If god is real why do bad bads happen to me???????

>if god is real why do bad bads happen to me???????
is there a more retarded argument against the existence of god than this.

While you are evil and a lover of the body, you can understand none of the things that are beautiful and good. To be ignorant of the divine is the ultimqte vice, but to be able to know, to will and to hope is the straight and easy way leading to the good. As you journey, the good will meet you everywhere and will be seen everywhere, where and when you least expect it, as you lie awake, as you fall asleep, sailing or walking, by night or by day, as you speak or keep silent, for there is nothing that it is not.

Attached: 1522244751976.png (641x481, 142K)

Other urls found in this thread:

academia.edu/8351691/Plato_as_Greeks_Moses_in_Clement_s_of_Alexandria_conceptualization
youtu.be/AqMu9HYKD_8
encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/freedom-and-free-will
merecslewis.blogspot.com/2011/02/our-glimpse-of-god.html?m=1
youtube.com/watch?v=Sn7QvnhJgeA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yeah I'm gonna take lessons in virtue from the guy posting a meme mocking a retarded Finnish guy.

>hurr durr let me just equate goodness to God thus winning the argument XD
There are millions of atheists who behave morally well, and millions of ardent believers who rape and murder, go fuck yourself, retarded christnigger

God is real and he killed me when I was 16
he took me by the knife and held me there for several seconds.
I died and was reawoken by a being of light he was calling me in a name and I didn't understand and I answered right back intuitively without having a clue to of I have just said. But my emotions felt extremely happy. It was odd. But I was happy talking to this being of light.

>There are millions of atheists who behave morally well
Because western society is built upon the ten commandments :^)

not exactly but yes. Good job buddy.

Attached: 220px-Plato._Etching_by_D._Cunego,_1783,_after_R._Mengs_after_Raph_Wellcome_V0004702.jpg (220x304, 19K)

It's not mocking. It's celebration.

Attached: yläätys kaki.jpg (872x993, 66K)

Explain it to your priest, I'm sure he'd have a laugh at a retarded Finn.

The good is what gives everything and receives nothing; god gives everything and receives nothing; therefore god is the good, and the good is god.

Very glib post, typical of a Yea Forums pseudo-chr*stian. Ancient and Medieval Christian writers have generally taken the problem of evil/suffering very seriously. Jesus himself cries over sin and suffering.

God lacks for nothing, to become evil in longing to possess it. Nothing that exists can be lost to him, to cause him grief in losing it. Nothing is stronger than god, to make an adversary of him; nothing is more beautiful to cause desire in him; nothing is unheeding of him, to make him angry; and nothing is wiser, to make him jealous. What remains but the good alone?

He called himself jealous

death and life exist side by side. mushrooms grow and flourish in the death and decay of a fallen tree.

This is why I'm Catholic.

what could god possibly envy?

>no other gods but me
Idk man but I don't think your syncretic religion is infallible

>be perfect God
>can create a Universe without suffering
>create a Universe with a fuckton of suffering instead

Attached: pe4.jpg (960x886, 283K)

if there were two gods then god would not create mortal beings, he would create immortal beings

he has created a system where you can become like him.

What a retarded fucking post. youre comparing the problem of evil which deals with all the suffering in the world (rape, torture, starvation, war, disease, natural disasters, mental illness, etc) to people saying "if things don't go my way then god doesn't exist".
Christians make a very specific claim for their god: he is a) perfectly moral and b) omniscient. The problem of evil is simply: how could a perfectly moral, loving, and omniscient god allow all the evil in the world to run rampant? He must a) not exist b) not be perfectly moral or c) not be omniscient.

But God suffers to

>be perfect god
>create the infinite
>the infinite contains some small bacterial ape people whos brain brains sometimes feel a bad bad
>you cease to exist

why did he create (you) in the first place?

You sound like a cucked self-hating faggot. Either way your presentation of the world is unchristian. You forgot to mention that god made these "ape people" in his own image, declared that he loved them, yet still allows them to suffer immeasurably.

Christians took over 1000 years to admit we didnt inhabit the physical centre of the universe. perhaps you can see a similar problem in your outline there.

>Adam and Eve were immortal before leaving the garden
Isn't that why everyone kept dying sooner and sooner?

god is too big to care about the big-small distinction. the infinite and the smallest minutiae exert the same toll on his mind - that is, zero.

>implying i base my conception of god on jewish fairytales
o l o l

so that we can become godlike

some suffering we bring upon ourselves, though.

Okay but the problem of evil deals primarily with the abrahamic god. I don't know why you're rebutting something that isn't attacking your position.

>God is real
>God isn't real
Does it actually make any difference? We can all agree that anyone with IQ above room temperature should be able to see the fictitious nature of any dogmatic, religious God, and the existence of transcendental, gnostic God would be entirely irrelevant to us because we can neither comprehend nor interact with it in any way

Attached: rencho.gif (500x514, 1.9M)

just ignore the jihadist and move on.

>cant interact with them
uh moron thats the point of organized religion. Are you an american only vaguely familiar with protestantism?

i believe in god the all knowing all powerful all good but i do not accept the events of the bible as true

>the existence of transcendental, gnostic God would be entirely irrelevant to us because we can neither comprehend nor interact with it in any way
woooooooooooo hhahahah

>i dont accept the events of the bible to be true

which part the New Testament or the Old Testament, and what parts?

do you deny Jesus or do you deny the power of the God found in the Old Testament?

>God does not matter
>IQ is totally real and it matters
>anime

Attached: OK.png (800x600, 332K)

apart from the most historically verifiable material facts i do not believe the bible to be a record of true events or true declarations of god.

academia.edu/8351691/Plato_as_Greeks_Moses_in_Clement_s_of_Alexandria_conceptualization

Attached: 1557076677246.jpg (617x618, 113K)

1. Why does god need you to be godlike?
2. Why not give you that characteristic himself?

Why do you feel the need to discuss the (non)existence of god?

How can a god be "good"? To which standard is he measured to be proclaimed good? Goodness is a human concept we invented to calibrate our behavior towards one another. If God is solitary and infinite, he's neither good or bad, in fact, since he's not using all that all-powerfulness to aid humans, to us that god could only be described as either indifferent, or evil.

It's called free will, my dude.

Attached: 1556907222094.png (605x451, 331K)

The Christian sky daddy will torture you in hell (or in heaven with boredom) for eternity if you do not believe in him. He made us sick, commanded us to be well, and will throw us in hell if we don't blindly accept the religious writings of ancient Jews. The Christian religion is a pernicious and retarded ideology which teaches self-loathing and masochism. I cannot imagine the audacity of a god to 1. Blackmail us into believing in him when he hasn't even revealed himself sufficiently 2. Give us reasoning faculties which categorically lead us to the conclusion that religion is false and then demand that we abandon those faculties and blindly believe in him.

ahhh yes the eternal christcuck response, the prelude to circular logic

1. he is good. good means he gives us everything. to be like god is to be good. it is good to be like god. he gives us the means because he is good.
2. that is literally what he is doing.

Okay then the problem of evil applies to you.

At least Zeus went around raping princesses. Why'd Christians feel the need to pretend Hesiod was really talking about them?

That which God has decided to be good, besides that we're creates in the image of God. We know what goodness is. Besides, evil is lack of goodness not opposite.

Not an argument, back to plebbit you go

That's sounds more like people came up with what was good and then ascribed it to God as an appeal to authority.

>he is good (my version of good ofc)
>Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Attached: images(3).jpg (229x220, 8K)

spamming the words "free will" in every debate isnt an argument either, christmutt

Go back

Hmm, assume you're true. Let's say we remove God from morality, how then would we know what's good and evil ?

Attached: 1554111685807.png (500x411, 211K)

With reference to humanity, one uses the term "good" in comparison to "evil." Here below, the evil that is not excessive is the good, and the good is the least amount of evil. The good cannot be cleansed of vice here, for the good is spoiled by evil and, once spoiled, it no longer remains good. Since it does not remain so, it becomes evil. The good is in god alone then, or god himself is the good. Only the name of the good exists among mankind - never the fact. It cannot exist here. Material body, squeezed on all sides by vice, suffering, pains, longings, angry feelings, delusions and mindless opinions, has no room for the good. Here below, they believe in each of the things I have just mentioned as the greatest good when actually it is insuperable evil.

Provide an argument, I ain't wasting my time.

Attached: 1555120414853.jpg (960x694, 103K)

>god is bad because some jew wrote that he did a bad bad in the jew book!!
fuck off

you first, mutt

Free will does not explain uncaused suffering such as natural disasters. Besides, what kind of argument is it anyway? I don't have free will when my hand is being chopped off by a warlord and I'm screaming in agony. I don't have free will when he starves me to death and my body is in excruciating pain. The exercising of his free will stunts my own free will. So why is this evil mans free will allowed to triumph over mine?

holy fucking retard, this must be bait

>That which God has decided to be good
So, if tomorrow God decides that raping infants is good, it is good? How is this any different from tyranny?

maybe you could address my arguments directly instead of bringing in anecdotes from the jewish fairytale collection that i never referenced to begin with

he wouldnt do that and the difference is that he is god

What god are you referring to even? Can you prove god is good outside of a chrsitmutt concept? How can you define the goodness of god without the bible?

>he wouldnt do that
Powerful argument. I'm so glad we have the envoys of God like yourself here speaking on his behalf with total confidence in all his actions.

see

i thought footfaggotry was the greatest vice

Jesus gets his feet washed all the time though

>he wouldnt do that
you cannot know that, the conventions he set for humans cannot logically apply to and constrain his all powerfulness, ergo if he decided to make child sex good, he could do it, you cannot know if he wants this or not thos

seems like a load of gibberish, source pls

god doesnt tell us what to do. he has simply placed us in a framework where the correct path is extremely evident.

Did you skip all of the old testament?

what would it mean for god to "make child sex good"? he would overwrite our free will? why would he do that?

the old testament is a collection of manipulative jewish fairytales

>he would overwrite our free will?
yes, if he cannot do this then he isnt all powerful
>why would he do that?
idk, go ask him, im sure he'll send the ten loli commandements to some fat american weeb

he is all knowing and all powerful. Since he knows everything he was capable of creating the reality he wanted to create the first time. Since child sex isnt good he didnt want child sex to be good. god is what is good. since god gave us everything and asked for nothing we can only emulate

Start by refuting this It's logically impossible for God to force someone to do good, since free will exists.
Your second argument, about the warlord chopping your hands off isn't valid since he's acting out of his own free will, you seem to confuse freedom with freewill.

Natural evil doesn't exist, earthquake for instance is just shaking of earth. It's a morally neutral event.
I will not pretend to know everything, I'm fairly new to theology but this video might help.
youtu.be/AqMu9HYKD_8

Attached: 1553898158379.jpg (530x530, 46K)

>extremely evident
To who? To you? It's not as evident to people in this very thread, or billions of others who will disagree with whatever assertions of 'good' you might make

Bac to pol

Not him but, it is extremely evident that if everyone were to live out of their ego and their own sense of morality. The world will be a chaos.

Attached: 1554713887848.jpg (244x250, 7K)

>earthquake for instance is just shaking of earth. It's a morally neutral event
Shooting you in the face is just a tiny pellet of metal flying from the pistol, it's a morally neutral event, you're the one responsible for placing your skull in its path
Slicing your head off is a morally neutral event, I was merely swinging my sword and you idiotically placed your neck in its path.

Hurr

thats not the point retard, the point is that if an all powerful god came as a loli with a penis to your house and raped you and pierced you with her penis through your bellybutton amd made a child immediately, he could do this if he wanted at any time before or after or during when this post was made, if you deny this then god isnt all powerful, whether or not he actually wants to do this is i think above human comprehension and attempts of constriction

>Yea Forums cultural christians that "converted" after being shamed by a hat

Attached: _pdp_sq_.jpg (1000x1000, 101K)

>earthquake is just the ground shaking
No you retard. God has the ability to stop the earthquake and stop people from dying and being injured (with no impedement on free will) but he does not because he is malevolent. Pic related is from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami/earthquake where over 200k people died.
>warlord is acting out free will
That's what I said. But his free will inhibits my own free will. Where is my free will when I am starved and tortured? My will is changed from living peacefully to wanting food desperately or wanting to get rid of the pain. That is not free.

Attached: IMG_1472.jpg (260x186, 21K)

Attached: Fr. Holy Smokes.png (247x353, 107K)

imagine be so onions and immasculated that you are to much of a puss boy to be agnostic in 2019

>Pic related is from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami/earthquake where over 200k people died.

I was in that place when it happened, escaped death by peril.

Attached: 1557115927314.jpg (1280x591, 124K)

lmao literally berserk

others can impose their will onto you and thats why you can be slaved and starved. God can also do so but he does not - always

Pulling a trigger and swinging a sword is done by a human not nature.

>Where is my free will when I am starved and tortured? My will is changed from living peacefully to wanting food desperately or wanting to get rid of the pain. That is not free.

Again, you're mistaking freedom for free will.
>pic relates

The fall of humanity into sin had effects on everything, including the world we inhabit. Everything in creation is subject to “frustration” and “decay.” Sin is the ultimate cause of natural disasters just as it is the cause of death, disease, and suffering.

Attached: free-will-2-638.jpg (638x479, 100K)

frustration is a great word for it. even our earth gets frustrated, earth quakes and volcano eruptions.

Again, I am not free to stop screaming or stop begging for food when I am starved and tortured. I am not a "source of my own actions".

You haven't even begun to address any of the serious issues brought up by the evidential problem of evil. There is currently no good accepted satisfying response to it: every response that refutes it also has severe epistemic implications for moral and non-moral knowledge.

Dude
encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/freedom-and-free-will

Attached: 1557255551426.jpg (960x960, 156K)

Can you imagine if someone came forward with these beliefs for the first time, today? You would see them as some ultimate schizo-poster, even guenon-fag wouldnt touch the thread. This has as much genuine merit as the principia discordia, just take kierkegaards word and be faithful in individual isolation, dont keep trying to forcefeed 3000 y/o schizo-philosophy down peoples throats.

Attached: 1555568068940.jpg (750x908, 410K)

Even if I were to grant you this point you would still be making an argument against the theist position. If free will doesn't entail freedom then god could have made a society where people have free will to hurt others but not the freedom to do so. So the free will argument collapses.

>t's logically impossible for God to force someone to do good, since free will exists.
How can it be God if it is bound by logic?

>If free will doesn't entail freedom then god could have made a society where people have free will to hurt others but not the freedom to do so. So the free will argument collapses.

If a thing is free to be good, it must also be free to be bad. If not it's logically impossible for freewill without freedom to commit evil to exist. It is not God who limits your freedom but humans. Through their own freewill they choose to oppress/take away your freedom. It is therefore false to blame it on God.

Attached: 1557218164464.jpg (540x540, 73K)

Yes.

God could not make a triangle that was anything other than 180º and still a triangle. St Thomas treats this at length in hisSumma Theologiæ.

Attached: IMG_20190506_120612_621.jpg (671x673, 124K)

>it's logically impossible for freewill without freedom to commit evil to exist.
Human relationships aren't limited to causing each other evil or good, so no, it's perfectly possible to envision free will existing without the ability to cause evil.
Replace the word "evil" with anything to see just how absurd your whole argument sounds
>If a thing is free to walk on the ground, it must also be free to fly in the air. It not it's logically impossible for free will without freedom to fly to exist.

Also, free will to cause evils inherently destroys free will altogether. After all, if I cause goodness to someone, I do not inhibit their ability to cause good or evil. But if I cause evil to another person, I limit their ability to exert their free will. It's a positive feedback system that can only lead to the world overrun by evil.

In that case wouldn't logic be seen as the highest power as it governs even one such as God? If even God is a prisoner, why call it God at all?

>, I limit their ability to exert their free will

You limit their surface freedom not will.

>it's perfectly possible to envision free will existing without the ability to cause evil.

What ? That's like Square circle, it's logically absurd.

God IS logic. God is bound by his own nature. God IS good - thus God can never be evil. God IS logic, thus God can never be illogical (ie, contrary to all reason).


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John:1:1

Attached: 59e.jpg (940x1199, 146K)

The latter was meant for

>You limit their surface freedom not will.
Fuck that language game

Free will without freedom to will is not free will. If God is caught in it's own broken system, why believe it to be God rather than simply a creator? If God is not free to will, how can he create something which is? A being restrained by itself has no right to be named God.

As I said, your freedom isn't restricted by God but rather by other humans who act out of their own will. Your freewill can never be restricted only your freedom.

Freewill precedes freedom, not vice versa.

Attached: 90b.jpg_large.jpg (1665x842, 153K)

I'm not talking about humans, I'm talking about God. If God is God then only it can restrict its freedom. If God is 'forced' to be bound by itself it does not have free will, so it cannot create something which it itself does not contain. If humans truly do have free will they are above God, at which point God would no longer be God. How can you say that 'freewill precedes freedom' when God itself proves you're wrong?

> If God is God then only it can restrict its freedom.

I'm sorry, you seem to confuse logic with freedom. I'll quote again,

>God IS logic. God is bound by his own nature. God IS good - thus God can never be evil. God IS logic, thus God can never be illogical (ie, contrary to all reason).
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>John:1:1

Also >Yes.
>God could not make a triangle that was anything other than 180º and still a triangle. St Thomas treats this at length in hisSumma Theologiæ.

Attached: c9d.png (1178x1200, 658K)

why are you replying to obvious bait?

Fuck off

Attached: images (57).jpg (515x595, 21K)

Actually, all Phenomena have something tantamount to agency, if merely "negative" as in to disobey one's proper agency.

Free will is not free action. You can be prevented from doing what you will, but not from willing what you will.

Even if he didn't understand it, that'd just be a failure to reason on his part.

They certainly think they behave morally well

The same people who posit the problem of evil will talk about nature, overlooking that the duality of life, including all evil and injustice, comes from nature. It's like asking "why does low temperature exist," I don't know what to tell them, life is dualistic, that's just how it is.

It was not my will to exist, he forced me to do so. Therefore, before my existence he did not care about my free will. So why would he care about it after? In other words, he forces me to exist(trumping my free will) in order for me to have a free will. What's even worse is that if I were to commit suicide, he'd punish me for it. That's like a father forcing a kid to go to his grandma's house, telling him he can choose to not go if he wants to... but when he chooses to not go, the child gets punished. The child never free to do anything. The only way out of this, is to admit that God is evil, which he undoubtly is, and move on. If you use the evilness of god as an axiom, you don't even need to go through all of the mental gymnastics of "free will" and "the best of all possible worlds".

Attached: 1552834917970.jpg (622x621, 54K)

>Really, doesn't everything make sense? There are, of course, things from which we more or less recover, although some of them are too harsh even for saints. But that is no reason to accuse God. Even if there are reasons to doubt him, the fact that he did not arrange the world like a well-ordered parlor is not one of them. It speaks rather in his favor. This used to be much better understood.

Attached: 20120112-141148-739526_0_0.jpg (296x480, 27K)

[In the first part, when I say "he", I mean God hehe]

If God is real, why doesn't he simply reveal himself to mankind? No christkuk ever managed to answer that.

He did and people still denied him. Did you even read the bible?

there is absolutely nothing that exists that should lead anyone with a brain to believe in the existence of supernatural anything. you all are completely fucking stupid. you need this shit for the same reason you need conspiracy theories and UFOs. it makes the universe more interesting, and gives your life some fake purpose.

>it sez roight dere in de buk !

Attached: 6hn.jpg (856x846, 71K)

Logic is not above God. God is not above logic. They are both at the same level. God cannot contradict Himself. Why would God even want to?

Why would He?

This discussion should not even take place until the atheist poses a world without suffering, which is shown to be objectively better for not only humans but also God. I have never seen anyone design a world that can’t be criticized in some way. Most of the contention from atheists seems to stem from their strange belief that suffering absolutely cannot exist, that the world must be illogical and static with no interesting dynamics or plot or anything. God is not some magical wizard that only cares about people acknowledging His existence. He has to fulfill all of His nature, and some of those qualities have little to do with HUMANS of all things.

>He has to fulfill all of His nature, and some of those qualities have little to do with HUMANS of all things.
I think this is why God discussed so much about animals, geology, space, and other finer details having nothing to do with humans when He responded to Job. The complexity of the world, even with all of its joys and sufferings, maximize Truth and give glory to God.

>This discussion should not even take place until the atheist poses a world without suffering
Atheists are not God, so why do you feel that they need to prove that they are?

It has been answered, you haven't looked that up.

merecslewis.blogspot.com/2011/02/our-glimpse-of-god.html?m=1

Attached: 2e6.png (750x750, 543K)

You can’t just complain against God because there is suffering. You first have to prove that God could have created a better world without suffering. The whole basis of the argument is that suffering should not exist, therefore God did not create the world. But no one ever goes into detail about what the world SHOULD look like if God were its creator.

Why are you mad at people who make that argument? How do you know that they aren't being used as a minor role in your deity's divine plan? If you don't believe in the divine plan or determinism then why are you mad at them when they have been given free will by your deity? If you believe in the personification of evil then why don't you see them as being used, possessed, by this personification? It's strange to me that on the one hand you feel the need to defend an omnipotent being, when we are all creations of this being, did he do something imperfect? Is there a single creation in this existence that was not created by your deity? Does your deity cease to be if people stop believing in it and that's why you feel the need to defend it? Should you really be mad at them for saying these things when they're just lost? Shouldn't you find a way to save them or something? Then again isn't there some sections that defend exactly what you're doing? Which way should you go about this?

Atheists make no claim to be God, so there is no reason for them to prove anything. If one is truly God, it should be the one to fathom a world we cannot.

Then why do atheists imagine that the world could be better? They fall back on ignorance and pretend that God messed up somehow, without specifying how God could have done better. Then they use this to justify their hatred of God, or try to argue against God’s existence. It should be very easy to elaborate on a world objectively better than this one if you think God is so flawed for creating this world.

God is one kinky bsdm fuck

Every individual is created as their own God rather than being a fragile meatbag with little control over their own suffering and a transient existence that doesn't even register in the colossal and long lived universe. For a start.

Something as simple as humans not being affected by disease or requiring food to survive would already be a step up. Really not that hard to imagine.

Why are these world objectively better for humans and God?

I wouldn't really call myself an atheist. I simply ask questions because I'm interested in what you have to say.
> It should be very easy to elaborate on a world objectively better than this one if you think God is so flawed for creating this world.
This seems like a very strange way of thinking. Is a objectively better world in this case one with less or none suffering? What if some humans view less suffering as a bad thing? Is it then no longer objectively better? True objectivety is impossible with human perception for we can only understand our own understanding of it. While I can't really speak for atheists, but seeing as we are simply human, we are forced to view the world through human perception, while if there is a God, its perception would, or rather should be far beyond our minscule understanding. As humans we can imagine our world today which is why atheist use suffering as a counter-point to God. If God is there, should it not be capable of being far greater than us?

Right, we cannot judge God based on our subjective perceptions. We can only imagine what God’s objective motivations are for creating this world. I like to believe that God, being omnipotent, is concerned with creating all things, whether be subjectively good or bad to humans. When an alligator eats a human, this is bad for the human, but is this not good for the alligator? But do these subjective perceptions cancel each other out? No, because their existence is objectively good to God because they display His omnipotence. The very event of an alligator eating a human, or a volcano exploding, or grass growing, or the sun shining, or war, or starvation, or disease, or writing a book, or sacrificing yourself for others, all give glory to God in some way (otherwise why would God allow it to exist?). We can even claim that God is objectively good if we define the good as that which tends to existence. But if you define good as some other thing, then we can also remember that Heaven exists, and is much more satisfying due to the suffering we experience in this life. So we are able to receive the greatest possible gift BECAUSE we know what suffering is. If we did not know suffering, wouldn’t this diminish God’s goodness and the way we perceive His love? Does not the child who knows suffering appreciate the gifts of his parents more than the child who is spoiled and never experienced suffering? But perhaps God could have made a world where everyone magically loves God perfectly, without the existence of suffering. But would that world glorify God in other ways as this world does?

>Lover of the body

St. Anthony the Great detected. Please proceed to your nearest apatheia shelter for the glory of Iesos Christos Pantokrator

this. all xtians i know are alcoholics, drug addicts, child abusers, child rapists, porn addicts, adulterers, and just angry manipulative vile unpleasant wastes of oxygen.
if a religion doesn't improve the followers, it's a failed religion.

>god is real, read the bible, it was written by god, it is the infallible word of god
>n-no, not that part of the bible
COPE

There are Christians and then there are nominal Christians. Look at Puritans if you want to see what real Christians look like.

That guy isn’t a Christian

>no true scotsman
I'm still waiting, christ-cvcks. reminder zoroastrianism did monotheism first and your shitty religion is a jewish ripoff scattered with relics of european paganism. reminder that children are being raped by priests right this moment and god must, according to you, be watching with his dick in his hands.
>allow innocents to suffer to test whether they should go to heaven or hell
>when you're already all-knowing and are the one who created them to begin with
>when you could just make the entire world "heaven" to begin with and stop all suffering
>but no
>have some disease, abuse, rape, natural disasters, injuries, more disease, ageing, random car crashes, random acts of violence, war, famine, parasites, predators, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, mental illness, degenerative genetic disorders, cancer, food poisoning, bubonic rats, malaric mosquitos, extortion, slavery, domestic abuse, child molestation...
>remember i love you all though
>cheers

The House of Judgement

And there was silence in the House of Judgment, and the Man came naked before God.

And God opened the Book of the Life of the Man.

And God said to the Man, ‘Thy life hath been evil, and thou hast shown cruelty to those who were in need of succour, and to those who lacked help thou hast been bitter and hard of heart. The poor called to thee and thou didst not hearken, and thine ears were closed to the cry of My afflicted. The inheritance of the fatherless thou didst take unto thyself and thou didst send the foxes into the vineyard of thy neighbour’s field. Thou didst take the bread of the children and give it to the dogs to eat, and My lepers who lived in the marshes, and were at peace and praised Me, thou didst drive forth on to the highways, and on Mine earth out of which I made thee thou didst spill innocent blood.’

And the Man made answer and said, ‘Even so did I.’

And again God opened the Book of the Life of the Man.

And God said to the Man, ‘Thy life hath been evil, and the Beauty I have shown thou hast sought for, and the Good I have hidden thou didst pass by. The walls of thy chamber were painted with images, and from the bed of thine abominations thou didst rise up to the sound of flutes. Thou didst build seven altars to the sins I have suffered, and didst eat of the thing that may not be eaten, and the purple of thy raiment was broidered with the three signs of shame. Thine idols were neither of gold nor of silver that endure, but of flesh that dieth. Thou didst stain their hair with perfumes and put pomegranates in their hands. Thou didst stain their feet with saffron and spread carpets before them. With antimony thou didst stain their eyelids and their bodies thou didst smear with myrrh. Thou didst bow thyself to the ground before them, and the thrones of thine idols were set in the sun. Thou didst show to the sun thy shame and to the moon thy madness.’

And the Man made answer and said, ‘Even so did I.’

And a third time God opened the Book of the Life of the Man.

And God said to the Man, ‘Evil hath been thy life, and with evil didst thou requite good, and with wrongdoing kindness. The hands that fed thee thou didst wound, and the breasts that gave thee suck thou didst despise. He who came to thee with water went away thirsting, and the outlawed men who hid thee in their tents at night thou didst betray before dawn. Thine enemy who spared thee thou didst snare in an ambush and the friend who walked with thee thou didst sell for a price, and to those who brought thee Love thou didst ever give Lust in thy turn.’

And the Man made answer and said, ‘Even so did I.’

And God closed the Book of the Life of the Man, and said, ‘Surely I will send thee into Hell. Even into Hell will I send thee.’

And the Man cried out, ‘Thou canst not.’

And God said to the Man, ‘Wherefore can I not send thee to Hell, and for what reason?’

‘Because in Hell have I always lived,’ answered the Man.

And there was silence in the House of Judgment.

And after a space God spake, and said to the Man, ‘Seeing that I may not send thee into Hell, surely I will send thee unto Heaven. Even unto Heaven will I send thee.’

And the Man cried out, ‘Thou canst not.’

And God said to the Man, ‘Wherefore can I not send thee unto Heaven, and for what reason?’

‘Because never, and in no place, have I been able to imagine it,’ answered the Man.

And there was silence in the House of Judgment.

Christians believe that man is inclined to evil whereas many athiests assume that man is inherently good. Besides, Christians don't use some utililarian moral calculus to determine whether a belief system is good or not. It's only people like JBP who believe that you need religion to make people behave better.

>when you could just make the entire world "heaven" to begin with and stop all suffering
>but no
Read The world doesn’t revolve around you

See Your pride willingness to be right all the time blinds you and only makes you look foolish

samefag

>parents create child
>are called failures if they abuse and neglect child
>god creates man
>you want to be happy? why are you so entitled? the world doesn't revolve around you

False analogy. Parents are supposed to look after their children. God is tasked with creating the whole world. Why would the ultimate, transcendent being of the universe be obligated to prevent all forms of suffering? This is such an arbitrary and selfish way of thinking with little basis in reason

He's supposed to be all powerful. He also fashioned us in his image. I don't know why you're implying the Christian God has better things to do than to worry about us, it's pretty central that he cares about each individual person. He sent his only son down to die on a cross.

lmao. cope. god either doesn't exist or is objectively evil.

He could also be not omnipotent. Or suffering could somehow be not evil but we just dont understand it

Saying anything that leads to less suffering is objectively better is just going to get me a response along the lines of "you can't prove that cutting off your skin is an objectively worse experience than sunbathing!" or something to that effect if prior experience is anything to go by so I won't go at it from that angle.

The way I view it, humans have less control over their own suffering than God, who is entirely in control of his own suffering. God only ever suffers by choice. Would not giving humans that same control over their own suffering be better? You could decide for yourself just how much pain or pleasure you desire for your existence to feel fulfilling. If you think that having complete control over your own suffering is bad and won't lead to happiness, then I ask you if you think God is doomed to misery.

>He also fashioned us in his image.
What do you think this means?
>I don't know why you're implying the Christian God has better things to do than to worry about us
Well He certainly isn’t concerned with creating a utopia that never changes or displays the truths of existence. God is ultimately concerned with truth, and such a world you’re dreaming of would limit truth. God is concerned with our worship of Him because that again contributes to truth. God’s ultimate goal is the glorification of Himself, to know Himself. This doesn’t happen in your fantasy world.

>objectively evil
So you disagree with my claim that God is objectively good?>We can even claim that God is objectively good if we define the good as that which tends to existence
What does it even mean to be objectively evil? Because subjective evil exists, that must mean God is objectively evil? So if subjective good exists, does that mean God is objectively good too?

>Would not giving humans that same control over their own suffering be better?
Well, first of all, we do not have the same motivations as God does. If we were space gods in control of our suffering, what would be the purpose of our lives? Furthermore, why would such an arrangement benefit God?

>God is ultimately concerned with truth, and such a world you’re dreaming of would limit truth. God is concerned with our worship of Him because that again contributes to truth. God’s ultimate goal is the glorification of Himself, to know Himself.
Can anyone argue against this? Does this even align with Christian ideas?

>Well, first of all, we do not have the same motivations as God does. If we were space gods in control of our suffering, what would be the purpose of our lives?
God (and I'm really just addressing the abrahamic one in case I was unclear) doesn't come across as someone completely alien to humans. He has readily definable emotions, by his own admittance, so while I can't say for certain what his motivations are I don't think they're too different from what you'd expect a human's to be if you gave them omniscience and omnipotence. Capability and knowledge of that capacity would certainly alter our motivations, not like you'd content yourself with "get a good job, marry qt, have 3 kids, be happy" if the fabric of reality was your plaything and you have existed before time itself and will exist after. I admit I can't exactly prove that our motivations would be the same but given what we see of God's emotions the greater difference seems to be between our capabilities rather than our temperament. Which also leads me to ask what you think God's purpose is, or if in fact he needs one, given that an omnipotent God might view purpose as redundant as he could uncreate the very concept of purpose let alone the need for it.

>Furthermore, why would such an arrangement benefit God?
I argue that it would be to the benefit of humans, and that this current state is to our detriment. It might not benefit God but I do not see how it would hurt him either, so if he prefers to maintain an existence that is to humanity's detriment needlessly that would be an argument against his morality. Does God need it to be for his benefit? Can he not conjure up other things to his benefit that don't require humans to have no control over their suffering? Can't he simply flip a switch in his own "mind" to give himself contentment as he would receive from a benefit without actually needing said benefit? If God doesn't care about the benefits to humanity, should humanity care about what benefits him, outside of simple capitulation to his strength to avoid punishment? I understand why one might ask "who gives a fuck about human centric benefits?" because indeed why does God need to care, but then why would an uncaring God be inherently good outside of a reduction to "might makes right, and God is mightiest of all (which as far as I'm concerned is all that the divinity arguments boil down to).

>Can't he simply flip a switch in his own "mind" to give himself contentment as he would receive from a benefit without actually needing said benefit?
This idea is central to your whole misunderstanding. God is not a complete, magical, logic-defying wizard who thinks like us and is fully content without creation. I believe everything God does is for Truth. I would even say that God is Truth itself. God necessarily exists and contains the potential for all existence, with a desire to know all things, including Himself. Other Christians might disagree with me, but I don’t believe God is truly God unless there is creation. I don’t think He is complete, or else there would be no need for creation. The world was created for God, not for us. It just so happens that God’s will and our will can perfectly align, benefiting both God and humans. Through our worship of Him we find rest and guidance and meaning, and God sees us as a mirror, reflecting His nature, what He is, a Creator, the giver of all things, the perceiver of all things. God created the world so that He may be known through us. The Bible does speak of emotions, but how else could we understand God? God implanted the wisdom in the writers of the Bible, but ultimately, they wrote down their own understanding of it. We could not understand God’s Word without some sort of “translation,” in my opinion. God is “angry” at sin because it limits our reverence for Him and distracts us. How else should such an idea be delivered so that we can understand and make it practical?

And as for why this world exists, and not another, then it must be the case that this world glorifies God the most. I don’t know all the other “possible” worlds, but perhaps this world has the best mixture of reason and wonder, and most importantly some form of logical development from the beginning to the end. I believe one day everything will be made complete and we will be able to experience the completeness of God and His glory. I cannot think of a better goal for the world. I cannot think of anything more meaningful.

Imagine being such a loser

>implying god is omnibenevolent
dumbass

>People write book
>people forced to believe in book
>new books written by smartbrains prove majority of first book is false
>people start making excuses for first book and keep believing in it
How embarrasing

>God is not a complete, magical, logic-defying wizard who thinks like us
Well the Bible (which is where I derive most if my idea of who God is) does a very poor job of conveying this, though perhaps this is a consequence of your later point about how the Bible is a translation struggle to convey God within a framework humans can comprehend.

>and is fully content without creation
One of my questions was whether this is inherent to his nature or just an innate consequence of greater capability. In other words, would we too have a desire for creation, a desire superceding all others, if you just took a human and made him a god? Where does his need for anything come from? Again, your later point seems to imply that God doesn't really have emotions, and references to such are just abstractions used to convey what God wants in the Bible, but aren't these "wants" or "needs" desires, which implies emotion? Or do you say "need" in the sense that "creation" fills some void for God's existence in the way that, say, matter next to a vacuum "needs" to fill said vacuum as a process of some sort of law of existence?

>I believe everything God does is for Truth. I would even say that God is Truth itself
Define Truth for me, I looked through your previous mentions of Truth when you were responding to someone else but I couldn't quite see what you meant by it, as different people have different ideas of what encompasses Truth. I assume it's not the superficial definition of "facts" that most people seem to interchange it with.

>I don’t think He is complete, or else there would be no need for creation.
Again with the word "need", need by what definition? By a desire born of emotion from a being not too dissimilar from humans, or by some sort of law of what "must" be?

>The world was created for God, not for us. It just so happens that God’s will and our will can perfectly align, benefiting both God and humans.
Again I am having confusion by the word "will" used in regards to God due to how you state that "emotion" doesn't describe anything about God but is just used as a vehicle for conveying the path that must be undertaken for fulfilment of a law of existence/ what "must be". When you speak of aligning wills, why must only the will of humans be malleable while God's is to be immutable? He asks for concessions and in return concedes nothing. Is it just because he's stronger? As for benefitting humans, it seems to me that the benefit comes not from some innate fulfilment like how God "needs" creation but rather due to avoiding punishment (only way to do so because you can't box with God).

I’d be pleased if any atheist can reasonably respond to these posts without resorting to fedora-tier, snarky comments

>And as for why this world exists, and not another, then it must be the case that this world glorifies God the most
This further confuses me. Why does God even need to be glorified? Moving past the idea of needing creation to be complete, why must creation also glorify? That right there really doesn't mesh with the idea that emotions are just metaphors, and that God is in reality beyond them. The need for glorification is straight up human ego. He also purposely creates those who do not glorify him and will inevitably be punished, what purpose do they serve? Or is their defiance in some weird twist also glorification? In which case, why punish them if they fulfill that purpose?

>I’d be pleased if any atheist can reasonably respond to these posts without resorting to fedora-tier, snarky comments
It's pretty obvious from your post that you have an extreme bias, and anything said by an atheist would land on deaf ears.

>god is good because I say so

I believe everything is the way it is so that there can no no contradictions, no gaps, nothing missing in the universe. It’s a bit difficult to describe what Truth is, as if it has some sort of real existence, but it makes it easier to convey the following principles:
>Truth must exist
>Truth contains all possible truths
Truth must exist because no matter what the state of existence or non-existence is, a truth claim can be made about it. If truth did not exist, then it would be true that truth does not exist, causing a contradiction. So non-existence is impossible, since truth must exist. And so Truth requires other things to describe and contain, and therefore creates existence with the end goal of making a truth claim about itself, containing all truths of existence. I think this world is existing for the sake of Truth. In this sense, Truth “needs” the world to be itself, to rid itself of all contradictions and unknowings. It wants to be complete.

This idea of Truth is very similar to God, since it necessarily exists, creates, and wants to be perceived. God becomes complete in the end, rather than being complete from the very beginning. God is “glorified” by becoming complete, and fully knowing Himself. It should be obvious that this glory is not based on pleasure as our brains are, but that the word “glorifies” signifies something else, and is just a way for us to have a basic understanding of God’s “will.”

You might ask what the significance of religion is, why God seems to be so involved in our affairs. God did this on purpose with the goal of completing Himself. Without religion, humans would not be drawn to God, and God would “suffer,” being incomplete. Even the miraculous events in the Bible can be explained because they are simply the product of God’s will, God’s necessary path of completing Himself.

If God is all powerful and evil, why does he allow good to exist?

Attached: file.png (660x445, 195K)

based stealth hermesposter

to sin against your fellow man is to bring the devil into being
to do good to your fellow man is to create god within his own creation

>people write book
>some people believe in book, others dont
>some people who dont believe write books about how majority of first book is false
>some people believe in second books, others dont
>some people who dont believe write books about how second books are false
>anonymous Yea Forums user is embarassed for them

>*argument against the existence of a benevolent god
FTFY

?

Reading comprehension, he asserted dogmatic God does not exist.

Best post ITT. Short, but to the point, I have nothing to add.

>need
It's not a need, it's closer to a want.
>He also purposely creates those who do not glorify him and will inevitably be punished, what purpose do they serve
What? I swear I've never actually seen an atheist who has a complete and genuine understanding of theology, yet most try and criticize from within. Man has free will, this is fundamental.

What is your definition of "morally well"?
There's no objective morality without God.

>Man has free will, this is fundamental.
But it’s not. What passage supports free will as explicitly as Romans 9 contradicts it?

cringe '? in response to based stealth hermesposter' poster

Attached: file.png (1280x720, 1.04M)

Atheists only behave morally because the law of God is in everyone's heart

Are there any teachings in the Bible that support those immoral actions? Or are those actions explicitly forbidden in the Bible? If they are not promoted by the Bible, you cannot criticise Christianity itself but the actions of people who call themselves Christians but do not actually follow the core teachings of the religion

"Jealous" like "Jealous girlfriend", not "Jealous neighbor"

Evil is not a separate thing with its own existence, it is only a lack of good. Good and evil exist on a continuous scale. How can evil be removed? Would God put a limit on how low the scale can go? If he did, what we see as the greatest evil wouldn't exist, but then there new lowest point on the scale will be the greatest evil. Does God have to move the lowest possible point up again? How long does this go on? It would have to go in until the only possible experience is absolute, constant, pleasure. Why would God such a shallow existence that only has one possible experience?

Romans 9 supports the idea that humans have free will, but not sovereign will. We can explore our wills to their limits. We are not restrained except by the law in our hearts, which really just make things more difficult.

Romans 9 specifically makes it clear that we (and our wills) were designed with different capabilities and functions. A psychopath has a different sort of will than a bleeding heart does. Those who were made or formed to be a particular thing will have those attributes and go through life with them. Thus, our wills are free, but they are not limitless and self-creating. They were created as finite and unable to expand farther than the human mind was made to support.

D*miurge enjoys having some playthings to toy with. In fact, every post in this very thread which defends the goodness of God was made by d*miurge

>dogmatic and trancendental God are not the same thing
Have you heard of the Holy Trinity?

You have the option to kill yourself

If dogmatic God transcends human understanding, how did he make it into dogma in the first place?

Because He wanted to

You can't possibly interpret the intentions of a transcendental being.

>I believe everything is the way it is so that there can no no contradictions, no gaps, nothing missing in the universe.
That's quite the assumption, especially because you get to define what the gaps are and contradictions and paradoxes do exist. Something as simple as "can the omnipotent God create a stone he cannot lift" or free will reconciling with a pre set plan of an all knowing and all powerful being.
>Truth must exist because no matter what the state of existence or non-existence is, a truth claim can be made about it.
A "claim" of truth or a true claim? Because the former would essentially be saying that just because you can make a statement (regardless of veracity) about something that it exists, while the latter makes it sound like you can say that God doesn't exist, and the statement might be correct, but this somehow lends credence to his existence. I'm trying to see if I'm misreading you but that's what I'm seeing here.
>So non-existence is impossible, since truth must exist
If this can apply to God what stops it for applying to anything else? Like the existence of Turbo God Mk. II who is a superior God to yours?

Your later ideas remind me of something from a Vidya I once played claiming that Gods required humans to "observe" them in order to have power and meaning. An interesting concept but the problem I have is that even the foundations of logic we are using to generate this requirement shouldn't apply to an omnipotent God, who can create entirely different bounds of logic or something completely incomprehensible as logic where this need isn't present. In other words this "need" is not in fact a need at all but a choice God made.

>Without religion, humans would not be drawn to God, and God would “suffer,” being incomplete.
Only under the logical bounds you specifically created does God find himself needing creation to be complete, or deem incompletion as suffering. You're arguing that an omnipotent being finds himself railroaded into this one option, that doesn't make sense to me.

>What? I swear I've never actually seen an atheist who has a complete and genuine understanding of theology, yet most try and criticize from within. Man has free will, this is fundamental.
Just because I don't have your particular understanding of it doesn't mean it's incomplete. Though I doubt mine is complete anyway which is why I have these discussions to begin with. As for free will, I've never understood how this is possible within the Christian framework. God has a plan. He is all knowing, so he knows the future, he knows what will happen if he creates a specific configuration of atoms at a specific time, he knows everything down to the most minute detail. He is all powerful, meaning that nothing happens without his intention. So when he creates a person, he knows what they will do, and because he is the one who places them in x condition at y environment at z time. Whether you believe the fundamental components of the self are a soul or infinitesimally small units of matter, God made them. He arranged them, he arranged the paths that they would take. He set the path that someone will go long before they even knew of the decision they would have to go that path. Free will is a huge contradiction when you have an all knowing and all powerful god. You can't intentionally set something intl a specific motion and then claim you are not the one behind the path it takes

If God created a different world with different logic, then I would just as easily say God “needed” to create that world. But God created this world. Omnipotence does not literally mean God can do everything imaginable. For example, God cannot contradict His nature. This definition is just too weak, since an omnipotent God could make Himself non-omnipotent, a contradiction. Rather, omnipotence refers to creation, the production of all existence. God has within Himself the potential to create, to know, etc. everything that is not contradictory.

crucified on a cross?

>anytime someone mentions God it has to be one from a religion
is this b8 or are you actually this retarded, OPs post doesn't even mention religion

Consider: "I know how to breath" vs. "I know how to play chess." Are these the same kind of "knowing"? Can the one kind ever be substituted for the other and make sense? How would I know what "knowing" in the latter sense meant if I had not learned? How would I know what a horizon is if my vision has no limits? To say "But that is the definition of omniscience" just puts us back where we started: this is what you must define concretely.

>If God created a different world with different logic, then I would just as easily say God “needed” to create that world.
Then the term needed has absolutely zero meaning as the notion of necessity or obligation is completely thrown out the window. In turn it means that the way things currently are is not the only possible way for God to satisfy himself.


>Omnipotence does not literally mean God can do everything imaginable.
Yes it does. It absolutely does. Maybe if you change the definition to get yourself out of the corner Christianity paints itself into when selling claims of an all powerful God, but I'm not just going to give you that, especially since literally every other Abrahamic theist I have ever talked to understand Omnipotent by the conventional definition of being able to do everything, both imaginable and beyond the bounds of imagination. Most of them even proudly boast of how God's capabilities are so a encompassing that they leave the bounds of human comprehension. Strongly disagree with your definition.

>For example, God cannot contradict His nature. This definition is just too weak, since an omnipotent God could make Himself non-omnipotent, a contradiction. Rather, omnipotence refers to creation, the production of all existence. God has within Himself the potential to create, to know, etc. everything that is not contradictory.

Well I certainly can agree that such a contradiction would undermine the validity of God's existence, but my solution to that isn't to conveniently redefine omnipotence to avoid that contradiction. To me, the contradiction undermines his existence, and if I concede that "logic doesn't matter because he's just that beyond our ken" (I don't) then by the definition of omnipotence I still question his morality in choosing this particular existence.

Both of our thought processes in this regard hinge on what we deem to be the valid definition of omnipotence. Quite frankly omnipotence as I have heard it argued has always been the shot Christianity has fired into its own foot

Then what is the Bible for?

>There are millions of atheists who behave morally well
Absolutely true. The only problem with the Atheist position is that in order for OBJECTIVE morality to exist there must be a preternatural force to make it so. Otherwise at best you are left with subjective morality, which usually winds up being rationalized in some sort of social utilitarian concept.

Convenient social engineering.

And..? How does this counter his point that Christianity is almost definitely false? God is indepedent from Christianity.

Doesn’t the elimination of suffering entail the elimination of free will, to a certain degree? Genuine question

Why does every anime poster without fail say something retarded?

What's interesting to me is that "objective" morality can come from totally different sources, like how Sumer did not have the all powerful singular Yahweh but you still have stabs at morality like the code of Hammurabi who supposedly wrote the laws based on visions of just a single god amongst the many of his religion. Which really boils down to humans being responsible for their own morality

>God is indepedent from Christianity.
The point is that objective morality can't be independent from 'God'. If an atheist holds a position that no god is real, there is no transcendental divine, then there can be no objective morality.

>like the code of Hammurabi who supposedly wrote the laws based on visions of just a single god amongst the many of his religion.
That still is an attachment to the transcendental. Which still allows for the philosophically sound, (although perhaps not true) argument that, "This law is objectively true and objectively moral and just, therefore everyone ought obey it." Without that attachment, you run into the philosophical and practical problem of, why should I obey that law, or that system of morality, when it is not objectively true and merely subjective.

I don’t think the Bible supports your idea of omnipotence. Someone like Aquinas would have disagreed with the claim that God could make a round square or a triangle whose angles don’t add to 180 degrees

>op was so mad at my post he made an entire thread about it
lmao some "faith" rock solid mang, looking for validation on Yea Forums of all places.

but you didnt answer the question user. why bad stuff happen?

once you take away all the things in the pile, there is no truth

>then there can be no objective morality.
and.....SO FUCKING WHAT?
I don't need morality to be a fundamental particle to behave well. I've evolved to draw a sense of pleasure from conducting myself in a moral fashion, it makes me feel proper and safe, that's about as much justification as needed.

I'll have to verify that myself by revisiting passages that describe omnipotence. It's not entirely impossible that the theists I interacted with had the wrong idea of the definition and in turn colored my own interpretation.

It doesn't follow any mainstream dogma, for sure- but remember, Jesus rebuked the religious and loved the sinners.

What is your definition of "God"?

There are no points in the bible where the word "omnipotent" is used.

But Almighty is though, and I do remember several passages state something to the effect of "nothing is beyond God's reach/ there is nothing God cannot do"

I've heard worse

>muh evolution
>muh burden of proof is on u

I've found one of your lectures user.
youtube.com/watch?v=Sn7QvnhJgeA

That show was a treasure.

Here's another (You) for triggering all the christcucks. Based.

Why do you assume that God is benevolent?

Not kidding, there's just so much stuff in it that you don't notice the first time around. Also doesn't become pretentious like most weird but clever shit eventually does.

Yeah, and things like 'beyond man's comprehension' or something like that, too.
my point is something like omnipotent is a philosophical term invented and used to try and find fault or limit God. But it's silly.
Could God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Yes. Could he lift that rock? Yes. He is not bound or constrained or limited by logic.

Very based anons.
Smartest show I've ever seen, probabl that exists.

An indifferent and amoral God is emotionally unsatisfied and nihilistic, even if it is less contentious to make such claim.

A book of Hebrew and Oriental stories has nothing to do with God. It is just a book about one particular race's mythology, which was composed in the Library at Alexandria using the works of Manetho and Berossus, During the reign of Ptolemy II. Gmirkin proved that back in 2006. The book is at the internet archive, read it yrself!

Attached: Gmirkin.png (792x1194, 1.28M)

>unsatisfied
*unsatisfying

Nice.

Attached: 320px-Oscar_Wilde_Sarony.jpg (320x533, 44K)

This. The existence of a higher power is certainly plausible, but I seriously doubt that it would even be aware of us.

Hey, for all you know the lord just can't get no satisfaction?

Elaborate clearly or I'll make fun of you.

reminds me of the temptation of jesus in the desert. devil tempts him three times. he says if youre hungry just have god transform these rocks into bread. he says jump off the cliff, because god will save you. he says bow to me and you can have a whole city to yourself. jesus says naw dawg, thats not how this works. turns out, jesus is right.

because you view the world from a perspective where your most base and material aspects are the arbitrator of what is good and bad

First, in releasing the material body you give te body itself over to alteration, and the form that you used to have vanishes. To the demon you give over your temperament, now inactive. The body's senses rise up and flow back to their particular sources, becoming separate parts and mingling again with the energies. And feeling and longing go on toward irrational nature. Thence the human being rushes up through the cosmic framework, at the first zone surrendering the energy of increase and decrease; at the second evil machination, a device now inactive; at the third the illusion of longing, now inactive; at the fourth the ruler's arrogance, now freed of excess; at the fifth unholy presumption and daring recklessness; at the sixth the evil impulses that come from wealth, now inactive; and at the seventh zone the deceit that lies in ambush. And then, stripped of the effects of the cosmic framework, the human enters the region of the ogdoad; he has his own proper power, and along with the blessed he hymns the father. Those present there rejoice together in his presence, and, having become like his companions, he also hears certain powers that exist beyond the ogdoadic region and hymn god with sweet voice. They rise up to the father in order and surrender themselves to the powers, and, having become powers, they enter into god. This is the final good for those who have received knowledge: to be made god. Why do you still delay? Having learned all this, should you not become guide to the worthy so that through you the human race might be saved by god?

>Why do you still delay?
Because I tried all of this repeatedly and none of the things that people said would change changed, and when I asked what I was doing wrong people just told me that I wasn't trying hard enough.

>N-no you see Plato actually stole all his ideas from this one guy that never existed

Pathetic

I think the question is more commonly, "If God is real, why does something like Daisy's Destruction exist?"

Mammon is a god. People make sacrifices.

For the majority of wild elephants, natural death occurs when their last set of teeth breaks down from eating their diet of tough, abrasive grass, this leading to them slowly starving to death painfully.

Surely God could come up with a better solution than that.

Attached: is-this-atheism.jpg (1300x650, 101K)

I would like someone to do an exposé on the amount of atheist brainwashing in the early 00s. It’s interesting. :3

that's bullshit, but I beleive it

>tfw christcucks always ruin their own threads bitching over shit arguments

Attached: sandalsisforlovers.jpg (1023x789, 83K)

IQ is as observable as spiritualism

What a shitty system

IQ has predictive power, unlike God.

The Old Testament doesn't concern Christians.

christianity is just shitty rip off platonism

>tfw has an awakening 2 weeks ago where I saw my true self and everything clearly
>desperately trying to hold on to that self but falling back into old habits
It’s rough

God gave you free will supposedly to do what you want and that means you will be easily suseptible to sin your whole existence. and has the creator he understands this. so basically the bad shit happening to you is just chance most likely. i don't think god interferes much with what's going on down here. He just created this place and kinda watches it go like a kid with an ant farm. So when people get mad and blame god for stuff he just laughs at you because you don't understand that with free will comes a lot of bad shit too.

>reducing the suffering of all humans to a kid upset that he doesn't get candy
What the hell is wrong with you?

ITT; shitposting of the eternal nature.
pic related

Attached: 5000 gods-only yours is right.jpg (712x712, 75K)

Your conclusion is based on a false axiom, free will.

This may be the stupidest thing I've ever read, The problem of evil is only a problem if you believe in a omnipotent benevolent god. Also no atheist who's thought about it believes that there is a dichotomy between humans and nature as humans are part of nature.

christcucks ITT at a loss for words. there are simply too many questions that cannot be answered without mental gymnastics. the demiurge beckons...

>The very event of an alligator eating a human, or a volcano exploding, or grass growing, or the sun shining, or war, or starvation, or disease, or writing a book, or sacrificing yourself for others, all give glory to God in some way (otherwise why would God allow it to exist?).
By that logic, atheism also gives glory to God, otherwise why would God allow it to exist?

Free will doesn't fucking exist lmao

Even if it did, there is no reason a god cannot make a universe with free will and no suffering.

Based

You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years "searched the depths of the Godhead," and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to "God's cause," which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord's doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God's cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. "Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?" He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause."—Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him! He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is—a purely egoistic cause.

Attached: 1535370200440.gif (170x200, 7K)

Boethius gave a solution to all of this 1500 years ago. God is beyond this plane of existence. This is basic shit. Stop trying to criticize internally, just say you don't believe it, which is the actual truth.

Ok but you didn't refute the argument.

How? Choice suggest that for whatever reason we are to choose between correct and incorrect action, if there is such a thing as evil (incorrect) then maybe only suffering illuminates its nature.

>Because western society is built upon the ten commandments :^)

It's really not though is it. The commandments are the most naive and broad stroke laws around obviously there will be commonality between them and the laws of a country.

>2019
>grown men still need a carrot on a stick to behave morally and cope with death

why do you behave morally?

>Stop trying to criticize internally, just say you don't believe it, which is the actual truth
If Christians did the same and left it at that then we wouldn't even have threads like this.

>god is real because I was born into a family brainwashed enough to believe in him by power structures that benefit from their servility and NOTHING will tell me otherwise
what ironclad proof of a specific and suspiciously knowable transcendental being's existence

It's beneficial to individuals, groups, and society as a whole to do so. We're a cooperative and social species, living in a Hobbesian state of nature would not be desirable to anyone. Without respecting the life and property of others none of our achievements as a species would have been made. If you have any empathy it's a straightforward choice.

>people buy into the modern idea that god is all cuddly bunnies and niceness
He really isn't. The God of the OT and the NT is the same God.
On that same trend of disabusing notions, Hell isn't some fiery pit of eternal doom. It's God. More specifically, it's God's love as he embraces your soul, reflected into pain and suffering and... badness by the stain of sin on your soul. Even then, that will one day be expunged in time, and your suffering will end. "Why should I believe then?", cries my straw man. Because the suffering will be terrible, and, personally, I believe that God suffers as the sinners do.
But enough waffling about off-topic things.
Evil exists because men have to be given the full range of choices, to decide to love God rather than go their own way and suffer after death. I know it sounds retarded, but that's how it is. I don't have any smart, philsophical answer to refute the people that don't believe, but that's okay. There's Christian philosophers that have wrestled with the question of evil for a long, long, time. You can believe that I'm wrong and a dumb-dumb who believes in a non-existent sky-daddy, and that's fine. God loves you, even so. He's just hurt that you don't love him back, is all.

>half the Bible doesn't concern Christians

Carrot is good society
stick is hobbesian state of nature
LMAO at your life moral cuck

wrong board fgt

75% actually