File: 1786343065209351.png (2.96 MB, 1024x1536)

2.96 MB PNG

>>25479058
why do pastors preach divorce?
why do men listen to divorce threatening skanks instead of lynching child molesting faggots?

File: 1787060497871472.jpg (223 KB, 1095x500)

223 KB JPG

>>25479058
(3) richard dawkins said the experience of being harry pottered by his boarding schools dumbledore didnt affect his life or ideas
(2) now you know why harry potters real father, snape, killed dumbledore
(1) j/k rowling hates faggots and her self insert character lily potter was killed to avoid the shame of abandoning her family

>>25479058
god is real but it doesn't love you or care
love and care are human attributes
something as sophisticated as the creator of the universe is above all that bullshit
religion is for coping brainlets

File: Screenshot 2026-08-20 at (...).png (454 KB, 574x574)

454 KB PNG

Problem of tag >>25475234
>If an omniscient and omni-benevolent god doesn't exist, how can we know whether it is indeed wrong fom abusers to harm defenseless babies? How do we know that slow painful disease ought not happen? Why do we believe suffering to be unwarranted?
This would be my serious reply but I also always like to say that the "if the world is not perfect and we're all not in a constant state of bliss, how can God exist?" can easily be countered by "if God doesn't exist, how come all babies don't eat their mothers like spiders do and how come we're not all born with 20 types of cancer?" which is, I hope you recognize, silly- what standard for suffering do you have? There is disease. If that weren't the case, you would say: There is death. And on and on and on and on until you ask "why am I not being eternally blown by Elle Fanning?".
Yours isn't a serious argument, it's the whining of a child.

File: IMG_7616.gif (122 KB, 496x372)

122 KB GIF

>>25479058
your question reveals nothing about god, but it reveals a lot about how you perceive your life.
https://rumble.com/v4qz6rl-the-evil-of-the-world-is-what-makes-you-crazy.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_ucp_v

>dood, if god exists, why earth isn’t paradise?

>>25479225
Why indeed?

>>25479058
>an omniscient and omni-benevolent god
Your premise is wrong.

>>25479058
*kisses (You) on the lips*

>>25479058
Babies deserve it

ITT freaks body themselves

File: images (4).jpg (29 KB, 376x531)

29 KB JPG

>>25479058
Because for compassion to mean anything at all, there has to be the ability to do evil. You only understand the positive impact of altruism because you've been on the receiving end of malevolence, or watched someone else take the hit. It's a necessary evil on humanity's part.

And if you think karma means "God strikes a tree with lightning and drops it on you as you're passing by because you tripped an old lady yesterday" or some shit like that, you're woefully misinformed.

>>25479058
why do you allow pedophiles and abusers to harm defenseless babies?

>>25481681

So scrolling 4chan and Reddit, watching YouTube videos, reading erotica, watching porn, playing video games, is evil?

>>25479191
What does the elderly whore in the pic have to do with anything?

>>25481681
>Because for compassion to mean anything at all, there has to be the ability to do evil.
Sounds like a limitation an omnipotent being would be able to circumnavigate

>>25481761
you can at least try reading

>>25481888
Not a limitation on God, but a foundation that lets him (and us) rightly judge our moral actions.

If we were only ever compassionate, or only ever evil, God couldn't fairly punish us for it. He's the one who made us that way. But that's not how it is. He made us able to know right from wrong and to choose whether we act on it.

Not saying that God can't unfairly judge us or that he somehow has to judge us fairly, but that it speaks to his benevolence.

>>25481898
Why is it important that God judges us?

>>25481903
Because God is holy and just, so he reacts rightly to sin and injustice. And because your actions have consequences on your soul beyond the practicality of your day to day life. Also knowing that we are to face a fair judge encourages us to live honestly and seek mercy.

>>25481914
>Also knowing that we are to face a fair judge encourages us to live honestly and seek mercy.
It always comes down to this.
The religious crowd would do evil things on the regular but for fear of God. Protip: there are people who live their lives without that fear that still don't do evil things in the regular (the reason i included the "on the regular" part is that religious or not, a fair amount of people on earth going to have at least one fairly big "sin" on their record).

>>25481919
>It always comes down to this.

There were two other reasons before that. Yes, I'm aware that you don't have to fear God to do good, hence why I used the word "encouraged."

>>25481889

Reading erotica?

>>25481914
But you said he set up a foundation that allows him to judge our moral actions. I'm saying why is that important. Why set that up

>>25481996
>I'm saying why is that important.

I answered.
>Because God is holy and just, so he reacts rightly to sin and injustice.

In His benevolence, He gave us an understandable framework upon which we and Him can judge our moral actions. He could've, if He was even 0.1% evil, made human life just a billion years of agonizing torment before we die and are subjected to an eternity of agonizing torment.

>>25482012
You're not understanding me, because you just explained that God created the world the way that it is so that he can indulge in his favorite hobby of judging people. The original question is why does evil exist, and the answer is so that compassion can exist, and thus a moral foundation by which to judge a rational actor. But why is it important that rational actors be given a space to make moral actions, and then judge them on those actions. Why separate the wheat from the chaff when wheat and chaff are distinctions based on a closeness to virtue that you created distance from in the first place.

>>25479058
The conclusion is obvious... pedos raping a child's butthole is good and wholesome.

>>25482058
>But why is it important that rational actors be given a space to make moral actions, and then judge them on those actions. Why separate the wheat from the chaff when wheat and chaff are distinctions based on a closeness to virtue that you created distance from in the first place.

Sorry it took me a while to answer. The word "important" in your sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting: God created that distinction to judge us fairly as individuals once our lives end. And though I'm not totally sure about this, I don't think the distinction is something He's bound to uphold. Obviously nothing stops Him from judging us unfairly if He wanted to, but because He's benevolent and just, He chooses to uphold the framework He set for us to follow.

God was generous enough to make you a rational being, giving you the space to think and to develop a real sense of right and wrong. And He's fair enough that if you make enough morally sound choices, your soul gets rewarded when your life ends. Obviously, I have no definitive idea how "important" it was to Him, especially if we're speaking in omnipotence terms, but it still speaks to the benevolence side of things.

>>25481898
How do you deal with natural evils? By natural evils I mean evils that I take to be apart from the actions of humans: cancer, animal suffering, infant mortality etc.

>>25481681
>Because for compassion to mean anything at all, there has to be the ability to do evil
Why? You just assert this without reason. It just sounds like cope/shilling.

It is fundamentally good that beings like us, made in God's image and being a small mirror of Him, were made. Even if we (Adam and mankind as collective being continuous in some ways rather than discrete, though not in terms of actual guilt for the discrete sin of the fall) misused our abilities as such beings. Even if we are capable of gross misuse, privation, abuse, and horrors. The good that comes from beings like us exerting our wills in small reflection of the will of God and its power of creation, begetting, and generation is good in a fundamental manner that is hard for us to perceive from inside our nature, but this good is why we were brought into being at all.

>>25479058
Who cares? Blame God, stop believing in him, whine like a little bitch about it, so what? It doesn't change anything. Learn to cope with your suffering and shut the fuck up

>>25479058
You got it backwards, an all-good God isn't responsible for stopping evil or making sure every person has good in their lives. Or even that good prevails over evil.

Rather, goodness can ONLY come from God. So therefore, no matter what good you do its actually derived from God because he is the source of goodness in the universe.
We are just imitating god and he encourages this behavior.

The things we consider good, are just what we've agreed upon as humans, they are not truly good so therefore things like people suffering randomly or innocent babies being killed or raped is not God's problem, because he is already inherent in all goodness that can be. He doesn't need to make good triumph over evil because he IS good and evil. He is everything

>>25483949
wat

>>25483949
>He doesn't need to make good triumph over evil because he IS good and evil. He is everything
lots me there

>>25483964
if the lord knows all things, then he already knows the outcome of your choices, and therefore every person we think of as evil, like criminals and murderers, he knew all the stuff they did would happen. And the Lord does not intervene in these cases, so that means its not wrong what they're doing. Remember God created all humans, and the concept of being able to choose, and the concept of sin. So its all God in the end.
and only God could know what kind of cosmic purpose "evil people's" decisions serve, and since we can't know that divine understanding, he instructs us in a way that is practical for our lives as humans: to not kill people and not empower others with the authority to kill people.

File: 1785940548491399.png (264 KB, 908x1098)

264 KB PNG

>>25483975
>the problem of evil isn't a problem because it just isn't okay

Is it just me who can't find an actor to play Ivan that satisfies me? Because OP is too intellectual. Ivan is only 24, I picture him looking similar to Alyosha but with a slightly more mature face, precisely to create the contrast. He isn't torn apart by the children's suffering as a logical argument, but by an immense love. To me, it would take a young, kind face that is tormented at the same time. I don't know if this is a limitation of visual adaptations.

>>25483949
This makes much more sense to me than "evil is necessary to have good"

>>25483882
Compassion is a response to suffering, and a forced action carries no moral value. If a person can't choose to harm others, they're not acting with free will.

>>25479058
>If an omniscient and omni-benevolent god exists
FOR THE 1000TH TIME

HUMANS HAVE FREE WILL AND MUST DECIDE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL

THE WRONG CHOICE LEADS YOU TO HELL AND ETERNAL DAMNATION

see how easy that was?

>>25484378
Sure, after all, a child ripped apart by dogs must have committed sins to deserve it

>>25481888
It's a limitation in the same sense that you can't have an apple be 100% red and 100% green at the same time. It would break the structure of existence to do that. I humbly submit to you that what you actually mean to say is that you think the current structures of existence that require evil to happen are suboptimal. I think that's a much clearer way to think about the problem of evil, rather than a limitation on God's part. It's really just a difference of opinion about what the optimal structures of reality are (between you and the proposed concept of a creator God to be clear)

>>25484396
>It would break the structure of existence to do that.
If God doesn’t have power over the structure of existence then he isn't all powerful.
If you have to reduce all powerful to
>well he's all powerful in this weight class
then what's even the point?

>>25484447
No what I'm saying is that he chose the current structure. He chose a reality where an apple can't be 100% green and 100% red at the same time. Although, to your point maybe it wasn't a "choice" in the sense that it could have been different. Maybe it would always be these particular structures that were chosen because that's just the nature of God. And to avoid dancing around your concern, yes the structures of existence allow for pedophilia to happen among all the other things of evil, so clearly that allowance is God's "choice" or "nature".

I can't say with absolute logical certainty that the nature of God and this allowance of evil things is good, but I think it's just as clear that you can't say it's bad either. We essentially lack the context to know for sure.

>>25484462
>but I think it's just as clear that you can't say it's bad either.
In what way lmao
Is child torture debatably good?

>>25484466
The aspect of reality that allows for humans to have the free will to torture each other without immediate divine intervention is a debatably good thing in my opinion, even though the torture is obviously bad.

There's a lot of ways to think about it, but I'd say the most important blind spot is whether or not you believe that the human soul is immortal and continues on after bodily death. If you accept this, then compared to the infinite existence of the spirit, finite moments of torture in the material world, if they serve a greater purpose, can be more easily accepted as ultimately worth allowing. Please don't think I'm suggesting there's a Hell where you get raped for eternity or something, I'm not suggesting that at all and I don't believe in that.

>>25484246
This is some Sabbatai Zevi tier bullshit
>We had to do the evil so god would come back

File: 1787342291104045.png (115 KB, 1797x1477)

115 KB PNG

>>25481681
>Because for compassion to mean anything at all, there has to be the ability to do evil
When I feed my dog it only means anything because somewhere in the world a child was raped?

>>25479058
>If an omniscient and omni-benevolent god exists, why does he allow paedophiles or abusers to harm defenceless babies? Why do some innocent children die slowly from cancer or other horrible diseases? Why do natural disasters cause immense suffering?
Babies and children are EVIL.

>>25479058
>>25479058
stupid question, why did he allow the snake to deceive Eve?

He has other stuff to do

>>25479191
All those questions have biológical answers

>>25481045
If god Is not benevolent you can't establish a religión, since you cant establish that god Will listen to you, rewatd you or save you, if god Is not the Horizon of meaning of a religión Is no longer a god, but something More akin to the nietzschean Will of power or some other amoral vitalist first principles
Omnipotente Is what grants god Is unique and above all and benevolence Is what grants the effectiveness of a spiritual path, thank to the benevolence of god, if not god could just shit on your good deeds and merits just because he doesn't care, and religión lose all sense, and if religión lose sense god lose sense

>>25481903
Because humans are flawed and cannot be accountable for justice of wrongdoing, i.e., humans are flawed creatures since God is flawless, humans are less apt to hold wrongdoers accountable which something that exists prior to civil society and prior to human existence as an arbiter of justice can do, provided it does not bear the falleness of man.

>>25481681
>Because for compassion to mean anything at all, there has to be the ability to do evil
Necessity Is a limitación if logic, god should be above that, if not, then we should just study logic and abandon all spiritual paths, why we should worship god if he's also a slave of logic, logicians aré above messiahs

>>25484396
>would break the structure of existence to do that.
God should be the one that establish the structure of existence
>>25481898
Again, he's the one establishing this foundation, he should be able to make a better More benevolent foundation, if not he's slave to necessity

>>25486007
That shouldn't be a problem if you're omnipresent and omnipotent

>>25484462
>among all the other things of evil, so clearly that allowance is God's "choice" or "nature".
Then he's evil, he allows that, ir His nature Is just not benevolent in which case we don't have a certainty that his rule Will guide us to heaven ir that heaven Is a good placer at all, if His nature allows pedophilia then heaven could be full of pedohiles

>>25479058
why isn't everything always how i arbitrarily want to be?
isn't the premise of the question just stubborn arrogance?
how could you reduce god, or the unknowable and infinite, to your feelings and malaise about the world, and ever think it was a meaningful question?

i'm totally irreligious but it's obviously not a serious intellectual question as far as religion goes. just disregard religion altogether if you don't get it and move on.

>>25479058
Because we ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and were therefore expelled from the garden of Eden. Also we have free will. We did this to ourselves.

>>25487228
Only correct answer

>>25479137
I like this take.
I was curious to know what is your idea of god. I know you probably will say you have no ideia, but I am curios as to what your speculations would be if you were pressed to give an opinion.

>>25479058
I have no problem with evil. Also the word can't apply to the nature. Nature just is.

>>25487228
>We

>>25487228
>>25487358
Agreed, black people need reparations and we need to pay them.

>>25479058
Retrocausality and quantum manifestation have made this reality very painful, as beings of free will fought against one another tooth and nail, cursed themselves and their neighbors, their enemies and supposed enemies over and over again.
Even now, any new concept, technology or field of science is weaponized first and only later permitted for civilian use.

Humans, at least a portion, have a divine origin. However, due to dipping into unconsciousness delving into the mysterious, consciousness has evolved this world.
Right now it's looking like a mountain of work and none to aid. This is an illusion.
Disease is a mistake in creation, as often happens. However, it can be solved.

>>25487777
>consciousness has evolved this world.
Without knowledge. It must be a game to the divine, these incarnations into the terrifying realms.

>>25487757
How many bikes for a cottonball?

>>25479191
The problem of evil keeps winning and losing the same argument at once.

It wins the premise. The baby dies, the cancer burns, the water takes
the house. That is genuinely bad. Nobody credible is going to stand here
and tell you it is all for the best, and if they do, that is where the
thread is supposed to end for them.

It loses the conclusion, because the whole case runs on one word:
*unwarranted*. Unwarranted. Harm. Ought not. Those are not descriptions of
the universe. They are verdicts on it. And a verdict needs a court.

You are asking a good god to defend the baby using the very standard
that is the only thing the theist has a clean account of. Pull God out and
you do not get a cleaner picture of the suffering. You get an orphaned
value. The suffering is still sitting there. The word "unwarranted" just
loses its ground underneath.

So the real question under this thread is not "why does a good god allow
suffering." It is "where does ought come from, if there is no ground for
it." And the frame you are already arguing from answers that before you
get to the objection. The sharpest version of this argument is a quiet act
of faith in the very thing it is trying to remove.

>>25487892
>You are asking a good god to defend the baby using the very standard
>that is the only thing the theist has a clean account of
Yes, because it shows that the theist contradict himself, by establishing a good god that created an evil world, all using the theist own terms, you misses the point, the non-theist doesn't care about an ought in itself, but the "ought" that the theist creates but then it can't back up with its own theology, the problem of evil shows a contradiction in terms of the theist

>>25487228
God allow that to happen and he's omnipotent, so in reality he did it, he could establish a world were free Will don't lead to sin but he didnt, so he choose for these things to happen this way, the fruit Is really on him

>>25479137
Then religión Is irrelevant since there's no possible spiritual practice, and god Is also irrelevant since it means nothing to you or your life, it's just an empty concept without any possible connection to human experience

>>25483975
It isnt necessarily so. It could be the case that intervention is the more contemptible act. Could you imagine the further despair of our society had he stepped in to stop the sheboons from murdering their babies for 67 years?

>>25479225
>If earth isn't paradise, how can its creator be perfect?

>>25487201
>If god Is not benevolent you can't establish a religión, since you cant establish that god Will listen to you, rewatd you or save you
IF you truly believed God's disdain would land you in everlasting torment, and favor would lead to everlasting bliss, you WOULD attempt to appeal to him even if he wasn't know to be (universally) benevolent, and even if it was known he rarely listened to people, BECAUSE the alternative is so bad even the slightest chance would make your piety worthwhile.

>>25488631
>you WOULD attempt
Thatas just an actions out of fear, there's no guarantee of that working out, so you still cant establish a religión or spiritual path, gods needs to be benevolent for his rules to have meaning nad consistency
If he's not benevolent i can't even establish what "would" he like, since His "divine word" and scritpures could be lies he told out of malice

>>25479058
We human beings mistake benevolence for happiness, but all god can guarantee us is inner peace.

>>25488446
You got the right half. "Harm" was in post one. OP asked the question before a theist had a word in the thread, so nobody imported the moral vocabulary. The question itself is the moral vocabulary, standing there with nothing under it. Where you lost me: "a contradiction in the terms of the theist" treats "coherence" like a neutral yardstick. It isn't. Coherence just means "fits your prior." You want goodness to survive without a ground. The theist wants it to have one. Both of you are running the standard you want. The only thing actually in dispute is which court does the judging. And a court that doesn't exist can't rule. That's not "the theist loses." That's just: no verdict.

>>25489409
You're doing the same move as the last one and calling it a different argument. "God needs to be benevolent for his rules to have meaning" — that's the standard running again, and the demand that goodness be a precondition is itself an ought with no ground unless you grant a ground. Benevolence is what a good god does; goodness is what makes it count. And "scriptures could be lies he told out of malice" assumes the yardstick is outside him — the neutral yardstick again, in a different coat. You can't run the standard and then demand the standard be judged by the thing it measures.

>>25489433
>You want goodness to survive without a ground
No,that's were you're wrong, no one wants that, the argument of evil doesn't "want" anything, it just shows that what the theist "wants" contradict itself since god establish morality but it breaks it at the same Time, god must be good but he also needs to create evil, making him not good, that's a contradiction, there's no ought established by the argument itself, it just used the ought needed and already
Presuposed by the theist
>>25489480
>that's the standard running again, and the demand that goodness be a precondition is itself an ought with no ground unless you grant a ground.
Yes and the theist creates that ground and as you said, the ground itself doesn't make any sense, benevolence must be a ground but it can't, the ought Is needed because that's what religións do, they create an ought, a morality, a spiritual way, but this ought can't never be justified, so religións can't never be justified, they're shallow by deffinition, the problem you're pointing out Is not on the atheist but on the theist trying to defend evil in this world

>>25489424
>but all god can
Then he's not omnipotent

>>25489532
I didn´t meant it like that my fren. Can not in the restrictive sense, but in the sense that it´s what every human can achieve and what god intended for us humans. Gods benevolence lies in absolute peace and peace is the synthesis of good and evil, after all no omnipotent being can be good, because that would mean he couldn´t be evil.

>it's another thread of anons trying to understand an omnipotent deity
You ever think we may be out of our depth asking questions like this? Good and evil are human terms. How can you reasonably apply them to an infinite being? The Catholic Church tried to do this and backed themselves in a corner by throwing out a bunch of comically bad answers as to why their supposed good guy god would let such shitty things happen. An omnipotent god is in no way bound to human morality. Worship him, curse him, deny him, it doesn't really matter. You still have to somehow cope with all the shitty stuff in your life.

>>25489555
Alternatively evil cannot be.
Thus we would find illusions, nescience, illness behind evil.

>>25490159
>Alternatively evil cannot be
I hope someone plunges nails into your eyeballs so you can tell us that evil doesn't exist

>>25479058
Because we live in a fallen world of original sin, and we make it worse by sinning, which we are given the choice to do so because God also desires free will
>bbbbut God should've created a perfect world
He did. 1/3rd of its people rebelled against him

>>25484389
is it not the cost that we all pay to have our free will?

>>25487205
Without logic world would be inconsistent. One minute you are all fine and dandy and in the other you have AIDS for no reason at all.
>But why doesn't God...
Your free will and life would be pointless. Might as well kill yourself if you are going to keep asking God to do everything for you.

You've defined "good" as "stuff you subjectively want" so your argument boils down to the claim that if you're not personally omnipotent then a benevolent omnipotence doesn't exist. Omni-potence as in all-potential created everything and that's a benevolent act if you appreciate existence and a malevolent act if you resent it. You can reject existence at any time and stop existing instead of seething about not being God.

>>25490577
Thanks for that analysis. Really brings me back to third grade bible study

>>25491461
Actually good answer. God creates everything, then the shit he created starts bitching at him saying that he did it wrong

>>25490571
Harm has been done to me, enough to make me catatonic.
However the beings behind it were dissociating psychopaths, not proper humans with capacity to witness the effects of their actions.
This is to say, they are lesser beings and thus exist less.

File: Fyodor-Dostoyevsky-quote-(...).jpg (40 KB, 300x450)

40 KB JPG

God is a lovecraftian entity that you could not possibly comprehend
everything that exists is part of some greater plan which humanity cannot see

why do people accept the idea of cosmic horror so readily but are so averse to cosmic delights? something wonderful beyond comprehension?

>>25492324
It's easy to dismiss people as monsters because then you don't have to accept that they are people just like you. That evilness in them exists in all of us. It can be overcome and it can be let loose.

>>25492120
Why did he created things that bitch? It's his own fault

>>25490577
He could create a world in which free Will doesn't imply the necessity of sin, so its still His fault, if he can't he's not really omnipotent

>>25491448
That doesn't solve the problem, you're just accepting my point, god Is a slave of logic so worshiping him is useless, we should just be logicians instead and strive to understand the laws god himself has to obey

>>25491461
That circular reasoning, why should i consider good as the thing "a god wants" if i don't even know he exist and his Will seems evil in the first place?

>>25489555
>no omnipotent being can be good, because that would mean he couldn´t be evil
>No omnipotent can
That's a contradiction in terms

>>25489589
If you can't understand it, then you can't know you're actually following its will, so the deity of the religión cant guarantee salvation or a true path

>>25493691
It's not circular. You have no definition for objective "good", you're just talking about stuff you like and stuff you dislike while dressing it up in language derived from the same theological traditions you're using that language to dismiss. If you appreciate existence then the source of it is benevolent which can be stated as "God is good" but we're still working within your silly subjective definition of "good". If there is any objective "good" then it must be defined by the source that dictates everything that objectively exists, not by what you like or dislike.

>>25493686
>the laws god himself has to obey
The classic idea the early scientists liked is that logical coherence is a gift to us not a limitation of his. If a god had to obey laws then that's not God, the source of those laws is God.

>>25493703
You can believe in God without the baggage of religion

>>25494493
But can you believe in God without it just being a projection of your superego?

>>25494856
Jung did. It's difficult though. How can you be sure that what you feel is right, that voice deep down that guides you, is the voice of God and not just something in your own thoughts? It's certainly a challenge I struggle with

>>25496036
Jung had a major blindspot when it came to "God". There is simply no reason to suggest the "voice that guides you" is anything other than an influence from the superego (you might say higher up in your psyche) or your shadow (you might say lower down in your psyche). Any appeal to externalities always falls apart. Even some of Jung's own examples relating to insane patients who blurted out things that connected to later discoveries were always very poorly documented, usually relying on his own memory (which can be contaminated by later discoveries). God is pure wish fulfillment, an illusion. It's really the first step of honest exploration of the psyche to discover this. Does this scare you? That's exactly the point, you believe out of fear, because you want to reach for a safety blanket. If you seek the truth, you must be willing to dispense with illusion.

>>25488455
yet religious people are typically more mentally healthy than atheists

>>25496295
Coincidentally believing in nonsense doesnt count as mental illness as long as its called a religion

You can hear voices
As long as they're from "god"

You can have visions
As long as they're from "god"

>>25496304
when an artist says they have a vision it means they're crazy?

>>25496285
This basically comes down to "lol god isn't real" which is not what I'm trying to discuss. I know I can't prove God is real but I believe in him. If you don't believe in God, this whole thread is irrelevant to you.

>>25479058
babies are clearly evil

>>25479058
It is kinda simple when you think of it.
Doesn’t matter if you believe in god or not. You can call it god, nature, reality, existance, whatever.

The truth is, that all is one and one is all. You can simply take psychedelic drugs, hypothermia, overheat yourself or get whatever deadly disease or wound that shuts down your brain’s evolutionary defences (purpose of which is to make you believe you are in control of your environment, and that you need to compete as an individual) and you will FEEL and understand this. It is so clear it makes you laugh. Think about it. Why would we have this feeling of being part of it all built in our system at all? Why could a microgram of some mold on a grain make us feel that? It makes no sense.
There is no individual and you are me and I am you.
Now what does the pain and suffering matter, when you are the cancer cell and the dying baby? You’re doing injustice to yourself. You get no justice, because its all you, nothing but you.

>>25496715
>There is no individual and you are me and I am you.
if we were having this conversation in real life and I asked you to give me $500 would you do it? We're both actually the same thing so it's not like you're losing anything

>>25496724
So are you telling me that you aren’t part of nature? That you will not become part of nature again as you decompose? The whole stance is absurd.
Understanding doesn’t make us immine to our evolutionary needs. I still want to suck big titties today, despite knowing that tomorrow it makes no difference if I did that or not.
My body still makes me afraid of a nigger with a knife, despite me knowing and honestly believing death is the biggest and most important moment of my life (after birth). We are still just humans after all.

>>25496735
No I'm definitely part of nature, but I also believe that individual entities exist, and you do as well. That's why you would not give me the $500, even though you'd have no problem transferring the sum from your own savings to your own checkings, because you know that we are in fact two separate people.

>>25496304
How is the belief in states, laws, governments or debt any different? Seems to me it's a cult of misery that bullies its way into the lives of others by threats, manipulation and coercion.

>>25496424
Can you define God?

>>25497288
Nta, but God is consciousness and its source. Think of the Platonic realm where the core aspects and elements of reality reside before being called upon by the material configuration.

>>25497288
I am that anon and >>25497818 is about what I would say, although I'm more partial to the god of Spinoza.

>>25496724
At a high level I agree with the poster you are responding to. However, for better or worse, we each possess an ego and think of ourselves as a separate entity. I have my possessions and want to protect them even though I realize they are ephemeral.

>>25498108
It's not that they're ephemeral anon, it's that we're not actually the same person.

>>25497818
Isn't that more like potentiality in the conceptual sense? Wouldn't it be fair to say, then, that God is just an idea?
>>25498002
Would you agree with Spinoza that "Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently (Def. of the Emotions, vi. vii.) he does not love or hate anyone."?

>>25479058
Taking God out of the equation doesn't solve your problem.
Do you think the answer can be put into a short paragraph, or words at all, as some kind of cheat code?

>>25498175
That is beside the point. OP was talking about justification of evil and lack of justice when god is considered omnipotent.
But how do we determine evil and measure justice if not in interaction between two individuals? If god is real and everything is of god, there cannot be justice or injustice. The evilness or injustice of any action loses its meaning when we perceive it as a whole and not from our strictly limited individual perspective. If we’re all of god, we can’t do injustice to ourselves.

Nobody is denying the individuality of our experience.

>>25498214
To put it simply, yes. It's easy to look out into the world and get the feeling that god is indifferent. He has no hate or love for this place. Suffering and fortune are not meted out by any rational order. On a deeper, personal, and unexplainable level, I feel like gods love is intertwined in the very fabric of the universe.

>>25479058
A God you can understand is a God you can distort.
His ways are not our ways, nor are his thoughts our thoughts.
God is incomprehensibly beyond the limited, microscopic scope of mortal understanding.
You cannot "logic" your way into understanding the omnipotent creator of the universe and all things beyond it.

File: Spinoza.jpg (217 KB, 1377x768)

217 KB JPG

>>25479058
Because God is those things, or something to that effect.

>>25479061
These shitty memes are always made by bitter divorced dads too retarded and cowardly to realize that the world their precious demiurge created is irredeemably shit.

>>25487192
No

>>25498214
>Wouldn't it be fair to say, then, that God is just an idea?
God is not just an idea. God would be the origin of ideas.

>>25498639
>>> Unironically believing in Gnosticism
You aren't really doing this are you??
How do you have access to the Internet right now from the 2nd century?

>>25498270
If there is such an arbitrary and pervasive distribution of suffering and fortune, wouldn't that indicate a level of hate, caprice, or outright malice woven in the very fabric of the universe?

>>25498633
>the omnipotent creator of the universe
By the standard of your own post, you can't assert any such being has this characteristic.

>>25498667
?
Of course I can. As a Christian, I wholeheartedly BELIEVE that being is the Abrahamic God. I cannot claim to intimately understand God, however. That is plainly impossible.

>>25498667
Source of all being is technically doing everything. Suffering is born from a localized event filter that enables dualism. Hunger is lack of food, pain is lack of integrity and health, etc. etc. one of our sufferings is the experienced lack of divinity. It's an illusion though.

>>25498664
I'm more than ready to concede that I don't have a logical argument to dispute what you are saying. Looking out beyond this world for answers to the suffering that comes with existence, one is left confronted with the cold indifference of nature to our problems. The reason I don't succumb to nihilistic despair over this is because deep down I feel love is a part of this universe. Out of nothing came the stars, galaxies, our planet, and then this very conversation. The universe wants to be alive. It wants to feel, experience and share love. It's corny and nonsensical in the face of suffering, but a personal belief nonetheless and I am happier because of it.

>If God exists, why do bad things happen

Have you read the Bible? It is a bunch of stories showcasing human depravity. Struggle, war, famine and just atrocities in general. Why did God create Adam and Eve if he knew that they would disobey him? God didn't create a subservient race to sing his praises or be forever beholden to him. God created an imperfect creation. We humans are the result of sin. We are born of sin. This is all outlined in the Bible. You are asking a question and the answer is right in front of your face.

>>25479058
In the old testament god is a douchebag. Also god isn’t real.

>>25498903
>Muh bible
God exists outside the Bible

>>25498694
Isn't that insulting to the concept of God though? He just happens to be some minor desert deity from a tribe in the Middle East that shares similar traits to all the other deities made up by humans? Wouldn't the unfathomable GOD far surpass such a profoundly human construction like the God of Abraham?

>>25498903
>God didn't create a subservient race to sing his praises or be forever beholden to him.
He literally did though. He purposely withheld the knowledge of Good and Evil from them so they wouldn't be able to reason for themselves and be utterly subservient and dependent on him forever. The God of the Bible uniformly wishes Man to be a slave, to value blind obedience above all else, to be weak and groveling and entirely sublimated to God at all times. In fact, the mere acquisition of knowledge is seen by God as such a heinous crime that Man is banished from Eden and forced to labor and die generation after generation (God even makes sure to mention that Man might reach out and eat of the fruit of eternal life and live forever, and God REALLY doesn't want that so Man has to go, Genesis 3:22).

Also, your fairy tale falls apart when you consider predators. Did God not create them with sharp claws and teeth? Are they not made to maul and devour, often while still alive, their prey? Of all the manifold possibilities for how God could arrange nature, why did he choose the ENTIRE basis of life to be red in tooth and claw, to be an infinite struggle of death, suffering, and fear, a dog-eat-dog world? This is simply incompatible with the idea of a loving creator.

>>25498718
I partially agree, but real love is to be found from your fellow man. It is exactly because the universe itself is so cold and mechanistic that the companionship and love of your fellows is infinitely valuable by comparison. To borrow a passage: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."

Why embrace such illusory love that is imagined to be woven into the universe when there are your fellow human creatures capable of real, tangible love and solidarity? In short, to me, one squeeze of the hand from my wife is worth more than every religious person's unanswered prayers could ever be to them. I hope the most people possible can obtain the real thing, in a healthy and sustainable way.

>>25499366
Why would one's genuine belief in God be "insulting"? Wouldn't it be far more degrading to him if you simply denied his existence and went on about your secular life? God is unfathomable, but one's faith in him is not.
Also, I wouldn't go so far as to call a supreme being as monumentally influential as the Abrahamic God a "minor desert deity". That is absolutely ludicrous.

>>25499505
If God is unfathomable, why bother thinking about him at all? And why is he simultaneously so petty as to care if you believe in him or not? This is what I mean as insulting, the Abrahamic God is clearly painted as having the worst traits of a human, being jealous, angry, vengeful, and picking out one tribe of humans to favor over others (while the text that outlines his existence very clearly also recognizes other gods exist but are just inferior).

When viewing these facts, isn't it monumentally more likely that these ideas are identical to every other religion that claims radically contradictory things? Doesn't all of this point to human invention, and doesn't the fact that this God in the text happens to endorse the exact level of morality that the authors were in the middle of basically cement this? Again, maybe there is an infinite cosmic something beyond the level of our existence, but it's just insulting to him to suggest he turns people into pillars of salt for looking in the wrong direction or orders people to chop off bits of their baby's genitals as a covenant. Such a being ought to be above these purely human practices.

And lastly, doesn't it at all bother you that people divide themselves further and further into factions regarding the aspects they have "faith" in? This indicates the more specific ideas you have about him, the more likely you are to be wrong, thus, logically, you should have the most vague belief in him as possible as to avoid error. Maybe the true God would rather you be honest and avoid error instead of picking a super specific set of beliefs that contain falsehoods.

File: occams-razor-horse-zebra_(...).jpg (101 KB, 1200x674)

101 KB JPG

>>25479058
>why does he allow paedophiles or abusers to harm defenceless babies?
because it's not that bad?

>>25479058
>If an omniscient and omni-benevolent god exists

Where does the Bible make those claims to begin with? I have very serious doubts they're in there.

I think the opposite is implied, he doesn't know all things in advance, why else would he take an interest in what man would name each creature?
Genesis 2:19
[19]And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name.

>>25499730
> If God is unfathomable, why bother thinking about him at all?
Because I believe he exists, and my faith in him persists regardless. To be a Christian requires that leap of faith. Accusing the Lord of being "petty" or whatever other negative, flawed qualities and connotations you project onto him is a byproduct of your own personal disbelief and rationale.

It all ties back into my original point: a God you can understand is a God you can distort. Job, Moses, and Elijah all wrestled with their faith in God at some point because even they themselves couldn't hope to entirely understand him. To doubt is to be human. To be ignorant is to be human. To be confused is to be human. Humans are flawed, imperfect creatures. God is not, regardless of whether or not he's understood by the constraints of the mortal mind.

> Maybe the true God would rather you be honest and avoid error instead of picking a super specific set of beliefs that contain falsehoods.

I absolutely agree with you there 100%, and that's the God I'm continuing to try to seek out earnestly. Perhaps one day you might as well.

>>25499906
>To be a Christian requires that leap of faith
"Ironically" (christcuckoldry is false), Islam is rational
>When the night grew dark upon him, [Abraham] saw a star and said, “This is my Lord!” But when it set, he said, “I do not love things that set.”
>Then when he saw the moon rising, he said, “This one is my Lord!” But when it disappeared, he said, “If my Lord does not guide me, I will certainly be one of the misguided people.”
>Then when he saw the sun shining, he said, “This must be my Lord—it is the greatest!” But again when it set, he declared, “O my people! I totally reject whatever you associate ˹with Allah in worship˺.

>>25479058
Maybe god(s) are evil, maybe they don't give a shit, maybe not omnipotent and has to deal with their own shit, maybe they don't exist. Who knows.

>>25499829
>I think the opposite is implied, he doesn't know all things in advance

This seems to be a common response, but in doing so you're limiting God's abilities. Or I see that God is omniscient but also not? Again, limiting its abilities.

>>25499388
>Why embrace such illusory love that is imagined to be woven into the universe when there are your fellow human creatures capable of real, tangible love and solidarity?
Why cant you do both? Man is part of this universe, made from the same matter as everything else. Being conscious, man can reciprocate this love. This is a great thing because as important as it is to love, people also need to feel loved too. We are sociable creatures so the love we share with each other is of vital importance. I also feel a love of creation itself is needed. To me it counteracts the collective egoism that would come if man only loved himself and his fellow man.

Also none of this is from a religious perspective. This is all personal belief. No gospels, no traditions, just my interpretations of this world.

>>25499730
>If God is unfathomable
Everything is unfathomable. That's why life can be seen as a struggle, a maze, a game, an adventure.
Our minds were taught wrong from an early age, however; to destroy things to place them into neat boxes that can be shipped off and sold.

>>25500116
Again where does this idea that God knows everything come from in the first place?

>>25482283
It's how we get all the pigs and cattle to the farm.
It's why they pre-emptively have a mythology of mistreating cattle, they believe others to be.

>>25499912
muhammad would've been on epstein's island :3

>>25499906
You say you agree and yet still sign your name to a fairly specific set of beliefs that almost certainly contain falsehoods. Why saddle yourself with a long and error riddled tradition like Christianity? If faith is what you rest on, you are in the company of billions of people who are categorically wrong, since Islam, Hinduism, and all the rest of the religions deal in this kind of foundation, one that is demonstrably unreliable due to all the contradictions among religions.

>>25479137
tranny take