If God is all knowing, then did he not already know that Adam and Eve were going to eat the fruit of good and evil from the Garden of Eden? And if so, why did he create them in the exact way that he did, why did he not change their chemistry or their brains to avoid this. Why did he not put them in a different environment where this temptation would not occur? He gave them no sense of right or wrong then punished the rest of humanity forever for their mistakes. He gives them the choice of freewill then severely punishes them for not doing what he wanted. God knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the fruit as God knows everything and God’s will is always done. Therefore does that not mean that this was his intention all along? It would have been easy for a loving God to prevent this but he intentionally allowed it to happen. I cannot understand how the Christian God can be loving when he curses humanity with terrible pain and suffering for the rest of existence. There was an infinite amount of ways that he could have created Adam and Eve. He is all powerful so it should not have been hard to just instantly erase Satan or strengthen their will. God’s will was done and it proves this God is either not real or simply just evil. What kind of person would want their children (He is our father) to suffer in pain and agony when he easily could have made so otherwise. BTFO Christfags what you gonna do now niggers. Any whites who are Christians come join the superior intellect of the atheist community for your sake and for ours.
BTFO CHRISTCUCKS
I followed a similar paradox to arrive at a similar conclusion.
Lucretius and Pythagoras is also a great foundational entry into logical thinking.
He has seen it all, since the beginning of time. He knows what will happen, and what will happen as a reaction of what happens, and so on. And his plan spans epochs of time, much longer than one human lifetime. He is immortal, we are not
did he know I was going to call you a fag in this post? ya fucking fag
>free will
>pre destiny
pick one
God is omnipotent. The issue comes from the claim that he is malevolent. If evil can be used to form a more meaningful good/more good/whatever or come by logical necessity of some good then you cannot make the claim that God is malevolent letting evil occur. However, evil does not "exist", it is simply a privation of the good.
A good example of the benefit of evil in theology is the doctrine of Free Will. Something created with the intent of experiencing love and sharing in God's love requires the ability to voluntarily choose to love, else the love is mechanical and not actually love.
This can be applied to things naturally in the world as well, such as the finite and distinct nature of the universe enables things to run up against one another and cause clashes which cause a lot of things. We could say this derives from the same sort of purpose but I won't assume to be a theologian.
More to the point, for Catholics, what suffering comes is a method towards growth towards virtue in various means. It could allow an important good, it could break your heart so that it be more open, it could be a method of transformation, or it even could be repercussions of sins playing out to persuade you away from it.
en.wikipedia.org
We must try to relieve suffering but we do not relieve it by attempting to escape it but relieve it by overcoming it. And in that we are united with the suffering of our God, who has suffered with us.
Ultimately, like most Greek theistic problems, they are made towards the Hellenistic conception of gods and so it really isn't applicable to God unless you perceive Him as that sky wizard. The apostolic denominations (catholic, Orthodox, oriental) support the Classical Theist view.
Atheism is a terminal mental illness that results in extinction.
The obvious conclusion is the doctrines of the Church don't make sense.
What isn't obvious is those believe and act according to religious principles collectively triumph over those who don't in the long run. Look at what is happening in Europe. The west is failing to defend itself against the newest Islamic invasion.
The truth is we need to believe in some essential lies.
The short answer is: Because free will exists.
The long answer is: Because free will exists, however free will is not a function in the brain, but instead is the randomness of the universe interacting with the predisposed reactions of a human's psyche.
Calvin was right all along.
(sarc) yeah user, what is happening to Europe is because people stopped tithing. pic related
>God is omnipotent
According to theologians through the ages, we should understand god as an all-knowing all powerful being. That is a premise which must hold in order for god to exist. According to theologians, the bible is the word of god and therefore should be about as perfect as can be, it being the work of an all-knowing all-powerful entity.
The Old Testament enumerates the ways in which god the creator interacts with his creations. In those texts he makes it abundantly clear he wants a supplicant human. When humans are less than adulatory he smites them. He demands they sacrifice animals and children. When really dismayed that he is not getting the attention he deserves, he picks one family to round up all the animals, floods the earth and then sets about repopulating with only the repentant. Yet, he still does not get enough asses in the pews for his liking. The answer? A new testament.
The New Testament is filled with anecdotes of a loving god. One that bathes the feet of the poor and cures the terminally ill. God of the New Testament turns water into wine and loaves into fishes to feed people instead of rendering their crops asunder with plagues. Huh. Go figure. You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
The fact that the figurehead had to do a complete 180 in order to acquire the faithful shows that the figurehead is flawed. If the figurehead was truly all knowing, then he would have known that the OT was not going to win over mankind. Having to rewrite his complete purpose and motus operandi is nothing short than admitting to having made a catastrophically bad judgement. A god that has to correct himself is proving that he is less than godlike. If god is not godlike, then he can not exist.
The bible, therefore, proves that god does not exist.
Wait did you just say that God needed to have evil for this "more good". If he was an all powerful God then he would not need evil, he would instantly make so whatever he desires. The fact that you claim he needs this "more good" you literally is saying he couldn't have done it without it. Which means he is not all powerful. Unless you mean he could have done it without evil in which he is not all loving.
Second of all you just stated in your second paragraph that we need evil for freewill. Without evil we could not have freewill. If their is no sin in heaven is there also no free will in heaven?Or better yet why does't God make it so that evil isn't even a concept. A loving all powerful God would do that. Like honestly FOR FUCKS SAKE, he gives us free will to choose what we want to do with our lives, then tortures us for infinity with the worst most horrible pain in existance forever, when we don't do what he wanted us to do. That is retarded. Why is there evil. Nothing should need evil to exist because if God is all powerful and all loving he could simply make it so.
Just because you have the power to know all things doesn't mean you have to or will exercise that power in whole or in part. God tests people, and does much more.
Please watch this, all the way through: youtube.com
Correction to myself I meant to say why does God need evil for a "more good" as you said if he is all powerful and all loving he would make this "more good" without evil. Unless he doesn't want to or he can't. Choose one.
WHY DOES GOD NEED TO TEST PEOPLE IF HE IS ALL KNOWING. HE WOULD ALREADY KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE WERE TO TEST US.
Not an argument as to why my logic is flawed
Well why does there need to be evil in order for freewill to exist. God is all powerful which means he can do literally ANYTHING. Which last time I checked means make freewill without evil.
God doesn't make mistakes.
Kk jus So u no the image assumes god's All powerful-ness means that the could do anything whatsoever, like create a universe with free will and no sufferin.
This ees not the tradituonl view if gott, cuz in thomistic/augustinian theologi God cannot do anything that is logically imposseble. He cannot, for exumple Mak square circle. So epicurios and fedoras btfo. Do u even read plantinga?
Not an argument, you are also less likely to breed the more intelligent you are. Does this mean high intelligence is a mental ilness?
>According to theologians through the ages, we should understand god as an all-knowing all powerful being. That is a premise which must hold in order for god to exist. According to theologians, the bible is the word of god and therefore should be about as perfect as can be, it being the work of an all-knowing all-powerful entity.
Divine Authorship differs between what the apostolics think and what the protestants think (and protestants are varied with themselves). I would hold to the apostolic understanding as I am Catholic: God did not possess people to write it himself but rather inspired people who wrote it with their own ability and faculties.
vatican.va
The rest of the post's argument relies on false premises of your own creation to to support the goal you want, on top of having premises rely on the claim of God acting with your claimed intent only to claim God doesn't exist. This is a self-refuting argument. Most importantly: In the Old Testament we see a transition from multiple covenants with God in varying scale that all reveal something more of God and how He is portrayed. The New Testament is entirely about the coming of the last covenant. As such your Old Testament/New Testament division is nonsense. Moreso when noting that both testaments aren't books but collections of books each.
To dismiss God so smugly as to say "If God was all-knowing then why didn't he do ___?" only shows how limited your definition of all-knowing truly is. If you put all-knowing in the context of what we know, then surely God may seem foolish in this paradox. But remind yourself first of all the things you don't know before casting criticism of God.
Yes he has seen it all, which is why there is no reason to test us and which is also the reason he should make it amazing for all his creatures. This is not Karma this is an ALL POWERFUL GOD. If he was all powerful and if he was an all loving God he would make it amazing for all his creatures. Why does he need to make it suck for anybody.
you misunderstood user
I agree with your OP and I disagree with his post about Europe being invaded by rapeugees being caused by sarcastically mentioning tithing as the cause rather than jews and traitors.
Wtf are you being serious or ironic.
all-pow·er·ful
ˌôlˈpou(ə)rfəl/
adjective
having complete power; almighty.
ex. "an all-powerful dictator"
synonyms: omnipotent, almighty, supreme, preeminent;
Correct, his will is always done.
Yawn. More rationalisation on the part of the pious.
If he wrote both collections of books, they should have agreed with eachother. They did not. Therefore it was not written by something all knowing. Logic is not your strong point is it?
To dismiss Satan so smugly as to say "If Satan was so-powerful then why didn't he do ___?" only shows how limited your definition of super-stronk truly is. If you put super-stronk in the context of what we know, then surely Satan may seem foolish in this paradox. But remind yourself first of all the things you don't know before casting criticism of Satan.
Doesn't answer the question of why is there evil?
Oh kkk
you're anthropomorphizing God. God can exist but not be a dude in the sky. You can't understand God by morphing him into a person and then judging him by how you think a person should act.
>it's an atheist finds Epicurus and thinks he's some obscure figure who's never been argued against before thread
Wot, well by what standards does eternal hell fire and torture mean a loving God. By nigger standards?
Well then please tell me the previous arguments that have been made and destroy these Fedora tipping atheists
>Wait did you just say that God needed to have evil for this "more good"
No, I said:
1. Evil is not a thing that exists but the privation of the good of something.
2. The possibility of evil - not the expression or "existence" of evil - is logically inherent and thus required for certain things to exist. For example, the concept of love requires agency and agency entails being able to not love.
>If he was an all powerful God then he would not need evil, he would instantly make so whatever he desires.
Omnipotent does not mean "God can do anything" but literally means "having all powers". The logically incoherent cannot be seen as a power as we have no means to discern it what that even means. And if I were to fold on you and state that somehow God has the power to do the irrational then you made your job much harder as you lose the ability to make any rational criticism of God.
But as the Christian adage goes: "Our god is a rational god."
Logic is innate to God.
>If their is no sin in heaven is there also no free will in heaven?
No, there is an abstaining from sin.
>Or better yet why does't God make it so that evil isn't even a concept. A loving all powerful God would do that.
This is coherent and I'm not sure you thought out your position. What does it mean for evil to "not even be a concept" and why is that the "loving, all powerful god" decision to do given what I told you already.
>then tortures us for infinity with the worst most horrible pain in existance forever, when we don't do what he wanted us to do
The pains of Hell are not doctrinally seen as others attacking you but by laypeople and many Protestant groups.
>Why is there evil
see
Baby's first sophistry.
Well, I guess that's technically the "Rock" question, so we'll go with baby's second sophistry.
Its rather simple, your life is your testament on the day of judgement . God knows everything you could just pop in to hell right now , and god will say you belong in hell.You will say why god why ?... . Your life is your testament if you deserve eternal life or not
>Yawn. More rationalisation on the part of the pious.
This is the traditional view. You're just confused that this isn't Evangelical Protestant doctrine or some anti-theist stereotype.
>If he wrote both collections of books, they should have agreed with eachother. They did not. Therefore it was not written by something all knowing. Logic is not your strong point is it?
They generally do match up though. The only issues you see are product of what I already told you: God did not possess people to write it himself but rather inspired people who wrote it with their own ability and faculties.
>waiting on the obvious response of a massive list about "contradictions" in the Bible, all of which being confusions or not contradictions at all
I did that here
Have you considered that it may impossible to completely eliminate the existence of evil? God's omnipotence allows him to do any possible, but he couldn't make 2 + 2 = 5, and he can't eliminate evil from existing, only minimize its harm. Thus the existence of evil doesn't prove God from being anything less than what He is (all powerful, all knowing, all good)
>They generally do match up though.
Unnnnnnh not so much. OT is a god of retribution and violence. NT is a hippy turning water into wine. Vastly differenet. Like a schizo was writing. Proves that god does not exist, becuase he had to change his word so much.
Not political.
theocracy is a political form of government based on religion, thus making the discussion of religion political.
If it was a thread about such a thing, this is just an asshurt leaf, at best fishing for (yous) and at worse actually shilling
But after all that time spent you mean to say that God cannot do anything, only within logical boundries. So there is a parameter in which he cannot use his power. That doesn't sound like all powerful to me. So God is bounded by the paramters of logic. What was the creation of the universe then. He created everything from nothing which is logically impossible. He always existed but nothing created him which is also logically impossible. If he is bound by logic then I'm sure he won't mind me looking at the facts and using logic to come to a conclusion. Also does God force us to abstain, because with free will can we nt choose to do evil in heaven. I believe that is freewill. Or is it like a varying degree i wanna hear you out on this. You literally cannot have free will because people can choose to sin even in heaven. I mean he gave us free will so we can do whatever we want, then ounishes us for ot doing exactly what he wanted. Sounds retarded to me. Anyways to sum it up God is bounded by the paramters of logic?
Wtf not an argument
But why is there evil. Why cant we have free will without evil.
conflation my internet rival. You can believe in God and not believe in Heaven and Hell.
You see this all the time. Most atheist arguments are really just anti religion arguments. Atheists are so dumb and brainwashed that they don't realize that those are two different things.
Why would he not make sure the holy book that would teach humanity the most important things they will ever learn was not 100% factually accurate
Free will. and we will have more power than even he has had. In time.
Not all good, also if you logically have evil because of free will then if you have no sin in heaven does that mean there is no free will
He didn't want to know cause he wanted to truly test Adam and Eve numb nuts.
he seems to be discussing the points made by anons, not regurgitating copy pasta. Anons are engaging him so why does it affect you or the board?! He's not posting porn or subversive concepts (race mixing)
We discuss the other Abrahamic religions here without anyone complaining.
conflation my internet rival. You can believe in Satan and not believe in Heaven and Hell.
You see this all the time. Most Christian arguments are really just anti satanist arguments. Christians are so dumb and brainwashed that they don't realize that those are two different things.
Imagine being this retarded.
Wot we will have powers God doesn't?
He would have already known what would've happened if he were to "truly test" Adam and Eve. I fhe is all knowing then NO FUCKING NEED TO
>Unnnnnnh not so much. OT is a god of retribution and violence. NT is a hippy turning water into wine
Not at all. Jesus is portrayed as a just, charitable, but dangerous man. God in the OT is pictured about the same way but only with carrying out judgements directly. God's disposition is viewed differently in different covenants and the kinds of people there at the time. As Jesus said about how Judaism allowed divorce, it was done because their "hearts were hard".
God never made a book. He made a church that is guided by Him. Over the years God has inspired several people to write things that the church has collected together into a single book.
You are confused as your premises are off.
Posting image macros instead of refuting my arguments
Well then why did he not make sure the people who wrote it wrote it in a way so it was true, like all of it. I mean what point is there to leave parts that are incorrect. Would just lead to people thinking God is retarded.
To be honest, the fact that you are using a dictionary definition of "all powerful" and confounding this with the philosophic definition really demonstrates how ill-informed you are.
An analogous error would be arguing against Aristotelian Metaphysics relying on the dictionary definition of "essence", or alternatively, arguing against Heidegger using the dictionary definition of " Being", or alternatively, arguing against Universal Grammer (in Linguistics) relying on the dictionary definition of "Grammer". In each case the error is the sams, in that you confuse a merely 'lexical' definition with the precise technical definition employed.
It is for this purpise that there are such things as philosophic dictionaries. But I doubt you will check one: you are too full of your own rather pathetic sense of being right to do so.
I doubt you had even looked up responses to the Problem of Evil: that would require some effort! No, it is certainly much easier to do as you are doing, and set up a strawman to knock down. Because the fact of the matter is, the notion of "All-Powerful" your argument relies upon was never, ever, believed by any serious christian theologian or philosopher, and has no Biblical support either. You COULD make your crude case if you were arguing against an Islamist philosopher, or a 13th century Franciscan, both of which would argue that God's can even do what is logically impossible,, but otherwise, if you want to engage in an intellectual debate you must argue against the actual accepted position: God's omnipotence does not extend to things which are logically impossible, simply because one is saying something technically meaningless if you assert that it does. Proponents of the "Free Will Defence" simply hold that a world with Free will and no evil is logically impossible, and thus does not even make sense to talk about.
NOOO THIS THREAD CANNOT DIE keep arguing anons
>why haven't you refuted this shit on a plate? It's a brilliant argument.
Do you want to know the Truth about religion or you just shitposting, m8?
Being all powerful does not confer the ability to do the impossible. The impossible cannot be done by definition. Of course God is bound by what is logical (i.e. his own rules) and can only do things which are possible within the rules of our universe. If an author writes a story, the events within that story must be expained in terms that are relevant to the story and which fall within the established boundaries of what's possible within that world. The author could have made different rules, but they chose the ones that exist for reasons we can't know.
>He created everything from nothing which is logically impossible. He always existed but nothing created him which is also logically impossible
Wrong
Wait if sin is a direct cause of free will, does that not mean that in heaven it is logically impossible to have free will. I mean there is no sin, therefore logically there is no freewill. Because if there was free will people could still choose to sin.
So you know the truth about the flying spaghetti monster?
To be honest, the fact that you are using a dictionary definition of "all powerful" and confounding this with the philosophic definition really demonstrates how ill-informed you are.
An analogous error would be arguing against Aristotelian Metaphysics relying on the dictionary definition of "essence", or alternatively, arguing against Heidegger using the dictionary definition of " Being", or alternatively, arguing against Universal Grammer (in Linguistics) relying on the dictionary definition of "Grammer". In each case the error is the sams, in that you confuse a merely 'lexical' definition with the precise technical definition employed.
It is for this purpise that there are such things as philosophic dictionaries. But I doubt you will check one: you are too full of your own rather pathetic sense of being right to do so.
I doubt you had even looked up responses to the Problem of Evil: that would require some effort! No, it is certainly much easier to do as you are doing, and set up a strawman to knock down. Because the fact of the matter is, the notion of "All-Powerful" your argument relies upon was never, ever, believed by any serious christian theologian or philosopher, and has no Biblical support either. You COULD make your crude case if you were arguing against an Islamist philosopher, or a 13th century Franciscan, both of which would argue that God's can even do what is logically impossible,, but otherwise, if you want to engage in an intellectual debate you must argue against the actual accepted position: God's omnipotence does not extend to things which are logically impossible, simply because one is saying something technically meaningless if you assert that it does. Proponents of the "Free Will Defence" simply hold that a world with free will and no evil is logically impossible, and thus does not even make sense to talk about.
He is bound BY HIS OWN RULES. Can he make a rule which he cannot break? Since he created this universe did he make this universe with rules that he cannot break?
>Wrong
why?
lawl...
Let's saw God himself descends from the clouds and says
>tada! I'm God! I'm real! See?!
How would anyone know that's really God? A higher being who can float from the clouds? Sure. But God? That takes belief. In order to know it's God you must know all other things in all realities is not God. And if you know this you are all-knowing. But if you are all-knowing you are also all-powerful, because knowledge is power. If then you are all-knowing and all-powerful you are the God! Until man proves there is something greater in consciousness beyond himself, then humanity itself is the God, because only humans know all things and have all power at any given time.
This is the first Divine Truth, the First Power.
Then why not just give us empirical logical evidence that he exists?
saw = say
>Well then why did he not make sure the people who wrote it wrote it in a way so it was true
What do you mean? In some cases it depends on what the author's intent in the writing was. For example, blatantly false statements are reported accurately.
This is a collection of books with different authors, genres, structures, and styles.
I just did.
Because man as a collective is the most knowing and most powerful force in all known existence, humanity -- the collective consciousness of mankind -- is the God.
wHY does he make these flase statements appear in the bible at all?
>he thinks his brain is capable of understanding the creator of the entire universe through a simple flow chart
Whew
>The means of which we define thel foundation of the Western legal system isn't political at all.
Okay douchebag. Go play with your tiny retard dick
So there is no God. Your concept of a God is literally the human race.
I am God :)))))
>people arguing the Problem of Evil with me just stop responding rather than admit to folding their argument or acting with any dignity at all
>This is a collection of books with different authors, genres, structures, and styles.
So a compendium of short stories. Written by humans. Claiming to be god. What a mindfuck. All this time and still trying to hold onto your sky fairie. The universe does not owe you an afterlife.
>World will get more religious
But not white people
>Comic sans for a quote
Retard
Yeah I intend to point out what is logically impossible becuase God is held behind the restraints of logic. He is not all powerful beyond the point of logic.
>so there is no Gpd
Of course there is. The collective unconscious of man is the God. Read some Jung, m8.
Man does not understand true evil.
protip: you are NOT the God because you are not all people. You are just a god ;)
These slide threads are getting really obvious.
>he thinks that he can dismiss any rational argument against a physically impossible magic sky wizard with "you just don't understand!"
What is evil? How can you define evil without relying on universals? How can any universal hold if not rooted in the most infinite infinite? If the root of all being is the being by which all is measured, how could it possibly be less than perfectly good, less than omnipotent, or less than omniscient? How do you know that what you believe to be evil is, in perfect fact, in the most objective sense, actually evil?
So you call humanity God great. Sounds good doesn't really mean anything though. I can call sapghetti God. If you mean God is the concept of the collective human experience then you reveal that he does not really exist and that it was just an attempt of early humans to explain the universe.
What is true evil
Well sometimes they play an important role in telling what needs to be told, as I said in >All this time and still trying to hold onto your sky fairie. The universe does not owe you an afterlife.
There is no need for this blatant resentment and mischaracterization. I will be here when you want actual rational discourse.
>What is evil?
The privation of the good, not something that has existence.
If God is not the source of logic, where does it come from, and how cane he be God?
Furries
Btfo I think your'e just retarded and calling it a slide/shill thread is easier then actually refuting my points
WAIT GUYS KEEP THE THREAD ALIVE I NEED TO GO HAVE A SHOWER
The first theological work I read was On Evil by Augustine, which lead me to the Summa Theologica by Aquinas. The best definition for Evil I've found is that it's the absence of some good.
>doesnt mean anything
you arent thinking deeply enough, fern.
My statement was not an atheistic one, but it oly removed the superstition.