The problem of evil

>implying
Aquinas LITERALLY PROVED GOD.

Cease this heresy at once and BECOME CATHOLIC.

>Getting memed this hard by recent history

>Aquinas LITERALLY PROVED GOD.
He proved it logically at best, plus proving god and proving the god that wants you to eat fish on Friday are different accomplishments.

In His defense, the Friday fish fry at my local supper club is literally God tier and I have to assume that He does, in fact, want me to enjoy it.

Thank you for the chuckle

>tfw I don't know if post is ironic
>tfw I don't know if my post is ironic

What is his solution?

I mean the power of evil fails in it's first claim because it assumes that the omnipotent nature of God implies that he can accomplish things which are logically impossible (e.g. make a square circle, make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it).

damn

Not sure if this is a joke

But he certainly didnt prove anything nor was that ever his aim.

Basically bad theologians created it: "best of all possible worlds" and other nonsense like God being separate from creation

His cosmological arguments are pretty solid desu, as is his critique of the ontological argument

Obi-Wan doesn't need to be on the high ground, the high ground just needs to exist within the battle; Obi-Wan knows that when he has the low ground, he really has the high ground, from a certain point of view; Look at his battle record: Maul: Has low ground, wins Dooku: No high ground, loses Dooku rematch: No high ground, loses Grevious: Has low ground, wins Vader: Has high ground, wins Vader rematch: No high ground, loses Obi-Wan with the high/low ground is canonically the most powerful Jedi. This is fact. Had Yoda not denied his request to battle The Senate with typical Jedi arrogance, Obi-Wan could have defeated Palpatine in the Senate building, which housed a variety of different altitudes; this was designed so that the Chancellor could always have the moral high ground in political debates. But Obi-wan didn't fight The Senate, and Yoda soon learned that you can't cleave the Sheev in a normal 1v1. Yoda is shorter than virtually every other fighter, which gives him a permanent low-ground disadvantage; however, his saber-fighting style utilizes a flipping-heavy technique in order to negate this weakness for a temporary window. You'll notice that, as he falls from the central podium in The Senate's building, he immediately retreats, knowing that he can never hold the high ground in this duel. You'll also notice that, while training Luke, he rides on him like a mount, to gain the intellectual high ground and accelerate Luke's training. Obi-Wan's defensive Form III lightsaber style synergizes with his careful military maneuvers; as he only strikes when prepared, he can always hold the strategic high ground. You'll come to realize that Commander Cody's artillery strike failed against Obi-Wan, when hundreds of Jedi were killed in similar attacks. Cody failed to grasp the strategic situation, as the Jedi Master's elevation was superior to his by hundreds of meters, making him virtually unkillable. Had Cody taken his time and engaged the Jedi on even terrain, he could have possibly succeeded. Obi-Wan then retreated under the surface of the lake, so that he could maintain the topographical low/high ground. In RotS, you'll notice that all the Jedi killed were on level ground with the clones, thereby assuring their demise.

As we all know, spinning is a good trick. However, only the Chosen one can spin outside of a starfighter. Palpatine tried spinning, but he lost due to this technique (but this was intentional, as losing gave him the emotional high ground when Anakin arrived). The reason for this is that spinning provides a yin-yang approach to combat (based in Eastern philosophy on balance), giving the spinner the high ground from above and below. Only the Chosen One can master the spin, as it is their destiny to maintain balance in the universe. This is why Obi-Wan was so emotional after defeating Vader on Mustafar; he expected to lose the high ground to the spin, but Anakin fell to the dark side and could no longer use his signature trick, becoming the very thing he swore to destroy. Anakin doesn't hate sand for the reasons he told Padme; all Jedi hate sand, as the battlefield can rapidly change between low and high ground on multiple vectors, so your perspective must be from a certain three-dimensional point of view in order to comprehend who holds the high ground. This is the only reason why Obi-Wan killed Maul in Rebels. This is also why Obi-Wan hates flying; there is no gravity in space, therefore there is no high or low ground from any frame of reference (This also negates the spinning trick). It took the Tusken Raiders years of conflict against Old Ben Kenobi to grasp his superiority in terrain advantage, as you see them visibly flee in ANH when they realize he holds the low (inverse-high) ground. Additionally, Obi-Wan's victory in the cantina against the drunkard was assured, as he held the temperamental high ground, his actions more calculated and well-thought than the alcoholic, who was so uncivilized. In ANH, Vader proves his newfound mastery by engaging Obi on perfectly even ground. However, Obi-Wan intentionally sacrifices himself on the Death Star, so that he could train Luke from a higher plane of existence, thereby giving him the metaphysical high ground.

Why was Vader so invested in the construction and maintenance of the Death Star? Because he knows Obi-wan can't have the high ground if there's no ground left. As seen through the events of the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan was known to be on friendly terms with Senator Organa, whose homeworld held large quantities of mountainous terrain, the perfect habitat for a Jedi Master. Grand Moff Tarkin was already in position to destroy Alderaan as a first target, as the distance from Scarif to Alderaan was too vast to reach between the escape and recapture of the Tantive IV, even at 1.0 lightspeed. Alderaan had been the initial target all along, as Obi-Wan with the high ground was the primary threat to the Death Star. How? Because a moon-sized space station would have some form of gravitational pull, thereby negating Obi-Wan's zero-gravity weakness; Obi-Wan with the perpetual high-ground in a low-orbit starfighter would easily be able to fire proton torpedoes through a ventilation shaft, although the Empire was uncertain of the specific weakness of the Death Star planned by Galen Erso (who was a good friend). In Return of the Jedi, you can see that the Throne Room contains a variety of different altitudes; Palpatine placed these there to ensure Vader's defeat. However, Sheev failed to realize that his weakness was no ground, and should have covered that useless gaping pit which does nothing. A common misconception is the idea of a 'prostrate position' version of the high ground, wherein Obi-Wan lies flat on his back, giving him tactical superiority from his point of view. However, this strategy is futile, as for the high ground to come into effect, there must be a differential between parties on both the x-axis and y-axis to a moderately significant variation from both absolutes (Angles only a Sith would deal in.). For Obi-Wan's high ground powers to have full effect, he must stand between 15 and 75 degrees (π/12 to 5π/12 radians) diagonal from his opponent(s) on any quadrant of the trigonometric circle. In conclusion, Obi-wan abuses spatial relativity and Taoist doctrine in order to always invoke his high-ground powers.

But isn't high and low ground just relative?

>He proved it logically at best,
Whats wrong with this?

Because all it takes is a deity that fulfills the conditions of a first cause, and virtually every religion has someone or something that could be construed as this. The physical sciences define it mathematically. He might as well have proven the existence of the demiurge. Recursive logic also leads to infinite loops, as in the chicken and the egg. He certainly hasn't proven christianity, despite his arguments most commonly being used for that purpose. You could just as well argue for Islam based on the same method. I dare you to prove that it cannot be used to argue for Islam.

I was reading Summa Thologiae and he basically said that fetuses aren't humans.
Wtf

He's right

...

Why can't an all powerful God break logically impossible things?

>Obi-Wan then retreated under the surface of the lake, so that he could maintain the topographical low/high ground.
Woah

bumpos

St.Augustus of Hippo's argument against the problem of evil was much more convincing and beautiful.

I agree with the remembering and learning from it bit but not the PURE EVIL UNFORGIVEABLE stuff. Not that I even wholeheartedly disagree, but life and conflict is rarely that simple.

Only good reply in this thread
And the response was completely unhelpful.

>Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks
>Atom bombs being dropped on cities
>Fire bombs being dropped on cities
The Holocaust is only the largest evil event of WWII, but it's not the only one. Nearly all modern warfare is designed to attack civilian infrastructure and civilians

Isnt it still huge though that it effectively eliminates atheism as an answer/possibility even if it doesnt identify a specific one?

I don't understand these hur dur he didn't prove Christianity comments made by all the atheist philistines. Out of the 30 or so arguments for the existence of God none are even attempting to do that, it's done in other sections. It's book 4 of the SCG, he doesn't start from Christianity as the premise, he reaches it via extensive argumentation and doing a step by step system.

Alvin Plantinga’s free will Defense is imho the best answer to the question of evil in the world.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free_will_defense

It is an emotional issue for a lot of people and the common refutations of it as a problem rest on ideas that modernist would find debatable.

Fuck you I laughed.

>plus proving god and proving the god that wants you to eat fish on Friday are different accomplishments.
Jumping from God existing to God's relation to nature to our relation to God is and has been done, m8.

Visit discord more often senpai

so when is God going to get around to destroying that bustling city of Tyre?

too bad free will
9not that compatilist shit) is negated by God's omniscience

Yeah except that
a) it's not uncontested whether free will is something we have or even possible and whether free will *in itself* is a good thing (would you like having to manually adjust your bloodstream?)
b) it says nothing about natural evils or animal suffering

Plantinga is an apologist mong who hides behind formalisms to not come across as stupid as Ray Comfort and co

That's the extent of Christian Theodicy, believe it or not.

Tthe "best of all possible words" argument is the most self-damning one. It makes rejection of all Creation a Moral imperative.

But user isn't love that is given freely better than love that is coerced?

>proceeds to coerce love anyway through infinite carrot and stick

Hey are you going to respond to the evidence you requested regarding the shroud in the other Christian thread?

He didn't know about modern science, zygotes/DNA/etc. Had an entirely different understand of how reproduction worked that has been long since disproven. Apply his metaphysics to modern science and its clear he would support the modern Catholic view of abortion.

Animal suffering isn't evil because animals lack rational souls and free will. Hurricanes during the Jurassic period weren't evil because they only caused dinosaurs to suffer. These "natural evils" only became evil after the Fall. So even natural evils are the result of the Fall and rational human's exercising free will.

kill yourself filthy nominalist

link?

They is a difference between a devoted man sacrificing his personal emotions vs a devoted man sacrificing his reasoning.

To me it seems like the knowledge itself of Heaven is searching for it is inherently greater because it goes beyond this world.

yes rationalists love to claim that reasoning has nothing to do with emotions

Wolfsheim is already in lad

just like Socrates lived when people didn't know jack shit

Yes, and?

Not to mention the genocide of falun gong practitioners and of the Tibetans

>what is the mathematical singularity

You are completely forgetting the Yugoslav wars. What happened there was just as brutal and that happened in the mid 90s.

It isn't. Boethius put to bed the problem of evil 700 years before Aquinas. Evil is merely a privation or perversion of the Good.

Just because they influence one another doesn't mean they're the same.

yeah but i want in too

is this a sentence?

Do you actually read and are you a retarded shitposter?

yes to both

What is it?

> Evil is merely a privation or perversion of the Good.
Thats wrong, Good is merely the privation or perversion of Evil

so god doesn't know how to run the freakin' thermostat?

>freakin
WATCH OUT MOMMY IS COMING

youtube.com/channel/UCrcrDXK620kopfSffPxrdTA

youtube.com/user/AominOrg

youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689

>has never watched ATHF

I don't watch cartoons faggot

Sorry, based on your childish behavior it was a natural assumption

There's no need to be rude.

>calls me a faggot
>"There's no need to be rude."

Commit suicide

...

thomists get off my fucking board reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

How can something be truly evil, If it didn't happen?

Its a shame that most mistake the former for the latter

Aquinas also believed that a certain document proves the political/ecclesiastical authority of Rome. It turns out that document was a pseudo-isidorian decretal.
The man was a genius, but limited with the material he was given.

Here's a solution for the problem if evil:

Good.

Close enough

It's like money. If you believe in it, it happened enough to affect reality.

dumb antisemite

It was real in my mind

An aphorism I wish you all to contemplate on: Satan is pure evil. Infinite evil. Can he act any way besides evil? This is unknown. So what other option is there but to forgive him?

Aquinas falls apart when he says that evil can only be caused "by accident." The whole bit about God doling about "penalty evil" makes sense, but "accident evil" for everything else just seems silly.

Then again, the cult of personality surrounding Aquinas is dangerously autistic.

Also, I am always blown away by anyone who reads Aquinas before first reading every single iota written by Saint Augustine.

Augustine is just infinitely better.

I hope you understand that accident for aquinas is something other than it is for you (and I know you can't tell the difference).

...

no christfaggot, and aquinas and his ilk were evil

See to it that he doesn't succeed on us.

Because impossible things are, by definition, not able to be done by anything. They're effectively paradoxes. It'd be like asking "Can God make a two sided triangle?" you're effectively speaking nonsense at best and dishonestly obfuscating definitions at worst to try and shill for an argument.

Impossible. There are many ways about this argument, but to stick to this one alone... Why should Good lose if they need not to be forgiven?

The number one.