew like dogs know their owners.

, you don't need knowledge of good and evil to know who your master is and to obey him. Dogs can do that. Adam and Eve should have done so too.

>Dogs can also whimsically follow whoever teases them with food, don't they.
If poorly trained, certainly.
>you can't put steak in front of a dog and expect him to not eat it when left alone
You can if you trained it enough. Informing two adults about mortal danger counts as training as far as I can tell.

What?

Because they don't understand spoken words to any considerable degree.

No. They understood speech.

Yes. They understood "you will surely die".

>How do you know they understood what "you will surely die" meant, if there was no pollution of death in the garden?
Because they didn't express a shred of doubt or confusion. And none of the subsequent dozens and dozens of books and commentaries express it either. It's not in the texts.
>Also, did they really understood like we understand their situation now?
I'm still not sure what exactly you are asking. They didn't understand that their children thousands years from now on will be enslaved to sin and that God will have to sacrifice his first-born Son to heal us, no. They weren't omniscient.

>Not showing confusion isn't a parameter to know when someone understands what they're told.
It is in narrative texts.
>Did Adam and Eve understood that disobeying their creator was a bad action, therefore they shouldn't do that?
This opens up a can of worms about what really constitutes "bad" and if that's the same as "evil" and son and so on... the bottom line is that they understood that it is imperative not to do that thing. Because they avoided it until tricked into it and even then I think they protested against eating the apple.

>Adam and Eve didn't know what they were doing was bad
They knew it was imperative not to do it.
>they didn't choose, they were just following what their instincts told them to
Not according to Genesis, no. Instincts are nowhere brought up.
>Choosing implies consideration and decision
Both noted in the text.
> they lacked wisdom
They lacked knowledge of good and evil. They didn't lack common understanding of what should and shouldn't be done. As the text clearly shows.

>How were they able to tell apart one option from the other if they didn't know good from bad?
By differentiating options without moral judgement. We do this every day. As I mentioned twice, it doesn't take knowledge of good and evil to tell things apart.
>Then how were they tricked?
By lies.

Omniscience logically leads to predestination. Benelovence is incompatible with predestination, expecially if you believe in hell.

>Your will is yours even if you are known ahead.
It doesn't matter. It's my will, but it isn't "free will".
Here's the thing: God knows what you will do BEFORE you are even created. So if the knowledge of your actions exists before you even make a choice, there logically wasn't any choice. You were merely created in a way to fulfil that destiny.
You are acting as if your will being yours, means the same as your will being free, when it doesn't.