If god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and completely benevolent...

Because fuck humans

>If he's threatening to torture your soul

Another Fedorah checking in.
As long as we are not talking about american proddys here, there are again answers you can simply google.
Aquinas the catholic said that a transgression against god, the omnipotent, the greatest conceivable (if not greater then you can conceive) is logically morally deplorable to inconceivable depths too and thus warrants hellfire, which after more liberal cathies is temporal as long as you arent some absolute asshole.

Orthos say there is no hell but the pain your soul feels because it is too ashamed of its own sins to face the glory of god after death as beholding him makes you instantly understand how morally impure you are actually, skulking seperated from him out of guilt and painful shame.

Good argument

so basically he's the dude from saw?

> christians believe this is all-loving and all-merciful

without bad no good

>Another Fedorah checking in.
I'm actually a Deist (t. OP)

>Aquinas the catholic said that a transgression against god, the omnipotent, the greatest conceivable (if not greater then you can conceive) is logically morally deplorable to inconceivable depths too and thus warrants hellfire, which after more liberal cathies is temporal as long as you arent some absolute asshole.
"might makes right" t. Christians
"the meek will inherit the earth" t. Christians

>Orthos say there is no hell but the pain your soul feels because it is too ashamed of its own sins to face the glory of god after death as beholding him makes you instantly understand how morally impure you are actually, skulking seperated from him out of guilt and painful shame.
now this actually makes some sense, ty

PS
Some guy on Veeky Forums who claimed to be a Sufi said you only suffer as much as you sinned even as an infidel, while the more traditionally sunnis just say that Allah can do whatever the fuck he pleases to because not being merciful sometimes is just a byeffect of omnipotence (just as protestant americans) while we as flawed beings automatically have no say in what is just and what is not, no questions asked, asking is shirk/heresy.

>Orthos say there is no hell
They say there's no purgatory. Hell is separation from god, which sounds suspiciously like Islam.

Free will and freedom are different things. If you were going to shoot up a school and the police physically stopped you, you still have free will. So why doesn't God do that?

>omniscient
>has to perform tests

>>>

Well, what I meant is that they dont imagine hell as some designated burning place were some devil pokes a fork in your ass as its with islam or the bhuddists hells were dozens of pages describe various hellish tortures with ridiculous detail (sometimes borderline comical) in contrast to Jesus who simply said something along the lines of "there is a hell and its not nice/gnashing of theeth".

>So why doesn't God do that?
Because it's up to us. What you see as great tragedies that God should've prevented are nothing, just like the entirety of our mortal existence. All good people will be rewarded with eternal heaven anyway, and God will punish all the bad guys anyway. Tragedies give people chance to redeem themselves.

That's what they believe, anyway.

imagine being so insecure & lonely that you create an intelligent species and then torture them/threaten to torture them until they decide to dedicate their lives to worshiping you

but they have to really mean it lol

this desu

Hell isn't torture.

It is still free will you fucking idiot.

>If he's threatening to torture your soul for the rest of time, you really can't say he truly have us "free will"
You still possess free will in a society where certain actions are punishable by law. Free Will does not mean that you can act without consequence, but that you have the ability to choose your actions and be subjected to the consequences.

then why would anyone choose to go to hell??????

well it's clear that god wanted us to act of our own accord an intelligence (at least according to christianity), so wouldn't threatening people with extreme consequences defeat the point?

This is where atheists get it wrong when they bring up certain specific criticisms about Christianity. The human mind simply can't comprehend many of the things god has done/created, otherwise he wouldn't be this omniscient, powerful being. Many of these questions can't be answered. We hold a connection with this other world, but are not able to fully understand it. Dostoevsky put this really well in TBK. Basically, it is not up to us to understand everything in this life, rather to do the best we can with what we know, because that is what we'll be judged on.

When did he ever say he was benevolent?

>well it's clear that government wants us to act of our own accord and intelligence , so wouldn't threatening people with punishment for criminal behaviour defeat the point?
Basically, you're arguing here that totalitarian-style mind control and thought police make more sense than just punishing criminals for doing, well, crimes. If God took away your capacity to do crime, he would also take away your capacity to do anything meaningful. If you can't be bad, being good is worthless because you're forced to be good.

>then why would anyone choose to go to hell??????
Because some people, even people who sincerely believe in God, Heaven, Hell and all that stuff are still seduced by earthly pleasures.

God created "evil" as we know it.
he says so in the Bible, Isaiah 45:7

also the "benevolence" of god is a lot different from our own highly narrow view of benevolence.

>The human mind simply can't comprehend many of the things god has done/created
thats because he doesnt exist LOL

Glad to see the average atheist still hasnt learned a single argument from the other aisle. "Muh Richard Dawkins makes you look dumb durr how can you still have an imaginary friend?"
At least this is resulting in the death of the New Atheist movement. Tip your fedoras while you can faggots

not all believe in the completely benevolent part

>If god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and completely benevolent

who says?
what passage in the bible?

Do criminally insane people have free will?

because people let shit happen
god gave man control of he earth along time ago

This.

I don't see the supposedly apparent contradiction whatsoever. If something is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, it would just view the ebb and flow of civilization as the lapping of a mild tide.

that wasnt a benevolent action

>completely benevolent
Because that attribute is a meme. Read Jung's Answer to Job.

The material world is imperfect and God is separated from the material world as he is of a spiritual nature.

First post best post strikes again.
/thread

Because the Devil tempts people into thinking either he isn't real, Hell is preferable, or essentially takes away their free will.
Yes it was, it was an act of humility.
The Angels were an inferior creation because they function entirely different from humans.
Wrong, don't shiptost please.

>If God took away your capacity to do crime, he would also take away your capacity to do anything meaningful.
How so? Are people who constantly follow God's will are incapable of doing anything meaningful?

> he gave us free will
He forced free will on us.

> If God took away your capacity to do crime, he would also take away your capacity to do anything meaningful.
Yes... Like when he take away our apacity to do anything meaningful, when he took away our capacity to kill everybody by simple thought? This is obviously bullshit excuse. Firstly, your options are alrady limited. Secondly, there are meaningful choices beyond between good and evil.

>NO..... UH HE FORCED IT ON US!!!!!!!!
Fucking kek
>Secondly, there are meaningful choices beyond between good and evil.
There aren't. You're the only one making excuses here.

>god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
Because he's not. Even cursory knowledge of the Bible reveals this. He's surprised by shit throughout the book. He even regrets actions, as if he can't see every outcome even of his own decisions. Other gods demonstrate power in the book, and he only provides a "slightly better" counter-power.

Every other freaking deity of the era had titles akin to those, and every other one of them demonstrated a lack of them, to one degree or another, in the mythological stories surrounding them.

People just took shit too literally, and decided to proclaim their deity "the bestest at everything ever", without realizing the logical paradox that would create, and then a bunch of apologists came along with various bend-over-backwards efforts to defend that position, rather than simply correct it.

If you drop one or all of those conditions, or reduce them to simply non-absolute terms, the religion, at least, begins to make a lot more sense.

Historical facts aren't wrong, even if they contradict to your fantasy book narrative, user.

> Fucking kek
If he give us free will than he done it not by our choice (as there is no free will before he give it), but by his voluntary action.

>facts
Don't exist.
>history
>facts
Try harder
>le historical event means people are intelligent
What the fuck are you on.

Go back to ledbit.
>HURR MUH LOGIX XDDDD
Fuck off.

A natural state can't be forced you fucking dunce.

One takes force, the other is the absence of force.

I really want to take time to answer this question, but since it is asked every single day, the same way, with the same responses, it is almost like, is anyone actually going to listen?

>facts, history, and logic are invalid
...Well, that's one way to "win" every debate.

> There aren't
Of course there are. The only people who can't see beyond that are the people who struggle to choose between good and evil in the first place.

> Force that created nature itself can't decide what would be the natural state of things! XD
Of course, natural state can be forced on you when we are talking about agency of divine power.

>if you reject my ideology and expect an actual response, UR JUST UF9CKING STUPID
There aren't, stop deluding yourself you secular.
No it can't, you're just looking for excuses at this point.

> facts
> don't exist
Maybe on your tumblr blogs where feelings are the only thing that matters. ;)

> There aren't, stop deluding yourself you secular.
I am not secular. I just believe in more powerful God than pathetic one who focused on primitive matter of moral choice like Mars focused on war.

Nice retort.

'facts' are ideologically and feeling-driven. Objectivity doesn't exist.

The only one who is making excuses is you. God is powerful enough to decide what is nature itself, if you don't believe in that, tip fedoras with people of your interest for useless karma points.

This is the Problem of Evil first proposed by the Greek philosopher Epicurus. There are plenty of online resources that offer better explanations than what I can provide... I know that doesn't really spark conversation, but if you are looking for an answer, you're better off just googling it.

Because people sometimes choose to be evil and do bad things

Some people decide to do good things

It wouldn't even matter "God" at that point, because now you are talking about human natures, and the concept of Nature isn't separate from God

>No it can't, you're just looking for excuses at this point.
(NTG) You'd have a point, if man came into existence before God, but as your religion insists that God created man, he most certainly can, being the one who defines the nature of man.

To accuse someone of pointing out such a basic fact of "making excuses"...

> Objectivity doesn't exist.
Maybe in your post-modern world, where it is just your opinion anyway. Facts exist. Just no for the people who are blind to them.

Facts can be empirically proven in a process that does not require any ideological motivation nor emotion.

>I am not secular. I just believe in more powerful God than pathetic one who focused on primitive matter of moral choice like Mars focused on war.
You keep telling yourself that, pseudonietzschean.
>Deciding what nature is is forcing it upon a nonexistent number of beings
Top fucking kek.
>fact
>becuz i sed so
Try harder, excusemaker. Your terible philosophy sure is great.
Entirely wrong.

Empiricism requires the presumption of facts, so I'm sorry but that's a logical error.

Logic also does, actually.

do you know this for a fact?

Even if you go by people's choice, God designed entire world as system where choice to be Good can lead to horrible suffering. It isn't like peoples control the ourcomes really. The one who control them is God.

>i dont know what a fact is
There are infinite possibilities and outcomes and all are free to take.

> forcing it upon a nonexistent number of beings
Yes it is. God is beyond time so he can force all his designs in the past on the being that exist in the future directly.

>excuses

> Your philosophy sure is great.
Because this is a real philosophy, after all. The one that operates with facts, not with feels and memetic opinions.

If you can't rely on your senses for information, then what can you rely on? Also, would you argue that an empirical approach is not best for a practical approach? I.e.can we not rely on empiricism to understand our world to the extent where we can make effective predictions on its behavior? If we can, then would you still not consider empirical information used in this practice a "fact"?

wow, a double ascended shitposter

Yes and God between all of them chosen the one where suffering and evil exist. Think about it.

It is if you exclude "God", you are left with a question about people's motives. People control their outcomes, and have more power of their reality than they realize. God definitely does control stuff, but not anyone fully ever.

Anything "Good" would leave zero opportunity for horrible suffering. However, because of human nature, something "Good" ultimately is "bad" for another.

Jesus message, good, but for the demonically possessed, Jesus message was "not good". That is an example how something Good becomes twisted as bad, because of bad human natures that disagree with the Will of God.

Being in sync with the Will of God, you could say it is like being controlled or predestined, but it is not that fully and still has a strong tie of free will placed upon the paths of many

> Logic also does, actually.
Logic doesn't require facts. It requires statements.

No, that's a bad philosophy. Facts don't and what you call 'facts' are driven by feels and memetic opinions. Any statement otherwise is trying to save face.
>practical
top kek

Practicality is evil.
I've thought about this more than you, I have published theological writings.

You're a hack.
It requires ''''''self-evident''''' axioms. People like to call these 'facts'.

> You keep telling yourself that
Don't be mistalen. I telling that to you. No need to bring Nietzsche in really serious discussion about religion.

The only one who even interested in escuses here is you, who is blind to facts.

>facts
Are excuses. Ways to support ideology.

>I have published theological writings.
that's the only field i could see your level of insight being published in besides gender studies. still, i doubt it

>Practicality is evil.

That is not an answer to my question, and I have no idea what you mean. Care to explain?

Basically, if you really want to make it simple, "how does a Omni-whatever God be benevolent while evil exists", it is free will, because free will can mean:

>becoming in sync with Law
>ignoring Law
>going against the Law

Things are determined by cause and effect and also very often grace and mercy. It is easy to say something happens because of cause and effect, but it is also true that good things happen out of nowhere without cause, that is mercy and grace and comfort of God.

You can also say free will is "...whatever definition you think it is..."

haha totally EPIC
Practicality is the 'easy way' which can lead to nothing good, because evil is also a default state and no resistance to that and living 'practically' means one will always be evil.

Law here is referred to God's will, or Dharma gateway. Even some spiritualties like some Chinese thinkers, the Law is the Harmony of Heaven and Earth. This produces good fruit, the fruit being the refined person who cultivates their "soul" which is just a simple way of describing how the larger aspect of someone is not physical

I'm confused. You're saying that if we practice our theory than we are evil? Has technology, science, medicine, etc. not improved the lives of countless people?

wew that's one special definition of evil. i fail to see how you think you can trascend base practicality when you consider all facts to be mere ideologically driven perspectives.

No, I'm saying living practically is evil.
>Has technology, science, medicine, etc. not improved the lives of countless people
That's doesn't determine what is good, though.
Impracticality.

top kek, so it's good to be impractical according to you? it's a holy act to eat soup with a fork, a godly one to bash my head against a steel beam?

> Because of human nature, something "Good" ultimately is "bad" for another.
The problem here isn't that. The problem here is that despite infinite praise to free will the human can force each other to suffer even if suffering in such situation is directly against free will of side that suffers from it. Why free will of murderers is more valuable for God than free will of the victim and such? This isn't about your nature at all but about world and how it works itself. The conflict isn't problem by itself. The bias for side that will inflict harm by force is real, moral problem here.

>hyperbole
Go fuck yourself m8

There is nothing bad about excuses. It isn't like you can deny facts, just because you are blind, but want to make excuse for the ideology user.

>OMG YOU CANT DNEY MY IDEOLOGY WTF

What are you even talking about? You can't save face on anonymous forum, user.

Is health and happiness not good? Has our practical understanding of nature not given us tools to better ourselves? I don't know what your understanding of good and evil is anyway.

Axioms aren't facts. They aren't even necessary self-evident. Not even any given fact is.