You know you proved this fool easily wrong when you propose freewill and all his followers make the rest of the debate about freewill doesn't actually exist. Kek
>>18027713>Make up strawmanWhy does free will require that plagues and natural disasters happen? Nobody uses human acts as the argument of evil, they use natural "acts of God."
>>18027737>Nobody uses human acts as the argument of evil, they use natural "acts of God."Actually it's the opposite usually. Fucking kek
>>18027713So god couldn't invent free will without pain and suffering?
>>18027750>N-nobody says what you just saidI just said it, refute it. Why does childhood cancer need to exist for humans to have free will? FFS the argument of free will suggests Adam and Eve lacked free will before consuming the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which means God was punishing all of humanity for something two people had no control over.
>>18027760>>18027753Uh oh mommy didnt teach little boys about basic reality.>you can choose your actions but not your consequences
>>18027766>The consequences of a child existing is cancerSeems like God punishes entirely arbitrarily to the point where one might as well just wholly disregard him.
>>18027713Youre looking at it wrong. Its good and evil that don't exist. Why should an all powerfull beeing care about others?
>>18027768>existing Hmm? Don't you know anything about the Christian religion? >the wages of sin is deathLiving in the natural world apart from God brings about things that are not good. Basically you are a child because you see earthquakes and diseases as evil because they dont benefit you. fucking kek
>>18027773Thats the heart of the Christian religion. God chooses to love His creation from choice, not necessity
>>18027776They don't benefit anyone you retard.>Let me just arbitrarily claim things are good and that your suffering is part of a bigger plan as though God can only accomplish his plans through the suffering of individuals.Saying that suffering is part of God's plan is a cope by people unwilling to accept that they're simply suffering and that no wider good will come of it. Your cjild being born with Downs isn't part of some great plan, it's an unfortunate biological defect.
>>18027783>>Let me just arbitrarily claim things are good and that your suffering is part of a bigger plan as though God can only accomplish his plans through the suffering of individuals.I never said this. You need to brush up on your English.
>>18027778Why does he love choose to love his creation? If love is something we choose then why bot simple choose not to care?
>>18027784>Basically you are a child because you see earthquakes and diseases as evil because they dont benefit you. Are you suggesting God inflicting those on people is benevolent despite benefitting nobody? That's actually a more retarded belief.>Yeah I bashed your kid's head in. You should thank me because he had it coming for being born with original sin.
>>18027785>Why God do thing? Don't know why, just know He does. Enjoy the benefit
>>18027790Or maybe he doesn't exist.
>>18027789Oh I see your reasoning now. Basically you are confusing Christianity with some sort of fatalism. Christianity doesn't teach that every thing that happens is God directly doing that thing. Like I said sin had consequences for the world collectively and as such the world cant be all about our benefit unless it and we are in communion with God
>>18027797>what if God le doesn't exist??7Wow wouldn't that be crazzzzy?????
>>18027790>oh he just does???We are simply here for his enjoyment.
All the suffering in the world is there so that this god that the god believers imagine exists could get praised and worshipped by us mere mortalsbecause he cares about that apparently
>then why is there evilBecause God gave us freedom to turn away from him. Which is more benevolent than forcing us to do His bidding.>Could God have .... [myriad of other copes]>Why didn't he?Not an argument. No conclusion is validated by this declaration of ignorance.>then why didn't he [create a universe without evil]Without *potential for evil. See above. >Could God have created a universe with free will but without evil?Yes. One where humans don't have access to what Genesis describes as the knowledge of good an evil. And if safety was a higher priority than theosis, he for sure would have done that. But as it it happens, safety isn't the highest priority.And as for the implication that a world without potential evil would be better, that's an invalid conclusion in terms of logic. A world where evil can't even potentially exist operates by completely different set of logical rules than our universe. To compare the two universes you have to step outside both logical frameworks, because you need to encompass both in your judgement. You aren't even remotely capable of doing that do that. Ergo you can't pronounce that judgement.
>>18028203Question for you anon.If god is all benevolent he eitherchooses to be, if thats the case why?Or he is good by nature, ergo he doesn't have free will since he can't even choose to do evil on purposeWhat is it?
>>18028236Free will in religious terms is the capacity for a person's nature to express itself without obstacle. God's nature is inaccessible to us and cannot be put into words, but goodness is one of his energies, which for the purpose of this question might be close enough. What you're asking about, the deliberative choice to do one thing or another, is free choice, a human substitution of free will. God doesn't need free choice, his will is free already.
>>18028243So is it just perchance that we live in a universe where god is good out of his free choice?He is all knowing there has to be a reason why he chooses to be good.
>>18028251>out of his free choiceThat's like saying he doesn't even have crutches. It's called being perfect.>He is all knowing there has to be a reason why he chooses to be good.Presuming it is a choice, which I don't see that it is.
>>18028254This implies beeing perfect includes one morality.Imagine an open world sandbox game minecraft for example.You treat other players with respect, dont steal from them etc.You encounter a player he is the best in pvp, bulding etc.Yet he is a dick. He is literally perfect but his heart is as cold as ice.So are you saying to be perfect you have to be good?
>>18028282I'm not sure what the minecraft bit added to the last line but yes, perfection includes all aspects, even morality.
>>18028284Sorry i don't see how morality ties into perfectnes.
God is either evil or highly personal or idiosyncratic There. That's your answer to the Epicurean Paradox. I'm not even a Christian, but this only works on mainstream Christianity that teaches omnibenevolence, which traditionally early Christians and the people of Judea would not have necessarily believed in specifically because they knew it would lead to such a paradox.
>>18028311What do you think perfection means? If a supposed perfect human body were found would you expect his right leg to be healthy but would not care if his left leg is rotting away? All faculties and aspects need to be perfect. The ones of reason, of morality, of aesthetics...
>>18028315>Early Christians were worried about paradoxes that don't stand to reason>While preaching that a man was fully God, died and rose from the deadProbably not. It's implied in the epistles that philosophy and reason according to world's metrics are not necessarily a concern.
>>18028321I wouldn't say that they needed to worry about paradoxes necessarily to see the glaring issue with the idea of omnibenevolence. Plus they were heavily influenced by Hellenistic religions where every God was their own brand of chaotic neutral, and Greco-Romans had plenty of time to think about philosophy to come to the same conclusions.
>>18028325Pagan gods were chaotic neutrals not by virtue of some philosophical conclusion, it's just a remainder of primitive animism and shamanism from which Greek paganism developed. They didn't expect Hera to be moral because their ancestors didn't expect a deer spirit (or whichever animal it was) to be moral, her earlier version.>glaring issueWith a glaring solution - God can transform anything into goodness. The objectin about evil then boils down to "but I'd love to know the reason why this wasn't done already". Well, buddy, we might find out one day. But curiosity isn't an argument.
>>18028317Imagine you walk along a street .There you see a begger. He asks ypu for some money.You can choose between ignoring him or giving him some change.As you stand before him you think.I will give him some money becauseBoom, good and evil as concepts collaps.Because you didn't give him money of the goodnes of your heart but because you know it will make you more perfect wich is nothing but a selfish desire.Your good deed was now not an act of love. Though the result is still good your intent wasn't.
>>18028330>Could God have Created a Universe without evil? -> Yes -> Then Why didn't he?What you have isn't a real answer. The real answer is early Christians and the people of Judea saw their God as idiosyncratic much like the Greeks saw their own Gods and we have plenty of evidence to suggest this. God is said to create evil, God created Satan specifically to carry out evil acts on his behalf. God is known for carrying out morally dubious acts all throughout the Bible.
>>18028339>Goodness collapses if subject to reasoningI don't see that that's the case at all.If you're trying to refer to >>18028243 and say that me using deliberative choice is a sign of limited will, then yes. My will is nowhere near free yet. And the the goodness that is imparted onto my nature is limited in its self-expression. But it's expressing itself regardless.
>Then Why didn't he?What you have isn't a real objection. It's an expression of curiosity. And my answer addresses curiosity.>God is said to create evilGod is said to create disasters, which is how Isaiah consistently uses the hebrew term from 45:7.
>>18028352 meant for >>18028340
>>18028352>>18028353Not curiosity, it's called a rhetorical question my friend, the point is that God could've created a universe without evil and just didn't.
>>18028356That is completely correct. He allowed imperfect beings to exist so they find perfection later. One of the most benevolent things he could have done. See, every time you actually make a critique, you will find that it's not only been addresed, it's been specifically pointed out why it's the actual benevolent option. And you're completely within your right to wonder why or how this or that aspect of a decision was carried out. But then again, that's curiosity, not actual objections.
>>18028371You can reframe Gods actions as benevolent but at best you're just suggesting that God is morally neutral AKA he's idiosyncratic and personal which is exactly what early Christians believed, so yes it has been addressed already, you're just using mental gymnastics to frame God is omnibenevolent for some weird reason even though it's not even necessary
>>18028348What i am saying is as soon as you do good out of anything other than for itself, it is not 100% good anymore. Thus morlity can not be part of perfection.Why?Because goodnes is supposed to be selfless, and as soon as you tie this to perfectnes becomes a stat. Something you want to max out. Making pure selflessness impossible.
>>18028376Benevolent hence morally neutral doesn't quite work. God is good.
>>18028383>Benevolent hence morally neutral doesn't quite workYou're right, you having to reframe Gods actions as being benevolent to justify them hence morally neutral does however work. >God is good.God is personal, I don't know why you struggle to understand this.
>>18028380>What i am saying is as soon as you do good out of anything other than for itself, it is not 100% good anymore. Being aware of reasons doesn't detract from a thing in itself. If you were to do something out of greed, it wouldn't become only 99% greed once you stop and think of the exact causal cash flow mechanism.>goodnes is supposed to be selflessIt's supposed to transcend the self, sure. That's not the same thing as denying selfhood.
>>18028401>you having to reframe Gods actions as being benevolent to justify them hence morally neutral does however workThis doen't work either because if a judgement is merely a question of "re-framing" then your objections are a result of a mere "re-framing" as well and they hold no more power than my answer does. >God is personal, I don't know why you struggle to understand this.Struggle away, I suppose. The topic is goodness. God is good.
>>18027798>Like I said sin had consequences for the world collectivelyWhy tho? What prevents god, a purportedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent being from saying "yeah you're little assholes but I'll make everything else in this world purpose so all suffering is entirely from you being assholes. If anything it would make his glory even more apparent when nobody could blame their suffering on God. Why did your child die? Not because of cancer, he died because a guy made a choice to get addicted to crack, and while high on crack grapped your baby and spiked them like a football.
>>18027801Seems like a reasonably shallow response to>We can't explain, it's just God
>>18028408Yes but that means something as pure evil or pure good can not exist.Wich god is though proofing it can exist.Not in the realm of perfectnes though.
>>18028423>Yes but that means something as pure evil or pure good can not exist.No, it just means you define "pure" to mean "ignorant of reasoning", which is unwarranted.
>>18028416>God is good.He isn't good by human standards. Your argument boils down to Gods morals not aligning with our own, or that we must realign out morals to match this of God, but not only is this not Biblical reality (God creates evil) but it's just not reality anyways because God is supernatural and has flooded the entire planet just to prove a point. Again, you have no valid reason to consider God inherently good. The only honest answers to Gods morality is that he's personal. His actions are highly personal, he made us in his image. Omnibenevolence just doesn't work.
>>18028424You wan't to be perfect.Meaning you wan't to be perfectly moral wich includes no egoism. But wanting to be perfect is an act of ego. Making becoming perfect if morality is included impossible.
>>18028441What if you want to be perfect for the sake of others with no regard for your own notoriety or ego? Akin to someone who anonymously donates money.
>>18028431>>God is good.>He isn't good by human standardsI mean yeah, he is not "healthy" by human standards either because his blood pressure isn't around 110/70. You can't apply expectations we (barely) formed for each other and place it upon a being of a completely different category. You're completely right in that regard - human standards are irrelevant when it comes to God.>we must realign out morals to match this of GodYes.>not only is this not Biblical reality God spends most of the Bible teaching things, including morality.>(God creates evil)False, see >>18028352>God is supernatural and has flooded the entire planet just to prove a pointAnd it was good.>you have no valid reason to consider God inherently goodNote that you shifted the goalpost. We weren't discussing the reasons on which "God is good" is based, we were discussing the stability of this objection. Are you content with the stability being fairly good after all, instead moving to the base of the claim altogether?>The only honest answers to Gods morality is that he's personal.Nobody denies God is personal. He is the most personal being there will ever be. And the most benevolent too. Omnibenevolence works just fine, seeing that the only obstacles are curiosity and one awkwardly translated verse.
>>18028454>were discussing the stability of this objectionstability of this *claim
>>18028454>False, see >>18028352Read your own book my guy
>>18028447We've come full cyrcel.Now why would one wan't that?Why would god wan' t that?
>>18028474You think I didn't read a verse on which translation and linguistics I just commented?
>>18028454>Omnibenevolence works just fine,It doesn't because it leads to the Epicurean Paradox. God does not need to be omnibenevolent, he doesn't need to be held to that standard. He can be all powerful and still be imperfect.
>>18028486>It doesn't because it leads to the Epicurean ParadoxWhich doesn't really matter, since the "paradox" really just boils down to "but why did God do that?". Curiosity is not an objection.>God does not need to be omnibenevolentHe absolutely does and he absolutely is.
>>18028493>Which doesn't really matter, since the "paradox" really just boils down to "but why did God do that?"Which is a valid question to ask if God is meant to be omnibenevolent, but if he isn't, then there is no paradox. God doesn't need to be omnibenevolent, we have more evidence to suggest he isn't. >He absolutely doesWhy?
>>18028505>Which is a valid question to askAbsolutely! It just isn't a paradox or an objection. It's curiosity. We don't discard concepts just because our curiosity needs to be satisfied lol.>>He absolutely does [need to be omnibenevolent]>Why?Because if the source of all goodness isn't itself good, then there is another source, a "God beyond God". You've essentially arrived at gnosticism, one of the "sexiest" fallacies that at first promises a simplification (of non-issues like curiosity) but ultimately delivers a clusterfuck of a theology (with major issues like body hatred).
>>18028515This makes morals arbitrary.Might is right.
>>18028515>Because if the source of all goodness isn't itself goodBut God is also the source of all evil. Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that God is just personal and is not wholly good or evil but rather acts in his own interests? Isn't that literally the point of appealing to him, so that he doesn't send us to Hell and so we can serve him in his kingdom forever?
>>18027766That wasn't relevant. Why didn't God create free will without suffering? Are you trying to say he couldn't? Or are you saying that he intentionally added suffering and evil?
>>18028535Like i said good and evil collaps
>>18028535The problem is people have convinced themselves that God is "nice" somewhere along the line. I'm not sure why or when
>>18028527If this registers as arbitrary to you then all reality including physical laws are "arbitrary", since they are also based on God. Quite an odd usage of the word.>God is also the source of all evilFalse, see >>18028352 for the third time>>>>>>>>God is said to create disasters, which is how Isaiah consistently uses the hebrew term from 45:7.
>>18027713>could god make a universe without disparity?no. also quit calling it "god" as if it's some kind of authoritative figure>t. hermeticist
>>18028535God is said to create disasters, which is how Isaiah consistently uses the hebrew term from 45:7. The translator did not mean a metaphysical sense of evil.
>>18028561>God is said to create disastersDisasters aren't good things my guy, not sure if you know that.
>>18028568Earthquakes aren't "evil", my guy, not sure if you knew that.
>>18028571I'm glad you agree with me that God can't be described as inherently good or evil, and like I've been saying this entire fucking thread, it's more accurate to say that God is highly personal.
>>18028578I'm glad everyone except you can tell this is nowhere near what >>18028571 was addressing. God is good.
>>18028584But whyyyyyy?If he chooses to be why?
>>18028595You had already asked me in >>18028505 and we discussed it in >>18028515 onwards. If something in the replies is not clear, point it out, don't just reset.
>>18028584I'm glad everyone except you can tell this is nowhere near what >>18028568 was addressing. God is not omnibenevolent. Open a Bible and this quickly becomes very apparent. I would go as far as to argue that you're holding God to an embarrassedly low standard by implying he can do no wrong. He is capable of spite. He's not inherently evil either and is also capable of good, but omnibenevolent he is not. He is personal, made us in his image, and we are meant to serve him in his kingdom. This is what the Bible teaches, not your twisted evangelical narrative bullshit.
>>18028608>He is capable of spite.He is capable of behavior that in terms of Hebrews would be interpreted as spite. And anger. Etc.>"God is good" is twistedLmao>God is not omnibenevolent. Open a Bible and this quickly becomes very apparent.Apparent from the thought-provoking analysis of "would I give a human a pass if they did this"?
>>18028615>God is good because god is good because god is goodYou are easily the dumbest person ITT by the way
>>18028619Nothing in the post you tagged is trying to address "why is God good" lmao you had one bullet and you missed.
>>18028607Yea we ended were we started
>>18028584He does whatever he wants. Its just coincidencde he doesnt want me to rape your mother.
>>18028642Coincidence? God is subject to randomness and various forces that determine his will?
>>18028654He gets mad when you disrespect him.
>>18028654And the next day he wants me to rape you.Would that be good. NoWhy doesnt he want it?According to you because he is kot even capable of wanting it
>>18028667I don't see that engaging in a dialogue, in whichever way God's responses were described by the Hebrews (see >>18028615) makes you subject to randomness or outside forces.>>18028680God designed a world where rape is not good so he does not order it. If he had designed a world where it were good, he would logically be justified in ordering it. And you might run a mental experiment about existing in that world if you like, but that has nothing to do with how God actually is.
>>18028697First of you are arguing with multible people Second, if he designed it that way there is no reason he couldnt have designed it otherwise. Making it arbitrary
