Life long atheist here

Are you saying that God made our decisions for us? Im not a christian, but when you blaspheme God I respond. We all get to choose what kind of life we lead, and God didn't choose for us. So humans who are of a divine characteristic through our souls make that decision. God's power doesn't mean we are all dolls in his wake, we have power as well.

So there is no such thing as a morally neutral action?

okay, and what is your proof of that?
but let's just say that you're right, that still doesn't change the fact that the option to achieve the absence of Good which leads to suffering is still a part of the creation that god is responsible for and since god is a speck of all good at the end of everything, how is this absence of good allowable?
no I'm saying that the fact that existence has the capacity for evil and suffering regardless of its source is proof that there can be no all good creator responsible for everything.
if god let's us choose and we choose evil that choice is still a part of the existence that god created, and so he is not good

>wow no refutation amazing
What, you can't understand that Satan isn't evil? At last, the fabled atheist intelligence.

The problem is that there is no suffering in this world. What people think are injustices are merely designations. As for the capcity, without that capacity we would not have souls, and what world would it be when we were all the protaganist from a clockwork orange? Just another animal to be killed and tortured beneath the sky. God does not claim to be 'Good' which has come to mean a masochistic hero incapable of murder. But rather, to be the justice of this earth, the love of this earth, the keeper, the creator, your accusations do not disprove him in the slightest.

>calling the Kierk a dumbass
wew. lad. Nice bait. Try changing the file name to hunchbackvirgin.jpg , it will be better that way.

You're a retard if you don't think Christian thinkers have ever addressed apparent logical puzzles like that one. Kierkegaard doesn't, but that's because it was all worked out already by the time he was alive. In his journal he says something along the lines of "The doctrines of Christianity have been so analyzed and developed throughout the ages that they form a giant, self-contained, logical system, individually, the doctrines are unassailable but as I grew older, the whole tower began to tumble."

Interestingly, I'm mildly surprised that no one has gone through and written an interpretation of Kierkegaard's work portraying him an as atheist. An atheist who desperately didn't want to be one, and who would never admit to being one, but an atheist nonetheless.

>An atheist who desperately didn't want to be one, and who would never admit to being one, but an atheist nonetheless.
>mfw starting to think that this is me

>pic related, a dumbass who couldn't reconcile this discrepancy
I get the joke op. you may move on now.

>Thinking good is something besides just agreeing with God

>Thinking God created evil

God created free will, which is inherently good, though it can be used for bad

Athiesm requires a literal rejection of philosophical thinking

Pic related Athiests were unable to actually respond so they just ignored it and mocked it.

God didn't create evil (AKA disobedience) God created the ability to disobey via free will.

Good and evil aren't real, there is God's side (which considering the fact that God literally knows all, is always the """correct""" side) and there is your side. Satan simply chose to go his own way.

...

Not really.

>okay, and what is your proof of that?

Philosophy. Good is a philosophical concept. Evil is a philosophical concept.

They pre-date your autistic empiricism and rationalism.

God is the measurment of all that is good. If we can say that something is good, it necessitates that there exists evil, as it creates a qualitative distinction between good and evil, which is necessary for good and evil to be defined. God being all that is good means everything not created in it's perfect image is more or less evil. Action can be evaluated as good if it makes being go towards the image of god and evil if it makes being go further from it.
Rejection of the highest value that is god is the rejection of all hierarchies of values. Out of weakness people reject the existance of any higher values as it exposes their own inadequacies and the unwillingness to improve being. People who have fully accepted the misery of existance love a god who has created nothing but evil. To love a god that has created any good means the rejection to live to improve being. Something in the world that exists in the image of the highest value has to be already perfect since by definition it has to be unimprovable. Acceptance of being as such would imply that nothing could be improved for the better. So it implies if you believe that being can be improved, you have to believe in a god that has only created evil, but is perfectly good.
Atheism makes sense since science has pretty much found an accurate working model to explain the natural world. But atheism is unable to justify through science the moral behaviour inherited from christianity. Since science is there to explain the natural world, it isn't able to give values for people to live by.

Satan is not God's adversary. Satan is just a memetic virus that people chose to be ruled by.

(If you really wanted to present an interesting conundrum, you'd have asked why people ended up being so stupid if they're made in God's image.)

Why do Christians think it's wrong for evil to exist? Why do they think that it would be wrong for God himself to not be evil or for the Devil to God's equal in all things?

In other words what's wrong with evil?

>>life is all life and nothing but life
That's just wrong. Your body is in constant decay. Your cells create an equilibrium of replenishment between life and death. To live is to die.

Augustine blew it off by addressing all evils as lesser-goods and claiming that god had to make each gradation of good or something like that. I think its a shitty response, but I don't find the problem of evil to be a really good criticism in the first place, because it posits a very narrow idea of pleasure and goodness etc with no room for strife. The "can god create a rock not even god can lift?" strikes me as a better puzzle.

Go away Milton

Literally my ways are not your ways, based Kierekgaard.
They'd need to follow it up with an interpretation that affirms Nietzsche to be a Christian criticizing St. Paul and the current state of the church tho.

What is God is actually evil and Satan is trying to save us?

>Athiesm requires a literal rejection of philosophical thinking
The ontological argument requires a rejection of philosophical thinking. Really, try asking any philosophy professor. Even if one were to grant you the conclusion that there is some thing within our ontology to which everyone gives the name "God," virtually nothing else from the Christian narrative actually follows form there. All you're doing is identifying a blank, putting a sticker that says "God" overtop of it, and then making the leap to the claim that this "God in name only" is some kind of Jeudeo Christian "God". It's been completely disowned by academia for a good reason.

>I assumed a model and met a conclusion in line with my own assumptions
>Well yeah, it's a shit greek-tier model
>T-that's just crass reductionism
Have fun with that self-prescribed lowercase-G god of yours

God is vision of beatitude
to obtain that vision, you must be humble, and have no more pride (no more material attachement)
lucifer is the most intelligent angel, he understands that God is the Good, that his vision is the best thing possible, but he refuses to let go his pride, mainly because of man, because he can't accept the man can have the same vision than him

what God create, it's the possibility to see him, it's the vision of beatitude, and it goes with consciousness and his pride which must be abandoned

obvious answer here is that evil things are good

>God created Satan
Please tell me you don't actually believe this

You havent even read Kierkegaard

Satan created God.

the word theodicy hasntb een usedo nce in this thread

Veeky Forums cmon

You come to even worse self contradictions by rejecting theism.

Try and argue against the right thing my dude, that is clearly the cosmological argument.

Evil is a disease that spreads to the innocent.
Evil is the opposite of Holiness.
Evil comes about from freewill.
And I'm not even a believer.

>satan is one gods most loyal servants

Just. As. Planned. And desu that doesn't even make him bad, you've danced around the point

>we've been doing it for a long time so it must be true
I bet you're a Catholic as well

> (which considering the fact that God literally knows all, is always the """correct""" side
Nice non sequitur

>Satan is just a memetic virus that people chose to be ruled by.

But that's what God is too

>thinks the devil is bad

Then you might ask; why's there evil and freewill as concepts?
There's an opposite of everything.
As we are of his image and we do not want loneliness, why would god which to be lonely? = he created us as his friends = you can't force people to love you = choice. Hell is the absence of god, god is goodness/holiness itself.
I could go on.
Bible doesn't claim god to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

have you ever heard of adam and eve?

Aquinas famously rejected the ontalogical argument and to suggest otherwise would really embarrass you were you ask that philosopher professor.

Unless you want to take a position of solipsism or some hyper skepticism which denies causation you cannot logically deny the existence of God

You know what, my bad. I did get the name wrong. However my point does still stand. From the fact that you happen to sequence the universe into cause and effect chains, and the fact that this habit would require an initalmost cause to actually be coherent, it cannot be argued that there must be an initalmost cause. All the initalmost cause does is save the original cause and effect theory you posited, which may or may not be worth saving. There comes a point at which you have to throw out the theory instead of inventing additional things to protect it, positing god is probably that point.

Again, wrong in name only if you read the remainder of the post.

>hyper skepticism which denies causation
>hyper

your theory-savior has virtually nothing to tie him to the actual religious narriative that typically comes with him

Not arguing against you, the cosmological argument is bullshit. Kant is definitely the most convincing refutation. Assigning personal experience to the unknown is, in my opinion, absurd. Just have to make sure you're arguing against right thing my dude.

God is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful. He created humans in His image. That means that we also have to be all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, or more precisely, the image of that. If God gave us knowledge, goodness and power, that means that he gave us a part of His knowledge, goodness and power. He gave us that through free will, and now we have the power to choose. So He is no longer all-powerful over us. That also means that until we choose, he doesn't know what we are going to choose. So he is no longer all-knowing either.
Now for the Good and Evil.
God made us in His image. If He is eternal, then we must also be eternal. A part of us is - our souls, but a part of us isn't - our bodies. We die. Our bodies rot, but what happens to our souls?
This has to do with original sin. When Eve looked down from God to the three of knowledge of all things good and evil, she saw that it was pleasant to the sight. It was pleasant to her senses, to her body. When your soul falls into your body when you come to this earth, you experience a touch of death, because earthly things are mortal and temporary. Our sin is enjoying those things, cause they bring us closer to death and away from God. Inb4 muh christian guilt - you can still enjoy all things earthly if you do them in the image of God - artists should make Godly art, men should impregnate women like God impregnated Earth, but do all of these in a way that brings you closer to God, not farther away.
But God made us mortal - he made us out of earth dust, and earthly things are temporary. That's why one if his first commandements is to reproduce. Two will be one body - impregnation (orgasm) is the moment of immortality. If sexual act is the image of God's creation, then a barren sexual act is not mirroring God, rather mocking him. That's why Adam and Eve were ashamed of Him, so they hid from Him.
Now Eve succumbed first. Women's bodies are like earth - they are more fertile on the full moon. Women are born women the moment they get their first period - they know they can have a couple of children in their lifetime but their bodies are limited. Women are more aware and at peace with their mortality, that's why they are so submissive. But men, who can spread seed like God, can have a lot of children during their lifetime. That can make them feel immortal. They are less aware, biologicaly, of their immortality. To blame a woman for a man's downfall is completely right - women are men's biggest temptation. If a man is like God, and a woman is like Earth, the more he sows the more mortal he becomes, because earthly things are temporary.
Giving into earthly pleasures without intention to mirror God is when evil is born. Tree of knowledge of all things good and evil means that you will know good and evil, good is in mirroring God, and evil in mocking Him. Do not be deceived; one does not mock God.

So you accept that Aquinas and the Cosmological argument demonstrate the existence of a God but not the Christian God?

>your theory-savior has virtually nothing to tie him to the actual religious narriative that typically comes with him

Thats what the whole Summa Theologica is about of the 3020 roughly 2 are about demonstrating the existence of God and the Rest are about demonstrating how Christianity is the logical conclusion of this and how it impacts other areas of action and belief.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Galatians 6:7-8

I feel like no philosophers has ever come close to successful rebutting "there is no proof of god's existence".

I mean, seriously, just think about it. Why should I believe in the christian god, if there is literally no evidence? We all know it, but we feel like a simpleton for pointing out that not one philosopher has sufficiently risen to this challenge, to actually provide evidence for the existence of god. Believe in the Christian god is just as reasonable as believing in Zeus, Thor, or the tooth fairy. Go ahead and call me a fedora, but you know I'm right.

>Aquinas doesnt exist

>life long atheist
>his atheism is still based on babby paradoxes of literalist interpretation

any sensible Christian knows they would never want God to be proven. that would render their faith obsolete. it's in the Christian interest to keep proof out of the equation.

That's not a discrepancy, it actually just a flaw with your ideology.
>god is [...] nothing but good
This is incorrect.
>proof
Absolute fucking brainlet who can't into modal logic

>There's an opposite of everything.
Dualists, everybody.
>no evidence
Bad bait
Evidence is invalid.

Actually, proof of God wouldn't change anything for Christians, because true faith is stronger than any proof. That's why people who don't believe still wouldn't believe even after a proof

>God can't exist without freedom
>freedom can't exist without individual freedom
>individual freedom can't exist without choice
>choice can't exist without evil
Yeah?

The opposite of death is birth.

Life encompasses both.

>life long atheist here
In other words, 16 year old here.

hey be respectful, dawkin's been mentally disabled for 76 years

Read Plantinga

What does life have anything to do with god?

How about this.
>a cell is a cell and nothing but a cell
>but the existence of a cell created a non cell

Does 'non cell' exist? Or is that merely a concept to describe the absence of a cell? In that way death doesn't exist, it's just a concept describing the absence of life. Thus all that 'is' is life.

There is no darkness only the absence of light. Just as there is no death only the absence of life.

>the opposite of death is birth.
There is no opposite of light, just the existence or absence of it. Birth is life, death isn't its opposite, just the absence of it.

>reading comprehension: 3/10
>ability to declare yourself woke regardless: priceless

Yeah I dunno wtf he's trying to say either

isn't 25 years old the year when our cells begin to fade?

>Also, where in the scripture are you getting this "god is all good" thing from? Can you contextualize/elaborate on what that means?

so much of modern atheism in the west is based on anti-protestantism. so many assumptions made about religion as a whole that simply show they do not know what they are actually arguing against.

Evil doesn't exist because of some evil boogeyman, but because the only way something can exist outside of an omnipresent being is an act of self-delimination on the part of that being. What's more, that suffering is proof of God's very existence, for what would we suffer over if there were no God? What would there be to lose? What horror would there be in degradation if there were not an inherent dignity to lose?

...

>In 1936, despite her professed pacifism, she travelled to the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side, and joined the anarchist columns of Buenaventura Durruti. She even took a rifle, but was expelled from combat line by her comrades, as she was extremely short-sighted, and they feared Simone shooting one of them. She hit a pot of boiling liquid because of her sightness problem, had noticeable burns, and her family came to Spain to bring her back home

She also died after starving to death. It's argued whether she was attempting to become the most ascetic person possible or whether it was in solidarity for those starving because of the war, or whether it was just plain anorexia.

Yeah her lives are filled with episodes like these. I know its silly of me but the discord between her fiery academic talent and her pathetic and cringy life bothers me quite a bit.

I actually think that they extend from one another. She was, fundamentally, a person discontent with her life, hateful of herself, and hateful of society. For God's sake, she was one of the best proponents for Catholicism in history and she refused to be Baptized because she thought she didn't deserve it. I think that all her philosophy, from her analysis of the Iliad to her calls for reestablishing societal roots, all of it descends from the place of a person fundamentally dissatisfied with her position and place.

Not that I'm complaining. Gravity and Grace literally changed my entire outlook on life.

It's like you attempting to date a girl, who always finds excuses not to meet you; she's sick, she busy, the weather sucks, her family and friends keep dying, her cat just vomited over the carpet; the chick will always manage to explain why she can't do it. This entire shit is just as pointless. Christfags and other religious people look for ways to make sense out of their books, while other people look for ways to find the truth with muh logic. It's not between "god exist vs god doesn't exist" and finding arguments for one or the other, but between people who want god to exist and will find a way to use everything as confirmation and people who question this but can't accept that some people don't want any other outcome.

>>but god created satan

No he didn't. He created an angel with free will who became Satan.

and god allowed for that circumstance to come about within his creation

True freedom means taking resposibility for your action. The moment you realize you have a choice, and when you take responsibility for the consequences of your choice, is when you will realize in your heart that what you chose depended on you and only you.
People always complain "If God exists, how come there is so much shit in the world" well excuse me, but I see people choosing to live in shit every day of my life, and they do nothing about. It's like they are children who don't know how to change their own diaper. Grow up.

The question is either "why should I worship a dude who let's people suffer?"

A king ignoring the plight of his subjects, which he could've easy fix, justifying it with muh free will, wouldn't be to popular. Why is a dude in the sky better?

>my special flavor of christianity as never been tried
kek
It's simple: they have this philosophical argument called "God", who, thanks to omnipotence, could be placed in every hole of your theory just to make it work.
Look at Decartes, I really think he was genius most of the time, but when he tried to prove God's existence starting from the point that God is real was at same level of the worst memer in this thread.

t. hasnt read Kierkegaard

There's a reason why it is said that God works in mysterious ways. You can always formulate theories and try to uncover contradictions, at the end of the day your human logic is still flawed and unable to understand God's plans.

Nit picking brainlet atheists are truly the worst. Questions like yours seem profound but its completely irrelevant if you have any intention of becoming a Christian.

Imagine trying to create a moral framework of God from a human perspective.

That position of "" "" "" "" hyper "" "" "" "" " skepticism is defensible and sensible

Same. Nice Noah react btw

>The problem of evil
>Something man can solve
You'll have to wait for the Son of Man to crush the head of the serpent for that.

Stop falling for temptation, and the temptress won't truly exist.

I don't think so.

it feels like I'm reading a bionicle novel when I go over some of these fucking comments

>Death is the absence of birth
???

thanks man

Why not?

This stance just fills me with the same degree of pity I'd feel for any mental inpatient

>dude it's all like le mettyfor lmao even though there's no reason to believe such and if the bible is le allegory n shit, it's merit is greatly reduced when it comes to forming a religion

>choice can't exist without evil

>ultra edgy straw-manning
CHRISTFAGS ABSOLUTELY BTFO