The fact that Christians on Oyish STILL don't understand the problem of evil is an internal critique makes me think the relationship between IQ and religion is not merely correlative.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Don't disrespect monkey.
IQ is highly overrated considering smart people have less children overall.
>IQ is highly overrated considering smart people have less children overall.
Only in modern nanny states with abundant redistributing welfare.
Stupid people of the past couldn't feed their families but smart people could...
Christians do understand that. What you don't understand is that most presentations of the problem of evil are not an internal critique. "If God real why babby have cancer" is an appeal to emotion, not an internal critique.
Not Christians on Oyish at least. Every time the PoE is posted here in the form of the epicurean paradox, it gets replies asking the op what is evil.
You mean the low effort shitpost threads with the meme chart you've been spamming for 5 years?
I've never posted it, I just dropped into those threads to look at christian replies and there's always people asking what is evil. Why do you think that is? Are they too low IQ to grasp the concept of an internal critique, or are they trolling?
I think you're trolling.
Why?
Why do you think I'm trolling? Open any of these threads and there will be a bunch of knuckle draggers asking what is evil, that's a fact.
>If God real why babby have cancer
This argument shows that God cannot be simultaneously all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. If he were those three things, he'd stop babies having cancer.
Who says babies getting cancer is an evil?
See guys? This is how you do it. Although this poster's reply collapses good and evil into some sort of misanthropic rule utilitarian system, it respects the PoE's status as an internal critique.
t. op
Everybody. Except Christians since they're evil.
That does not necessarily follow at all. Babies' being inflicted with cancer is certainly not an intrinsic good on any theistic grounds, but it could easily be some kind of extrinsic good that will facilitate the consummation of some higher, more splendorous good that far outstrips the initial injustice or evil. Christianity avows that the return of Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the one and only God, His Word, Wisdom and Power, shall bring about an ever lasting utopia in which people shall experience bliss eminently and transcendentally exceeding the pleasures and joys of this world; all anterior suffering is washed away by the infinite sea of virtue and goodness brought about by Immanuel. If this world is not merely a punishment for sin, but also a remedy for sin, a world of adversity and suffering meant to instill men with the discipline, virtue, humility and love for God prerequisite for our being able to participate in His energies and be deified, consummating our telos as created by God, then this is the best of all possible worlds God can create, reconciling His omnipotence and His omnibenelovence.
>COPE
>get refuted
>immediately resort to empty locutions and snide comments
Atheist cucks everyone
Jesus will come and save us is not a refutation.
I didn't read that long post because I don't need to.
It's obvious that God is a fictional character. You're a fricking idiot.
Apparently you need to read some Sextus Empiricus.
God is fictional, just like all the other gods that humans have invented.
You don't know who that is, do you?
God doesn't exist, he's a fictional character.
>God can't bring about le greater good without giving babies cancer
not omnipotent then
thanks for playing
The only limit to God's omnipotence are illogical feats. God's being all-powerful does not entail that He can create a world wherein 2+2=5 or other absurdities. It would be trivially easy to demonstrate how God's stripping mankind of its free will would be contrary to goodness and fail to fulfill the very purpose of creation, namely creatures vindicating God's ineffable transcendental greatness by contemplating Him as an extension of His contemplating Himself; ergo, your gotcha has failed. Try again.
I'm sorry, weren't you insisting that the problem of evil is meant to be an internal critique of Christianity? I demonstrated why it is an utter failure as such. Now scurry off, homosexual.
>The only limit to God's omnipotence are illogical feats.
So he doesn't exist and Jesus died for nothing.
moronic non sequitur. Really demonstrating your middling intellect if you're equating the laws of nature which are non-necessary with the rules of logic.
>God is limited by the rules of the universe
>which He created
this you?
He isn't limited by the laws of nature at all, that's why He performs so many miracles.
Presuming that God produced the laws of logic instead of presuming some sort of pseudo-Platonic notion of logic as a concept instead of concrete thing leads to some pretty wild absurdities. For instance, it would completely destroy any argument in favour of God's existence because we could presume contrary to reason that God killed Himself *after* creating the world. Now, reason leads us to the conclusion that God is eternal, simple, immutable and so on, but having rejected the logical rules that reign within the confines of our reality, it is perfectly reasonable to respond to the most sophisticated version of the cosmological argument that exists that it only proves that God existed *once*, but not that God necessarily continued to exist. Logic is the foundational criterion for any inquiry into reality or attempting to grasp it; it is indispensable and the only logical outcome of rejecting it is Pyrrhonism.
>He performs so many miracles.
... Such as?
inb4 nonmiracle done by nature or "muh book sez so"
You really are a moronic Black person tier dumbfrick, aren't you? Allow me to school you on some epistemological issues: the scientific method of educing parismonious hypotheseis on the basis repeated empirical observation through inductive reasoning that have both explanatory and predictive power that is scrutinized through falsification and subsequent post hoc modification of the aforementioned hypotheseis *cannot* be applied to supernatural phenomena since by their very definition they are suspensions of the natural order; they are unrepeatable exceptions of the ordained power of God. Because of this, all knowledge of any hypothetical transcendental realms will always inevitable be a condescending munificence on the part of higher powers, each instance of a potential miracle to be scrutinized through eyewitness accounts and the usage of probability. So yes, the New Testament is an admissable piece of evidence given repeated proofs of its historical reliability.
You can just say something is so without evidence because the israeli/Christian god doesn't actually exist.
So...
Typical Christ-tard incoherent mumbling.
>If this world is not merely a punishment for sin, but also a remedy for sin
I guess this is what serial killers say to their captives to rationalize killing them?
>u cant observe miracles lmao
So miracles don't exist. Thanks for proving my point.
There's a difference between being able to subject miracles and scientific scrutiny, which requires repeatability and a controlled environment, and being able to observe miracles. Come on, anon, please try harder, this is embarrassing.
>It seems unlikely that there is.
Based on what?
>But it doesn’t really seem like it, after all the whole point of the problem of evil is that adversity does not seem to be a character building phenomenon, and instead appears to just as often be mounted on the innocent (like infants with cancer) and good, and spared the bad (e.g., the rich born with a silver spoon in their mouth), with no proportion.
How someone reacts to the injustice and suffering in the world is itself a test from God and part of the character building exercise.
>This doesn’t seem trivial, I’ve read on the subject and never seen it done convincingly.
God's creating the universe as an extension of His eternal self-contemplative act; the telos of Creation is our perpending God's transcendental being in imitation of His own perfect rumination. What would be the point of God's merely acting out a play with flesh puppets who possess no will and perhaps even consciousness? What vindicates God, what grants His Creation meaning and beauty, is our *choosing* of our own free will to submit to the Lord and bask in His incandescence, eternally seeking after Him, even though we can never exhaustively know Him.
>Also, that free will is good doesn’t imply that the freedom to wreak tragedy is too.
And that is why God will punish does who do so.
>Based on what?
Based on the complete inability of you or anyone else to even suggest a putative extrinsic good which is developed only through infants dying of cancer, and which justifies their agonizing death and the misery of their parents. If such a thing is not unlikely despite the limits of our imagination, then I suppose it's also not unlikely that there is some kind of unknown extrinsic evil to pair with the intrinsic evil to lay on the scale.
>How someone reacts to the injustice and suffering in the world is itself a test from God and part of the character building exercise.
But the point is that it doesn't have the form of a character building exercise. This is of course the "soul-making theodicy", and I could simply rephrase criticisms of this argument, but again the problem of evil would never have been posed if it was apparent that it was verily or even plausibly the case that suffering is one big test. Consider Junko Furuta.
>God's creating the universe as an extension of His eternal self-contemplative act; the telos of Creation is our perpending God's transcendental being in imitation of His own perfect rumination.
This doesn't have any theodicean content.
>What would be the point of God's [etc.]
It isn't clear that the only possibilities are empty determinism, or the cosmos precisely as they are.
>What vindicates God [etc.]
This doesn't have any theodicean content, or please explain how exactly it vindicates him.
>And that is why God will punish does who do so.
So what? Again, I and most people would say that if you can easily prevent a rape and murder it would be wrong not to do so in favor of allowing it and then punishing the rapist murderer after the fact.
>Based on the complete inability of you or anyone else to even suggest a putative extrinsic good which is developed only through infants dying of cancer, and which justifies their agonizing death and the misery of their parents.
I am unconvinced the suffering is incommensurate with the benefits.
>again the problem of evil would never have been posed if it was apparent that it was verily or even plausibly the case that suffering is one big test.
I contest the idea that anything is ever apparent or obvious; even God's existence can be reasonably contested. After all, if it wasn't difficult to believe in God, there would no virtue in doing so; life would fail at being a test or refiner of virtue.
>This doesn't have any theodicean content.
It is the essential premise of any subsequent argument I wish to adduce.
>This doesn't have any theodicean content, or please explain how exactly it vindicates him.
Because we as creatures cannot ever know God in His essence, it is all the more meaningful that we nonetheless exalt Him.
>I am unconvinced the suffering is incommensurate with the benefits.
Based on what? Not reason or experience, I surmise.
>I contest the idea that anything is ever apparent or obvious; even God's existence can be reasonably contested.
All I'm saying is that the problem of evil, to the extent that it is an "internal critique", has been raised in the first place because of the seeming significance that good people appear to suffer very often more than bad people. You can find lots of Christians who admit some suffering is apparently meaningless; faithfully asserting there is a meaning to it which you don't know doesn't really have any rhetorical value.
Animal suffering is another piece of evidence: it is clear that the most intelligent animals are capable of excruciating suffering, which are naturally preyed on, starved, develop cancer, etc. just as we do. It is even less clear what "benefits" inhere in this fact, since they cannot know God. If you would stop a man from beating an elephant to death or gauging out a chimp's eyes, how can God who allows worse yet in nature, be all good?
>After all, if it wasn't difficult to believe in God, there would no virtue in doing so; life would fail at being a test or refiner of virtue.
>Because we as creatures cannot ever know God in His essence, it is all the more meaningful that we nonetheless exalt Him.
Imagine a God who is not all good, we might call him Yaldabaoth. The telos of his creation is our perpending his transcendental being in imitation of his own perfect rumination. Because we as creatures cannot ever know Yaldabaoth in his essence, it is all the more meaningful that we nonetheless exalt him. Do you see what I mean about theodicean content now?
>Based on what?
The most blessing munificence of eternal bliss in perpending God's nature in ever moving repose, constantly sipping water from the infinite well that is God, beneath which there is a well infinitely greater than infinity; attaining the discipline and virtue prerequisite for exercising said most condescending gift from God is a worthy price.
>You can find lots of Christians who admit some suffering is apparently meaningless
I don't think that has any real bearing on the subject, since Christians are fallible creatures saved despite their foibles.
>It is even less clear what "benefits" inhere in this fact, since they cannot know God.
All creatures can know God, to an extent in accordance with their own alloted faculties. I could not expound upon this in detail, but several intelligent animal specials have exhibited behaviour that would indicate they possess belief in transcendental forces.
>Imagine a God who is not all good, we might call him Yaldabaoth.
I consider such a thing a metaphysical impossibility.
But as I said: what's the point of God's creating a world of automatons with no will or consciousness, who do the good through God's direct urging? That's not a demonstration of God's grandeur like a world full of fallible creatures contemplating God and choosing to exalt Him.
God's refusing to explain Himself is an integral aspect of the narrative, because God's reason for His unleashing punishment on Job is stated in the narrative; it is intended to show that God's reasons will not always be clear to us.
>attaining the discipline and virtue prerequisite for exercising said most condescending gift from God is a worthy price.
But there is no virtue to attain to human and equine infants who live a blissful life until they are agonizingly torn apart by predators. You keep reiterating while ignoring my arguments
>I could not expound upon this in detail.
Because it's not true.
>but several [...] transcendental forces.
Well, like you said, Christians do have their foibles.
>I consider such a thing a metaphysical impossibility.
Well, it looks like we've come around to the gist of it, i.e., there are no successful theodicies to reckon with experience and the acme Christian theodicy is entirely unreasoned assertions and appeal to mystery.
>But as I said: [...] direct urging?
I responded by rejecting the false dichotomy of our existence and a per se meaningless determinism, whether or not you consider them the only possibilities. You didn't actually give any justification. If you want a further argument, let me ask you: a person who prevents a rape and murder is a hero, and is good. A person who prevents as many rapes and murders as they can is a super hero, and is supposed to be an inimitable paragon of virtue. At what point does it stop being good to prevent evil? You need to justify why free will is paramount, because I can easily imagine that you could have the agility to not exalt God, but not the ability to commit atrocities, and "it isn't metaphysically possible" needs to be justified.
It's another weakness of the story, because if you assume the given 'reason' i.e., allowing Satan to give it a try, is his real motivation, it seems impossible to draw any general conclusion. What, Satan tested Job and then God set him to testing everybody else, foreknowing the outcome, and without any denouement where he restores them and sets his detractors to propitiating himself? Saying "it won't be clear" is the opposite of theodicy.
>assume the given 'reason
that was neither given, nor the reason
Well I suppose I misunderstood you or the story, then, I'm certainly not an expert on Job. Please tell me, what is the reason?
>But there is no virtue to attain to human and equine infants who live a blissful life until they are agonizingly torn apart by predators. You keep reiterating while ignoring my arguments
Because you're doing much the same; you have to approach the world holistically as a unitary whole with various interdependent parts. Just because there is no direct or immediate benefit from any one evil does not mean there is none at all.
>Because it's not true.
Based on what?
>Well, like you said, Christians do have their foibles.
Can't be an atheist without a need to exploit any minor opportunity to express superciliousness.
>there are no successful theodicies to reckon with experience and the acme Christian theodicy is entirely unreasoned assertions and appeal to mystery.
Entirely? That's hardly the case and you know it. All discussion relating to God will inevitable stumble into mystery, which is entirely understandable to anyone who has at length contemplated the metaphysics of a timeless, spaceless, incomposite, immutable, unitarily simple, fully actual, qualitative infinite entity; as always, atheists dismiss all mystery as obscurantism because it is polemically convenient for them do so, and not because they've truly perpended the concept of God. Nevertheless, the fact that you have to assert that the suffering in the world is incommensurate with the purported extrinsic benefits consequent to it necessarily entails your implicitly accepting the premisses of the theodicy as valid. You cannot at the same reckon with an argument and concede in one fashion or another that some of its suggestion cannot be dismissed a priori but must be demonstrated as incorrect with further argumentation and evidence, and then subsequently allege the position is entirely irrational; all of your anterior rhetoric disproves that.
>you have to approach the world holistically as a unitary whole with various interdependent parts
Why? If the world must be exactly as it is, it raises the question of how free will can be valuable, since there is only a unitary possibility.
>Based on what?
Based on my impression of the depth of the concept of 'God' and animal intelligence. I've done a little reading on the subject, and I have no reason to believe a dog, for instance, apprehends causality quite so deeply. We can disagree on this point without any real significance, anyone else reading the thread can assess for themselves whether there is an extrinsic benefit to lower animal suffering involving their religious sensibility.
>All discussion relating to God will inevitable stumble into mystery
Okay, but for the purpose of theodicy it represents capitulation. That it is not necessary that God isn't justified is not a justification.
>You have demonstrated no alternative
>How?
Well, I have a high standard for proof to meet if you suppose that all present facts are necessary. Consider that a quadriplegic is unable to commit most possible rapes, but can still will. Does the fact that it never occurs to anyone to spit insects on thorns, and later pluck them off and eat them entail that ours is a "world of automatons with no will or consciousness", because shrikes evince the possibility? Mutatis mutandis for rape and murder.
>God allowed Satan to test Job so that he could be utilized as an example to future generations; his story has a pedagogical purpose for believers.
But this doesn't really bear scrutiny either. It isn't considered morally good to allow evil for pedagogical purposes, either. If you wouldn't allow a man to collapse a building to teach a lesson, what gives?
Collapse a building on a family* sorry
>Based on my impression of the depth of the concept of 'God' and animal intelligence. I've done a little reading on the subject, and I have no reason to believe a dog, for instance, apprehends causality quite so deeply.
Animals don't have a notion of God, no, but elephants and chimpanzees for instance might possess animistic beliefs of forces in nature. That entails the possibility of their attaining some limited vision of God in the coming world.
>Okay, but for the purpose of theodicy it represents capitulation.
I don't think you can analyze the problem of evil in isolation from everything else.
>Consider that a quadriplegic is unable to commit most possible rapes, but can still will.
I think the kind of state that you envision would entail God's imparting to man some form of imperviousness and immortality that would also necessarily entail His granting man access to goodness, a goodness that we can reject. A world in which man is incorruptable and immutable in his physical constitution yet beset with a myriad dissipative turpitudes is one in which man is allowed to indulge in the carnal passions with no repercussions whatosever, and is thus not discouraged from sin. The Fall was itself interpreted by many early Christians like Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus as an instance of God's seeing that without cruel adversity, man will inevitably sin. Adam in Eve in Eden were in an intermediary state between our fallen nature and the exalted state God has promised us for the future, inclined towards God but possessing the potentiality to do evil. The sole test they were subject to was to not consume the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which God intended to grant them upon their maturing to a worthwhile state, but even that commandment they broke.
>If you wouldn't allow a man to collapse a building on a family to teach a lesson, what gives?
Well a man has not the omnipotence of God to heal the world.
Different anon here, I've been lurking. Tell me if you agree with my simply words summary from your POV:
>Our human existence relies on finely tuned laws and so is an anomaly. This suggests we are created.
>If we are created, then one way to model our creator is that he created us with a purposeful relationship to Himself. This could be to love/serve Him.
>That love wouldn't mean much if compelled, so he is partly hidden and allows us to suffer.
>This suffering must include real pain and indignity and mortal peril, or else we would be complacent, possibly owing to our in-built imperfect nature, since only He is perfect, with all the ontology that perfection implies, omni this and that.
>Since the premise of this argument is an attempt to address the mystery of our fined tuned existence, mystery can be said to permeate the whole field of human thought. Therefore its permissible that mystery plays a role in our Theodicy. That role (as stated above) is that if God was not hidden, our love for him would be compelled not free.
>God, as Creator, not only ontologically DEFINES 'goodness' itself but is also capable of bringing it about in arbitrary amounts/forms (as long as they don't defy logic(?)). Therefore if we do love God we can trust that his eternal reward is worth the suffering here on Earth.
>The above statements are all consistent with one another and the fact that God is necessary to our fine tuned existence also renders the rest of the arguments true.
>Finally, we have an additional marker/compass towards our Theodicy and the intentions of our Creator in the form of the Bible. The Bible is correct firstly because its spiritual statements are correct and consistent and - when properly interpreted/thought out - fully comprehensive. The Bible is correct secondly because the historical miracle of God incarnating in Christ according to prophesy and demonstrating his own Resurrection through a host of historical/corroborating records
Legit how did I do?
I think I would have to qualify several statements or further elaborate them, but that's not an unfair or poor summary, yes.
>If you wouldn't allow a man to collapse a building to teach a lesson, what gives?
To elaborate on this point: throughout life, people do things that are seemingly bad because of their extrinsic goodness. War is evil, but sometimes it is necessary; inflicting physical damage on children is bad no matter how severe, but mild disciplinary punishment is often the prerequisite for their learning obedience or ceasing to do dangerous things; as a Christian, I think private property will not exist in our perfect state, but in the fallen world it is necessary given man's fallenness and greed for material prosperity, which facilitates the cultivation of spiritual prosperity; and so on and so forth. God's actions are our own on a grander scale in reflection of His greater power and authority.
>I responded by rejecting the false dichotomy of our existence and a per se meaningless determinism, whether or not you consider them the only possibilities.
You have demonstrated no alternative, whereas I conversely explained at length why said dichotomy holds.
>because I can easily imagine that you could have the agility to not exalt God, but not the ability to commit atrocities
How?
>What, Satan tested Job and then God set him to testing everybody else
God allowed Satan to test Job so that he could be utilized as an example to future generations; his story has a pedagogical purpose for believers.
>[...] eternal bliss [...], attaining the discipline and virtue prerequisite for exercising said most condescending gift from God is a worthy price.
A price for suffering, to wit, infants dying of cancer. What is the connection between the price and the purchase?
>I don't think that has any real bearing
I mention it only because the assertion that "injustice and suffering in the world is itself a test from God" is begging the question, and the fact that Christians have suspected it's not true is the reason why the problem of evil is an internal critique and not something you can dispel by simply asserting that God is axiomatically all good and real, whatever our experience.
>the fact that Christians have suspected it's not true is the reason why the problem of evil is an internal critique and not something you can dispel by simply asserting that God is axiomatically all good and real
That would require weighing the intellectual strengths and weaknesses of metaphysical and metaethical accounts of God that discuss His nature, and comparing the robustness and sophistication of the account with arguments disputing God's omnibenelovence deriving from the problem of evil: are the arguments of the latter position uniformly and unambiguously superior to those of the former? I say no, not at all. Whatever lacunae there may be in whichever theodicy one adduces, they do not outweigh other fields of inquiry.
>There's a difference between being able to subject miracles and scientific scrutiny, which requires repeatability and a controlled environment, and being able to observe miracles.
Explain to me how nobody ever dismissed the observation of gravitational waves or paleontology as unscientific by virtue of it not being done in a controlled laboratory. You won't because you know you're full of shit.
Those are still natural phenomena lol
Oh so now it doesn't matter if we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab? Strange, one post ago it was all that mattered...
>repeatability
>being able to observe miracles
Clearly in
I never said a controlled environment is all that mattered. But paleontology has aspects of the historical method, which deals with what *was* as opposed to induction on the basis of repeated observation, so it really isn't comparable to trying to test miracles. But please, do keep coping.
Nor have you really confronted the epistemological problem here.
>Clearly in
[...]
>It seems unlikely that there is.
Based on what?
>But it doesn’t really seem like it, after all the whole point of the problem of evil is that adversity does not seem to be a character building phenomenon, and instead appears to just as often be mounted on the innocent (like infants with cancer) and good, and spared the bad (e.g., the rich born with a silver spoon in their mouth), with no proportion.
How someone reacts to the injustice and suffering in the world is itself a test from God and part of the character building exercise.
[...]
>This doesn’t seem trivial, I’ve read on the subject and never seen it done convincingly.
God's creating the universe as an extension of His eternal self-contemplative act; the telos of Creation is our perpending God's transcendental being in imitation of His own perfect rumination. What would be the point of God's merely acting out a play with flesh puppets who possess no will and perhaps even consciousness? What vindicates God, what grants His Creation meaning and beauty, is our *choosing* of our own free will to submit to the Lord and bask in His incandescence, eternally seeking after Him, even though we can never exhaustively know Him.
>Also, that free will is good doesn’t imply that the freedom to wreak tragedy is too.
And that is why God will punish does who do so. I never said a controlled environment is all that mattered.
You said it was necessary. Now you say it's not. Stop fricking lying all the fricking time, and people just might take your moronic cult of the floating zoo 1% more seriously.
>paleontology has aspects of the historical method, which deals with what *was* as opposed to induction on the basis of repeated observation
Hello Ken Ham. Hiding your thousand-times-debunked talking points and hoping no one will recognize them? You're still wrong about everything including the flood. How's that litigation for flood damage on your museum going? 🙂
>it really isn't comparable to trying to test miracles
Translation: you cannot show me one (1) miracle. You know they don't exist.
>Nor have you really confronted the epistemological problem here.
The epistemological problem is that you have the burden to show me miracles.
>You said it was necessary.
Scientific research that does not occur in a controlled environment has to take into account a myriad of variables that could impact the results of a study and is thus often less reliable than that research which occurs in one. Don't be obtuse.
>Hello Ken Ham.
I don't know anything about him. I can only imagine why you are so indignant at the anodyne observation about the nature of paleontological research.
>Translation: you cannot show me one (1) miracle.
The resurrection of Jesus and the Christophany witnessed by Paul. Miracle works conducted on Mt Athos. Plenty of examples you can look at.
>So yes, the New Testament is an admissable piece of evidence given repeated proofs of its historical reliability.
For every quotidian historical fact corroborated by the New Testament like “Pilate was once a prelate”, I’ll name one from the Quran, and I’m sure you’ll then admit that it constitutes evidence of the non-trinitarian unity of God and prophethood of Mohammad and his distinction as a miracle worker. Right?
The Quran says that the Christian Trinity is composed of God, Jesus and Mary; it cannot be a directly God given document, as it claims to. Christian Scripture is written by men, but inspired by the Spirit. It is infallible when it comes to matters of faith, but can make certain minute historical errors, as with all other documents of human origin.
1Th 2:13 is revealing in this case, and Jesus refers to the Hebrew Bible as the "word of God" in Mark too. The Quran's internal claim of being divine is just one small error in a fallible human writ document, which is mostly historical, and therefore it has evidentiary value for its supernatural claims, or do you disagree?
and yet He can't do le greater giid without giving infants cancer
interdasting
This was already addressed:
>If this world is not merely a punishment for sin, but also a remedy for sin, a world of adversity and suffering meant to instill men with the discipline, virtue, humility and love for God prerequisite for our being able to participate in His energies and be deified, consummating our telos as created by God, then this is the best of all possible worlds God can create, reconciling His omnipotence and His omnibenelovence.
>that's why He performs so many miracles.
May we see them?
What makes you think logic is reality?
>absurdities. It would be trivially easy to demonstrate how God's stripping mankind of its free will would be contrary to goodness
This doesn’t seem trivial, I’ve read on the subject and never seen it done convincingly. I don’t think most people would agree sheerly prioritizing not impeding someone’s will is good, for instance, most people would say it would be morally wrong to not stop a rape or murder that you are able to stop effortlessly. Also, that free will is good doesn’t imply that the freedom to wreak tragedy is too. God didn’t give me the ability to jump twenty feet in the air, but he gave me the ability to torture a toddler, and it doesn’t seem like I would become less free if the converse were the case.
>but it could easily be some kind of extrinsic good that will facilitate the consummation of some higher, more splendorous good that far outstrips the initial injustice or evil.
It seems unlikely that there is. But if you can assert that the possibility that there is some unknown good property of natural evils justifies God, why can’t I equally assert that there is the possibility of an unknown bad property of the same magnitude which condemns him more damningly?
>If this world is not merely a punishment for sin, but also a remedy for sin, a world of adversity and suffering meant to instill men with the discipline, virtue, humility and love for God
But it doesn’t really seem like it, after all the whole point of the problem of evil is that adversity does not seem to be a character building phenomenon, and instead appears to just as often be mounted on the innocent (like infants with cancer) and good, and spared the bad (e.g., the rich born with a silver spoon in their mouth), with no proportion.
>"If God real why babby have cancer" is an appeal to emotion, not an internal critique.
No, it's a contradiction of God's perfection, moron.
The only argument against God that you need is that there's no evidence of him at all.
I suppose for supporting evidence in your argument you can point out that humans have always believed false things, so it's entirely possible (in fact very plausible) for religion to just be fictional.
Think of all the other religions and mythologies that people don't believe in anymore. Christianity will become one of those when it dies out, which it will, like all historical religions have done.
>when it dies out, which it will
t. Nero Caesar
Animism died out, Greek mythology died out, Norse mythology mostly died out, apart from a few pagans kicking around these days. Okay fine so maybe Christianity will become something followed by 2% of the world's population in the future. That might take a couple of centuries but I think it will likely happen. Christianity is already declining in western countries, and religion is even declining in non-western countries, like in China.
>Why?
It should be pretty obvious. If a being is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then they would stop innocent children from dying through no fault of their own. They would allow all humans to have an equal shot at life, without getting cancer in their youth.
>It should be pretty obvious
This is why atheists are the worst posters on Oyish. You more or less have two categories, simple trolls like OP, and angry morons like this guy who can't hold a conversation for 5 seconds.
Lmao you're a moron. Christians always say shit like "God must exist and must have created the universe, why? Because intelligent design in the universe is self-evident!"
You fricking idiot.
Most people would say that it's very unfair that some babies have to die through no fault of their own.
Anyway, the problem of evil is not the best argument against God. The best argument is the fact that there's no evidence for God whatsoever.
>Christians always say shit like "God must exist and must have created the universe, why? Because intelligent design in the universe is self-evident!"
Why precisely it is the laws of nature that govern our universe the ones that do so as opposed to any other set of parsimonious set of mutually complementary laws requires explanation, especially given the complexity and order that we perceive in the universe. What was the source of this laws?
>The best argument is the fact that there's no evidence for God whatsoever.
Seems like you have an extremely narrow conception of what evidence for God constitutes.
>What was the source of this laws
The laws that had non-human mindless animals eating each other for billions of years amongst mass extinctions including the near extinction of early humans...?
>Seems like you have an extremely narrow conception of what evidence for God constitutes.
Invisible flying pigs are everywhere dude. If you deny this your conception of what constitutes pigs must be extremely narrow...
I was talking about the laws of physics, moron. Why do the laws of special and general relativity hold true? Why is gravity a force that exists? Electromagnetivity? What produced these laws?
You can just say something is so without evidence because the evolution doesn't actually exist.
So...
Typical monke-tard incoherent mumbling.
>I guess this is what serial killers say to their captives to rationalize killing them?
Presuming morality isn't real, why would I be offended at called a serial killer? It makes me happy, so that's all that matters.
>Invisible flying pigs are everywhere dude
As long as they're made of dark matter, that's entirely consistent with mainstream science.
>Why precisely it is the laws of nature that govern our universe the ones that do so as opposed to any other set of parsimonious set of mutually complementary laws requires explanation, especially given the complexity and order that we perceive in the universe. What was the source of this laws?
The answer is "we don't know yet". It should be easy to understand this concept. Just over a decade ago, we didn't know that the Higgs boson existed. Then it was discovered. There will be other things which we currently don't know about, but which will be discovered, if we keep investing in science.
>Seems like you have an extremely narrow conception of what evidence for God constitutes.
Personally I would have to perceive God with my senses, either directly or indirectly, to consider that evidence for God. If a nonphysical apparition of God appeared before me then that would be evidence. Or if we could pick up an infra-red heat signature that moved about in ways suggestive of omnipotence, then maybe that would be a god.
The Christian God is an assumption, it's jumping to a conclusion. There really isn't conclusive evidence for this theoretical idea. I think God is just made up.
>The answer is "we don't know yet".
And you will never know through science because it is *predicated on* said laws.
>Personally I would have to perceive God with my senses, either directly or indirectly, to consider that evidence for God.
He has done so to many people.
>Christianity
is the true and perfect faith revealed to us through the Holy Spirit, informing us perfect, eternal and divine life in Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
>Straight from the Christ-tards mouth...
How mature! Very cute, anon.
>Christian admits that he would be a serial killer if Christianity didn't exist lol.
How mature! Very cute, anon.
>Nope, it makes you care less about people dying.
No it doesn't.
>The only people who see no purpose or point in their existence are the mentally ill.
Atheists don't see purpose or meaning in their lives, correct.
>UUUMMMM WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THE WHITE RACE BROS
>B-B-BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE TO OKAY
>YOU CAN'T BETRAY MUH HECKIN WHOLESOME WHITE RACERINO
>YOU CAN'T TAKE israeli SHEKELS
Consciousness is a mutation, an unsustainable mutation in the long game. Region is a coping mechanism we created to survive.
Without religion all falls, for most humans cannot accept that they know they will die and that our existence is meaningless.
>our existence is meaningless.
Well no it isn't.
That's what a random rock on the beach would say if it could talk.
That definitely isn't a human or sentient perspective at all.
>Consciousness is a mutation, an unsustainable mutation in the long game.
Minor point being that Humans have conquered the planet with it and in the future may have an opportunity to conquer space with it...
You sound just as stupid as the Christ-tards anon.
>That definitely isn't a human or sentient perspective at all.
It is the essence of the human condition anon. Only man amongst the animals is intelligent enough to contemplate his existence and fall into despair upon realizing it may have no purpose and meaning whatsoever. This is good evidence that atheists are inhuman and mentally ill soulless creatures with no ability for self-contemplation or natural inquisitiveness.
>You sound just as stupid as the Christ-tards anon.
He's being intellectually consistent, unlike you.
>Only man amongst the animals is intelligent enough to contemplate his existence and fall into despair upon realizing it may have no purpose and meaning whatsoever.
Dying isn't the worst part. Finding true unreplaceable love is, and her dying and you knowing everything she was is gone into nothing and she is just rotting in the ground now.
It's easy to see why people created religion, it's not so bad for us with our call of duty, mcdonalds and marvel movies but imagine every day struggling to survive and feed yourself and being in utter despair like that.
Pretending your beloved is in heaven helps you carry on and feed yourself and family.
the problem of evil was addressed in Job over 3000 years ago.
Not very convincingly. Job makes a few good arguments, and all his friends give him is flimsy aretalogy. Elihu does no better, and God doesn't even try to justify himself, he just redresses his own wrong and tells Job's friends to burn carcasses. It's an ethical moron's idea of a theodicy, and God would have been more benevolent to tell the Adversary to pound sand in the first place.
>i didn't like the answer
too bad.
Luckily I am not for some strange reason constrained to find my answers in ancient israeli scripture
k, keep me posted
if there were at least some substance or picrel in addition to this blanket statement, it would be a pretty decent bait, but as it is, it's pretty mid and not worth wasting anyones time
this but unironically. whites have turned away from Christ and reverted to their troony eunuch worshipping degeneracy of ancient times.
as israelites fell out of covenant with God for killing Christ, so too have whites for abandoning him
Anyone who's perused the YT comment section of debate uploaded on an atheist YT channel can attest to having encountered secularists caterwauling in righteous indignation at anyone explicating a theodicy predicated on reality as having a pedagogical function, even when their atheist interlocutor has explicitly stated that they are trying to articulate an internal critique of religion throughout the colloquy; the OP really applies solely to a select few explication of the idea. Most people adducing the argument are still morons.