He did it out of his own free will

see

Anthropomorphic jealous God with beard and violent mood swings is infinitely more compelling than God as "oneness" ...like bro this pencil is God. Boring!

Well... you can count is an conaiderable effort to explain the mistery too. I gave you the permission to not to take Genesis too literally.

Man is responsible for that

There's a flaw in your logic there champ

This is anthropomorphizing God, but whatever. I actually don't see a problem with the picture. It is creation happening.
Karma

>atheists resort to denying free will so they can critique the morals of God

>christcucks interpret the bible literally
>philosophy/science advances to a point where it can critique the bible
>'No actually, it was all metaphorical'

Can you even define free will?

You're looking at this from a relative and contingent point of view. A universal point of view sees all. The cancer may prevent further sufferings that would be more grave or allow salvation of the soul that was destined to perish. Disharmonies harmonise as you change your point of view from contingency to universality. The universal and God are one and perfect.

>allow salvation of the soul that was destined to perish
Aborted 'babies' (since christcucks never accept they are fetuses) go to heaven anyway, lol.

An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god could and would prevent all suffering outright.

You are attaching a negative connotation to suffering from a relative point of view. An equally relative point of view could give a positive connotation to suffering (e.g. character building). Both of these are irrelevant. Suffering merely is and is perfect.

Reading Milton again and boy oh boy does he hate women.

And the universal point of view is that omnipotence and monibenevolence would completely cancel out all suffering

See

Attached: god-flowchart-52127158.png (900x1201, 61.93K)

you’ll burn in hell, tranny

The first premise is wrong. From a universal perspective, neither evil nor good exist. Only when one takes on a relative perspective that such sentimentalities that give rise to "good" and "evil" can appear. The secret is: the Demiurge is our own ego that refuses to accept the universal perspective and instead substitute it for our own relative one. In this way, the Demiurge creates "evil". But remember it never REALLY exists only virtually.

Attached: takemeds.jpg (374x470, 55.45K)

>no argument
Better luck next time.

>Suffering merely is and is perfect
stockholm syndrome

>stockholm syndrome
It's a value-less analysis. I'm not attributing any positive meaning to suffering.

>he thinks this pseudo-intellectual incontinence is an argument

>still no argument
You should be able to point out where my logic is faulty.
Try again.

Yet you are attributing a negative meaning to atheism. Curious...

>You should be able to point out where my logic is faulty.
The discussion was about the Christian conception of God, this
>From a universal perspective, neither evil nor good exist.
has nothing to do with what Christians believe, it's just your schizo strawman.

I love it when pseuds who "dunk" on Christians come in with such confidence using their child-like meme images and get absolutely BTFOed with only a slightly nuanced Gnostic position.

Attached: kek.jpg (471x388, 94.25K)

Obvious samefag is obvious

When did I? Oh wait, I didn't.

It's literally written in Genesis. Just because the cucked catholics, prots and orthocucks have promulgated wrong interpretations doesn't mean that this view is invalid.

Yeah, it was me. I was laughing at how pathetic your attempts are.

>It's literally written in Genesis. Just because the cucked catholics, prots and orthocucks have promulgated wrong interpretations doesn't mean that this view is invalid.
Lmfao this faggot thinks he knows more about Christianity than every major branch of the Church.

Yes.

Attached: schizo chad.jpg (680x780, 31.64K)

When you are arguing in imageboards, you are attributing a postive meaning to your philosophy and necessarily a negative meaning to contradictory philosophies, such as atheism. If it were otherwise, you would not post at all.

Do you have a source for that post? An Academic Journal, perhaps.

>The first premise is wrong. From a universal perspective, neither evil nor good exist.

And this tells me you're a hopelessly sheltered little boy. You should test this by intentionally infecting yourself with a horrendously painful disease, and then ask yourself if there's still no difference between good and evil.

Of course you won't, because types like you never put your money where your mouths are

What about relative perspectives do you not understand? Someone who has a sheltered upbringing may have a positive association with suffering and someone who hasn't may have a negative one. These are both contingent and irrelevant to the universal.

You don't understand what value-free means.

Again, nobody cares about your claims about suffering. Implement it in your own life or don't expect anyone to take your takes on suffering very seriously

Is that a positive analysis, a negative analysis or an analysis that did not need to be made at all?

I never said you had to believe in the universal. You can choose not to. I simply showed up because people were attributing relative things to the universal.

That's not what value-free means. Value-free means objective or free from subjective/relative standards.

>I never said you had to believe in the universal.

Nor did you need to, the fact that you don't expose yourself to the consequences of your own ideas tells me more than enough about their validity

Is that your opinion, your analysis or your perspective?

Free will is self-evident, it is a fool's game to deny it.
I think, therefore I am. I choose, therefore I am free.

Did you have to post?

Are your choices random, or do make them for one reason or another.

I am perfectly within my metaphysics by not caring. As I said, I didn't come to proselytise but rather correct misconceptions. You can choose to accept them or not; that is partly up to how well I've presented them and also your personal disposition. Belief in the universal is not for all.

Yes, to see if my metaphysics can withstand criticism. It has.

Random when I choose them to be, rational when I choose to consider.
Internal choices affect external actions, of which there are a multitude of different choices to make during.
>I am going to buy some food
Is an internal choice I make when I think it is a good time to gather supplies, both in that I am not interrupting my work and also that I actually need them.
Then the external choices of what exactly to buy come more into play once I am at the store. I may be confronted by something I had overlooked, or not known about being on sale, etc... when that happens I make another choice as a part of the greater choice to buy food. Some of those will be random, based on whims and temporary fancies/cravings. Others will be rational, contemplating if I could make good use of an item/ingredient and coming to a decision.
Others I decide even more arbitrarily, if I cannot come to a decision I leave it to chance in some way (a coin, a die, waiting for something to happen that is out of my control, etc...) and then firmly stuck with whatever the result of that is. Ultimately, it is a choice I made to leave it up to chance.

It 'withstood criticisim' because all metaphysics is unfalsifiable, and anyone can argue whatever they want about metaphysics.

>When I choose
Do you choose randomly, or according to one reason or another.