Is there any essay or work in general even attempting to refute this?

Is there any essay or work in general even attempting to refute this?

Attached: Qra3OPr[1].jpg (1600x1200, 194K)

>then whence cometh evil?

the devil.

Imagine if God sent people to defeat evil lol. Imagine if evil is a catalyst for God's divine plan. We're 20% virus-based in our genome. All parasites will perish or convert. If they are too powerful, they will end their own existence in addition.

Read the story of Jacob. You might understand that evil is subservient, and how.

This, yeah.

Satan is sort of kept around as a foil to demonstrate why he's wrong about everything and God is supreme.

The degeneracy is allowed to set an example.

Also yeah, most human genetic material are bits of retroviral RNA material. Human Endogenous Retrovirus it's called. Really makes you think!

The Enneads

Why does he allow the devil to exist?

If evil comes from the devil, then allowing the devil to exist indirectly allows evil to exist.

Schopes
God is willing to prevent evil, but not "willing".
Annihilate the Will.

The devil only tempts men with evil. Offers really bad suggestions. He is only indirectly evil.

Only men are evil and God allows them to exist because he loves them anyways.

God has a sense of humor

there refuted

Loves them so much he lets them be tortured in unimaginable ways for eternity. Talk about love.

>viruses are evil
>viral genetic code in our DNA means viruses lost
>viruses don’t exist anymore
>this is all proof that evil is weak
>or that it exists
>read Jacob
oy vey
so someone who tempts you to do something suicidal isn’t culpable? then why do we prosecute those people? why is someone selling you drugs that you OD on bad but the Devil isn’t evil for temptation?
that would make God an evil mad deity

>that would make God an evil mad deity
Exactly.

then why would you worship him
if he’s crazy and evil (untrustworthy)?

Then you're not refuting the riddle, you're agreeing with it.

Yeah, all the church fathers and Catholic wankers going on and on about free will and the Fall and whatnot.

Try using google and search on something like epicurus god evil, before spamming the board?

No that torture thing/ eternal hellfire isn't even in Bible. That's heresy brought from bad translations and interpretations.

Your soul just gets permanently destroyed instead, like an atheist might imagine will happen anyways.

People have self agency and free will. If they don't have an afterlife with God, it's their own decisions. Satan doesn't force anyone to do anything and neither does God. You don't have free will if you have no competing options to choose from, so God let's Satan provide those options.

The karamazov brothers and descent into hell by Williams

You are a fucking retard. God created everything. God created evil. So it's in God's plan. Hence God is evil. Because, being all powerful, God could have made a plan without evil or suffering, had God not wanted to be evil.

You know all of this is shit mindgames anyway, right?

>Your soul just gets permanently destroyed instead

Isn't that even worse than eternal torture from the point of view of a believer?

Fuck off with this heresy. Evil exists because the potential for evil a necessary corollary to free will. God created the potential for evil, because the overcoming of evil is more meaningful and rewarding than an Elysian paradise. Additionally, evil is a sort of Illusion. This life is temporary. Any pain we suffer is nothing in comparison to God and his love. Because God is love, because God is being, it is necessarily painful to be separate from God. Hell is eternal separation from God. Evil is simply those actions we take that separate us from God, and the consequences of those actions. Presence contains within itself absence, and although absence is nothing, it can still be perceived and felt. Epicuras is straight up fedora level angsty.

Attached: fedora.jpeg.png (773x737, 25K)

God is all good, hence everything he does and creates results in the greatest possible good ultimately. Creating a world with no evil would have been less good than creating a world with Satan and man causing evil. Hence he went with the latter option. Everything God does is for the highest possible good, no alternative that you can think of is better. Remember that the true moral conception of good is different than your own pathetic utilitarian concept where good equates to pleasure.

Arguable. Another interpretation is being removed from God alone is eternal torment.

Also ultimately, Satan, all the rebel angels, the entire universe and everyone not already with God will be permanently destroyed, so the torment wouldn't be eternal no matter how you interpret it. You'd just be stuck chilling with Satan and the other rebel angels until you were annihilated anyways. It's right there in the Bible.

A horrible misinterpretation. is right. Understand the concept of scandal. Those who tempt others are twice culpable, for they must stand for their own actions, and the evil they brought upon others. The other person is guilty only for what they have done. It is worse to tempt, always. And this is why the devil is considered the most evil, for he is the source of all temptation. He is culpable for all sin. The truly evil wish to bring the evil out of others, so they may judge others in their failure. What they fail to see is that in so doing, they only condemn themselves further as the worst of all, for the evil was done in their name.

You wanting it to be logically consistent doesn't make it so. Like you wanting to believe in an ultimate good does not make it even plausibly exist.

The purpose of philosophy isn't to give you a pillow to smother your intellect in.

If God did not allow for evil, then there would be no choice to love him. But the act of loving God is made more profound given that we have the choice not to love him. The full presence of a thing can only be considered against it's absence. The infinite glory of God can only be truly contemplated against his impossible absence. For as much as it pains him to see us suffer, God would not deny us the ability to choose, for it is by choosing God that we can truly receive his grace.

>The potential for evil is a necessary corollary of free will
Stopped reading there

I wasn’t aware we were having an argument about the existence of the all good, all powerful God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We can have that argument if you like, but this is really a thread about the so-called “problem of evil” (a false problem invented by atheists and other pedants).

>viruses are evil
>>viral genetic code in our DNA means viruses lost
It means they converted and their evil ways of leechery were off. Now they work for us, as us. Imagine a virus that won... Would it survive forever, or would it devour all life? The problem is, of course, the fact that a virus is entirely one-sided being. Entirely selfish. Imagine converting something like that!
>viruses don’t exist anymore
Relatively new viruses and things like HI-Virus; which exists to punish sodomites. The evil of nature works on a larger timescale than we can imagine. The evil of actions remains, and is punished by nature if not by man. Though the timescale is longer, of course.

I did not move past that. I referenced Jacob so that nobody would miss the importance of human action, and the nature of evil changing from merely natural.

We weren't, I was saying the other poster was full of shit.

So this is the free will defence of suffering. If any of this garbage was real outside, God would have created suffering, simply to feed God's own ego, because without the choice and the suffering, loving God would have been less fulfilling to God.

Hence God is neither perfect or good.

>human logic and morals apply to divine beings

shit son you are ego trippin

>The devil only tempts men with evil. Offers really bad suggestions. He is only indirectly evil.
>
> Only men are evil and God allows them to exist because he loves them anyways.
Except God created knowingly both men and the devil as they are and would be. Reason+1 Religion -∞

the love god thing doesn’t work unless human virtues, morals and behaviors can be connected with god. Loving god makes no fucking sense at all, unless you don’t mean loving, or you’re willing to admit we have analogs of divine feeling and thought which christians are scared of because of the moral and metaphysical implications. Either way christfags end up looking retarded

Your logic is flawed. If God created everything, what could possibly be considered evil? That it causes harm? What is harm? God cannot be harmed, and if we truly have life after death, then how can we be harmed? If we have life after death, then even death itself cannot be considered evil, for it is merely a benign changing of states. If God is truly the creator of all things, then for something to truly be evil, to have in its essence an evil nature, then it must be against God. Knowing this, it must therefore be an act of grace and mercy that allows evil to exist, for why should God allow anything against himself? God, as the creator of all things, of course cannot be harmed, so as much as something may be against him, it cannot do him harm. Evil must then be allowed to exist for our sake. The presence of evil then must have an overall purpose of Good, while still remaining evil. This demonstrates the problem of evil is not solved by changing our concept of God, but rather changing our perspective on life. We too commonly call things evil which we feel are harmful to us, or which cause us pain, or kill us. But to believe is God is to believe that these experiences are so fleeting as to be meaningless. When we examine these experiences we come to see that our suffering is illusory: we suffer because we are afraid. We do not trust God, and so believe more firmly in the ephemeral than the eternal. As it turns out, our suffering does not truly come from the hot stove, but rather from our spiting of God. The pain of a stove is instructive. It tells us that if we do the same thing again, we will put ourselves in danger. The pain, though uncomfortable is useful. The real suffering comes from criticizing God for making it so. But God is the creator of all things. And when we follow the advice we learn from our bodies, we find great satisfaction. So what kind of arrogance must it be to say that the world would be better if it were not thus? How do we know? Have we lived with God and seen the fullness of life? Have we truly seen the alternative and what the ramifications of these changes would be? Evil exists because we choose it, because we place ourselves on God's throne and judge the world according to false standards. God allows us to do this because he is merciful. He allows this so that we may experience the glory of his creation in all its fullness. God is the creator of all things. By necessity, God is good. Reasoning shows that this must be the case. If you do not use reason to change your position, to change your perspective, then you are not using reason.

The devil also fell.

>what if God sent people to defeat evil.
>Imagine if evil is a catalyst for God's divine plan
You've moved well beyond. God did not create evil. God allowed us to do evil. The distinction is monumental. Evil is not some benign test. God is not a tempter. This suggests that our existence is simply an amusement to God, a mere game for him to play. It is not so.

>tl;dr

Stop wasting my time and look up the problem of evil.

If if if, if I gave a fuck I probably would read your thrash post all the way through.

you could make a case for a loving god if you take a father child relationship as an analogy. the child might want to drink soda and eat candy all day but the parent won't allow it for his own good, yet perceived by the kid as evil

it still means that human morality doesn't apply to God or gods but still

The problem of evil is not existence, but one of nonexistence. Like shining a flashlight in the dark. God created the world, for certain, and is omnipotent, but there is a reason for everything. In this case, Satan is perceived to be the leader of evil and corruption because of benevolence and crafty cunning of our lord.

When you start bringing the question of evil into the domain, Satan is necessary because it is from him that all meddling of this Earthly world originates that is intended to increase sin.

Therefore, evil exists regardless of what Good remains of the constructed.

God watches the fall of man and intervenes wherever possible.

And that's where we are. To see how far God lets evil destroy society, just look at the example of the antediluvian societies which became corrupted, or the city of Lot where almost everyone was corrupted. Sorry bud, you can't just use high school debate team logic to fathom God's existence, we would much rather you study examples and scripture throughout time.

>God created the world, for certain

Yeah, in your head. Which is what I was saying.

You are inserting your own animosity and arrogance into God's will. God is all good and all knowing. This also means that God is aware of his fullness. He cannot be made lesser or greater by the opinion of any other. A being like this cannot be selfish, for it lacks nothing. There is no craving for it to fill, for it is already infinitely full. God is goodness itself. Therefore, for anyone to have goodness, in any real sense, it must come from God. For someone to receive it from God, they must first know God. If God is Goodness, then of course he would want others to know and have Goodness. Therefore he would want people to know and have him. This could not be for his sake, for he is complete. It must therefore be for their sake that they would know him. Additionally, he would want those others to know him to the greatest extent possible. If we had not choice in the matter, we could know and love God and be fulfilled by him. But we would not be aware of this love. When we are given the choice to love him, we are given the opportunity to see him in a greater light. This is undeniably a good, and the grandness of this good so far outweighs the corollary evil that the evil is brought to nothing. I don't think you understand the scale of God.

I am not.

All of the garbage you are spewing comes from assuming that any such God exists. Which you basically pull out of your ass.

You can make up anything. I talk to drunks all the time, I generally try not to waste time on humoring them.

I really like Hermeticism, and the way Hermes talks about God, the All, in the Corpus Hermeticum doesn’t bother me. The way you people talk about God, with the threatening words, merciful appeals to him, pleading, makes me viscerally repulsed by your faith. Why is that? I like the way Hindus and Greco-Egyptians talk about Monotheistic deities, but christ fags make me want to vomit blood when they talk. Its peculiar

No, according to Genesis, or Aristotle.

Now here is where your lies are most apparent. Here we are constructing arguments, and you would rather dredge up some infographic from /r/atheism or some URL from a hasty butthurt search on Google. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you allied yourself with the forces of darkness, because here you are corrupting the youth by making them think a sardonic, plain-faced denial of faith is a quirky new way to seem intelligent.

To honestly sit here and say that the Universe is governed by certain laws NECESSITATES no God, is against all physicists. Certainly Stephen Hawking never said this. Nor did Neil Degrasse Tyson. No physicist will ever tell you that God is not real.

Likewise, some philosophers will tell you that observance of these rules actually IS evidence of God. When it comes down to a simple matter of perspective, you start to see how foolish Atheists are. (cf. Book III of Rousseau's Emile; Ch. 2 of Pareto's Manual of Political Economy)

>then why would you worship him
>implying I do

Very little, if anything can be reasoned from existence. Axioms must be granted. A position must be chosen. While I am certainly reasoning outward from an axiomatic set of assumptions, we can see what truths must be necessary if we grant those initial claims. From this, we can test our theories. We can see that when people live by one set of beliefs, we get one result, and when we live from another, a different result. The various secular ethicists can come up with as many systems as they wish, but there remains the question of mechanisms. How do you get people to not only believe that something is right, but act as though it is right. Certainly if an ideology has a strong correlation with what we can measure as good, then there must be at least some truth to it. If we consider the world that would exist if everyone followed an ideology, we can get a better sense of how good or right it is. What's fortunate is that I haven't pulled any of this out of my ass. It all comes from centuries of debate, and is deeply rooted in our culture. You are just unhappy because you don't want to be responsible for your choices.

It repulses you, because you don't want to take responsibility. You prefer a reality where you can live in a cave, and think to yourself and be saved. You find it more comfortable to think your actions are overwhelmed by greater forces than to think your choices are why you exist.

>we can see what truths must be necessary if we grant those initial claims.

Except we can't. All of what you are saying is shit that makes no sense to anyone who isn't actively trying to make up a reason for their pet imaginary supersaiyajin.

Ah, so again you’ve been beaten on the “(non)problem of evil” and are resorting to doubting the existence of the Creator. An absurd position, but you probably know that.

>blablabla the post

Come on...

There is no "doubt" you assmongrel. There are no non-problems, there is no evil, and there is no creator. Grow up.

God is the potential for all things, the eternal Source. This universe is one of the infinite universes, so "evil" is bound to exist. Do we bother worrying about how evil the world is for other organisms?

How can people think that a natural world will always be expected to have happiness, and no sadness? Knowing opposites always increases your understanding of the world. Opposites strengthen each other. They make the world more beautiful as a whole.

Imagine literature and poetry in a "perfect" world with no evil, anger, hatred, sadness, death, etc. Every work would be the same, monotonous paradise crap. This is a universe that a child wants but doesn't foresee the consequences. Atheists are such brainlets

>You've moved well beyond. God did not create evil
I did not say He did. Jacob and Job tackle on this subject very well.
>Jacob's brothers sell him to slavery
Is this made by God or not? No, but it serves a purpose as a catalyst for history.

>your choices
Hermeticism permits free will
>in a cave
the idea is that most people will take many lifetimes to be ready for Mind-Living Mind interactions and if you aren’t ready you’ll be preyed on by demons
>Saved
you don’t need to be saved there is no original sin, Man is leaving his home in matter for the celestial heights through time and theurgy.
>take resonsibility
if you don’t live a truthful, upright, godly existence the Great Demon will punish you in the interim between incarnations and eventually eat your Soul.

The idea is that one must dedicate their entire life to union with Godhead, Gnosis, Truth and knowledge. Nothing else is more important as you are literally a divine spark raising itself into the heights of being through wise dealings with becomings.

There is no savior, you have to save yourself through endless spiritual labors and faith in the All and the Mind of the All which you share a piece of and are cultivating. The metaphysics of the cosmogony of the Hermeticists provides logical motive for all the behavior of Hermeticists. The Bible is pure moralizing, and has no consideration for the World or for Truth or Spiritual activity. A man with faith who accepts christ at the time of judgement is enough. In hermetic belief he would be unworthy, and would have to continue his rounds or be consumed by the matter-demon.

>a natural world
Is not created. That would be a constructed world. And if the constructor was not evil, there would be no suffering.

>Yeah, in your head.
My head only exists in my mind, though.

Correct, there is no doubt that God exists. Knowledge of him is written on the very heart of all mankind. Even the smallest child knows Him.

The duality of Man

Fuck off.

>And if the constructor was not evil, there would be no suffering.
Have you ever suffered for something good? Say, you go through a long journey for rest. The rest is enhanced by the struggle.

but heaven is described exactly how you described the “impoverished” literature and art in the last paragraph. all christians are obsessed with heaven which is pure static being and nothing else. there is no becoming

If it's possible, it will be created. Spirit understand itself better when it's NATURE is unfolded. Read Hegel, pseud

Get your head out of your ass. First, we can easily grant that there is a Being beyond all other beings. There must be a being that precedes creation, from which all subsequent being flows. By necessity, this being must be the cause of itself. As the first being, and as the cause of itself, all other beings must necessarily be of a lesser nature. If all things come from this original being, then all things are defined in the most essential way in relationship to this being. This means that any concept of goodness must necessarily describe a relationship with the original, all-powerful being. This only scratches the surface, but if we grant such a simple metaphysical truth, there are many other truths which must also be granted in order for the first to hold. For example, if anything came into existence not by the first being, then that being cannot be the first being. This is straightforward. I'm sorry you can't handle basic ontology.

>heaven which is pure static being and nothing else
False. We are given new bodies, 'fit for kings'.

If heaven exists, it is temporary. I'm not Christian, btw.

Oh, and there is singing. Both metaphorically and truly. What's a divine song like! Not only do I get to hear it, I get to sing it!
What is impoverished are these soulless arguments online. If I looked at atheists the same way they view God, I would find no evidence for their minds, for my laboratory equipment finds none!

>First, we can easily grant that there is a Being beyond all other beings.
We can not. There. End of argument.

>If it's possible, it will be created.
That follows from nothing.

Exercise is not suffering.

Come on you fucking morons.

You are being myopic. Events are not so proscribed. You are removing the agency from man. You say it serves a purpose for history, but this is backwards. What comes after by necessity must relate to what came before. Had the events gone a different way, history would have been different, but equally meaningful. Jacob was not granted a place in history by God's grace, Jacob made history by seeking God's grace. The history is not the important part. It is only of secondary importance. The critical moment is the moment of choice, which you are diminishing with your fatalism.

>Exercise is not suffering.
Go to the army and suffer a march. That's not evil, by the way.

>That's not evil, by the way.

Exactly. And you have never suffered if you think that is suffering.

>Events are not so proscribed. You are removing the agency from man.
I'm not! I'm removing the agency from evil. It's never its own master, despite its claim to be, and the inherent desire. I may remove monopoly of evil from man. However; man remains the only conscious observer of good and evil we know of.

Read Augustine. He has a more concise and considered rebuttal to your gnosticism. But your language gives you away:
>you don't need to be saved
This suggests that the world is fine as it is. This means change is unnecessary. This means choice is meaningless. You say free will is still permitted, but you have stripped life of any meaning, rendering choice non-existence. A choice between two equal things is no choice at all. To decry matter at evil is to deny both the divinity and goodness of God, which unravels your entire belief system.

>Exactly. And you have never suffered if you think that is suffering.
There are varying levels of suffering, my lad. I know suffering plenty. Have you starved? I have; I was bullied in school (by atheists) to the point of avoiding all humans.

I don't see why a god has to be omnipotent, even if you give it a capital "G". Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? Omnipotence, like omniscience, just results in retarded paradoxes. What's wrong with a god being finitely powerful?

>>you don't need to be saved
>This suggests that the world is fine as it is. This means change is unnecessary. This means choice is meaningless. You say free will is still permitted, but you have stripped life of any meaning, rendering choice non-existence. A choice between two equal things is no choice at all. To decry matter at evil is to deny both the divinity and goodness of God, which unravels your entire belief system.
Exactly. It is very important to note that we Christians are meant to emulate (or ape, if you will) the savior. Not only for ourselves, but for others.

We're not the center of the universe. Why should good exist? So we can be happy all day? What's the point in that?

>No argument.
>end of argument.
The first cause argument is very well known, and some would even say outdated. Instead of saying I'm speaking nonsense, maybe you should investigate some of the common rebuttal's and see how it goes. As it stands, you're a petulant hypocrite.

>We're not the center of the universe.
We are, in many ways. Yet there are many centers. We are not the sole centers of the Universe.

"The Universe" as perceived is a flawed image, and always will be.

Hmm, maybe I should have said that individual human desires shouldn't control the universe. After all, I desire that evil and suffering exist, while the atheists would rather there be no evil. Who can claim to be right in this case, if there are benefits in both cases?

>Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?
Which is exactly the question, in Stephen Hawking's position, that is absolutely parallel to determining God's existence from the material observations of the world.

You just cannot do it. It's impossible to perceive. This post reeks of unintelligence, especially that last thing you asked at the end there YEUGCH

>I don't see why a god has to be omnipotent, even if you give it a capital "G". Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? Omnipotence, like omniscience, just results in retarded paradoxes.
Within the genus of being, there are limits. God is not bound by these. These paradoxes only exist with these axioms. God can cheat, you know. In addition to this, omnipotence is never classified as something that can do paradoxes, but as something that can do all things. Paradoxes wouldn't be things, would they?

In fact, it is only in doing it for the betterment of others that it is in fact beneficial to ourselves. It is in some ways an inverse to post-modern relativism. Everything remains relative, but centered on the other, instead of the self.

Poor little you. It is not suffering you cunt, stop crying.

>We're not the center of the universe.
And yet you think your made up garbage makes the world go round.

>The first cause argument is very well known
And it is trash. You can make up any shit at all. That does not make me have to take you seriously or humor your mental deficiency.

We have reached an agreement here.
>Who can claim to be right in this case, if there are benefits in both cases?
This is why we need God. I would pronounce need.

So you're saying the concept of "god" makes no sense and it's pointless discussing it. I'd prefer to say "god" means "really fucking powerful", and then you can actually talk about it. This is the standard concept of god for most of humanity's existence.

>Poor little you. It is not suffering you cunt, stop crying.
Perhaps I should see your head and cut it to pieces, would I find a mind? If I looked upon it with a magnifying glass, where would I find the mind? Your mind is not real.

>And yet you think your made up garbage makes the world go round
Well, I don't think it's impossible for a world to exist without evil, but I would definitely prefer this world, instead. My view of God is different from yours, because you seem to think that God should give us unlimited happiness all the time, while my mission is to understand God. How can you understand God if you only know one spectrum of emotions? Shouldn't you know that all things are possible, and we are within one world of possibilities?

>So you're saying the concept of "god" makes no sense and it's pointless discussing it
It's pointless only with certain people. These people would be those who inherently lack the definition within themselves; autists. It has been proven time and time again that there is a link between these, and I find it natural.
A blindness to higher states of being and large scale change is autism.

No, it doesn't result in retarded paradoxes. That you ask a meaningless question says nothing about the qualities of God. What your question reveals is not some flaw in the concept of God, but a flaw in your semiotics. The problems is not really whether or not God could lift it, but whether such a thing would still be a rock. In fact, what could such an object be? Especially considering that weight itself is an illusory characteristic that we only see from our limited perspective. The question you're trying to ask is this--If God is infinitely powerful, can he make a thing that is beyond his power? While it's still a ludicrous question, now it becomes clearer. If God created something that is beyond his power, that would inherently make it within his power. The question is invalid.

>Perhaps I should see your head and cut it to pieces
Bla bla bla. If you ever read anything about the martyrs or any actual history, you would know your petty middle class babby hardships have nothing to do with suffering. JFC.

I just don't assume things I would like to be real are real. I haven't since I was 6.

All arguments involving omnipotence are like the "proof" that 1 = 2, where you sneakily divide by zero.

>Bla bla bla. If you ever read anything about the martyrs or any actual history, you would know your petty middle class babby hardships have nothing to do with suffering. JFC.
No, my suffering is quite literally described as a punishment from God.

Fuck off you selfcentered twat.

>1 = 2, where you sneakily divide by zero.
I find it ironic that Einstein did this when he attempted to run away from inherent randomness and a clear beginning for the Universe.

Omnipotence is an interesting phenomenon, and its relation with fatalism and determinism should be explored. However, these babby tier arguments online do in fact follow Einstein's methods. Sneaky.

>the first cause argument is trash
If it's so trash, why don't you actually counter it, instead of making invalid claims. Any ontological debate grants at least one participant the ability to put forward an argument on preliminary and conditional grounds, the conditions being that the following arguments will support it. Your refusal to acknowledge the argument by saying "you can't just make shit up" is literally meaningless. If you're not going to take it seriously, I can only wonder why you remain in this thread. You're essentially walking into a room where people are having a civil debate, and turning over the tables, because you think they're using the wrong kind of carpet. I've used no jargon, and I've presented my argument in a valid, if casual, form. You're a fedora.

thank you for ending this meme. We're dealing with weak minds ITT

>Fuck off
Nah.
>you selfcentered twat.
Wait, I can't be punished by God, even though word for word something from the Bible is happening to me? Oh wow.

yes pure static being, not even thinking anymore christfag
yes which is temporary and impoverished of opposites or becoming
no by definition of the christian metaphysical tradition it is eternal, i don’t care what you are you fucking retard
>read Augustine
why not give me your understanding of the view he took? i don’t have time to read Augustine
>this suggests that the world is fine
The world is fine but its also too dense for the spirit and the spirit has to gradually move itself upwards through many incarnations of a soul
>gnosticism
its not gnosticism at all you dumb fucking christfaggot, its Egyptian esotericism from the late New Kingdom and early Antiquity, it was conceived anywhere from the 7th-3rd centuries BCE and has parallels in Demotic scrolls of Thoth giving instruction to his disciples from the 7th-9th century BCE, its the teachings of the Egyptian hierophants given to the Greeks who were seen as legitimate successors to them culturally. The church viciously repressed it then and later in the Renaissance
>this means choice is meaningless
no because morality isn’t the basis for all things happening you wicked emotionally manipulative sociopath. the world is good, but organisms suffer the more they involve themselves with matter, man is great because he has a soul and is able to strive upwards, his duty is cultivate the spiritual ecology of all life and to ascend progressively to demi-god status until he becomes literally a divine being unto himself and can look the All in the face unashamed as an equal
>you have stripped free will of any meaning
no because you will get worse incarnations each time you fall into matter and evil behavior, the more you let lower instincts command you, the more you will resemble a dumb animal. Hermeticists see most people as dumb barely sapient animals who are basically cannibalistic and insane. Eventually your soul disintegrates and is swallowed by matter and you become just another element of creation instead of an agent of Mind.
>a choice between two equal choices
that’s your idiot interpretation christnigger
>to decry matter as evil
ITS NOT EVIL IT IS THE SUBSTANCE USED TO MAKE CREATION AND IS NOT WORTHY FOR THE DIVINE MIND AND MUST BE ENLIVENED WITH THE SPIRIT UNTIL ALL BECOMES PURE MIND AND THOUGHT YOU FUCKING FAGGOT
>it denies the goodness of God
no God is good because God is the One, and God creates all life and death. Only the all-knowing and all pervading can be good, evil is divisive and adhesive, it holds light within it and devours it, matter is a resistor in the circuit of becoming and people must use it as a gate to pass into higher states, its a conditioning device, those who are not ready will fall into it. Evil is less pronounced in this system as a lack of knowledge is considered evil, it strongly parallels Socrates’ view of nature and metaphysics to the point where on wonders if he didn’t go to Egypt.

Can you really be so dense? Omnipotence places a greater burden on the theist. It isn't chosen to make things easier, but because it is necessary. It is the granting of omnipotence that even brings rise to the problem of evil. That's literally how this thread started. So you want to say that if God is not omnipotent, he is not God, while also saying that an omnipotent God is an underhanded cheat of an argument? That is cognitive dissonance par excellence.