How do you solve the problem of evil?

>that's a cop out
It's not

You know how I know you never read Aquinas?

Create Devil to lay the blame.

>why not stop devil?
Cause mysterious ways. + Testing you.

Because you haven't.

What is the point of such tests if God already knows the result beforehand? So you can also know what the result would be?

For a being which can achieve anything through any means, using suffering to achieve something profound or good is inifinitely beneath him.

>How do you solve the problem of evil?

How do you pin a wave upon the sand?

"Does not satisfy me" /= "A cop out."

darkness is the absence of light
cold is the absence of heat
evil is the absence of God

it's not really that hard to understand

>For a being which can achieve anything through any means, using suffering to achieve something profound or good is inifinitely beneath him.

Unless it is the optimal solution.

Evil doesn't actually exist and is a human intrepetation, also we are all God, playing a drama non of thisbis ultimetly real, only menifastions of a godly play

God is everywhere, friend. He can't be absent.

Also my favorite part about that supposed Einstein quote is that it's used by conservatives to strengthen the argument for god, even though Einstein spent the last part of his life trying everything he could to discredit quantum mechanics (something that's actually a good argument for god).

free will

> quantum mechanics (something that's actually a good argument for god)
not really

>Le free will paradox
Ebin

>into the concept of within and without
okay, stay in your box i guess

>God can't be absent
I love your baby-tier definition of omnipresence

Butthurt so nice, he replied twice.

You can just say you lost the argument, no need to show us.

That is literally what omnipresence is.

The prescience of evil doesn't mean "the absence of god".

Better luck next time.

God is everywhere, he is in the sun and stars, he is in the earth, he is in the sky, he is in all of our hearts, he is in our heads, he is in our hands, he is in our penises, he is in our assholes, he is in our shit, god is in all things everywhere.

The ocean would be boring if it was just clownfish.

believing in the devil is duelistic. In Christian theology the devil and hell are still within God.

*isn't duelistic.

I think the heavenly beings have free will as well, or perhaps they did?
it is the only way to explain why the fuck anyone would ever rebel against against an omniscient and omnipotent god

i don't see how you cant
you obviously can to every god that has an evil counterpart

>good is pure actuality
>it needs to be pure actuality because everything else is flawed somehow, since it is just potential and not actual and actual by definition > potential
>only god is pure actuality

Thus what we call evil is just the side effects of our unsolvable potentiality. It can't be avoided unless we become pure actuality but by that point we are just God.

There. It isn't that hard.

Interesting.

It is only from our perspective that we think that actuality is greater than potentiality.

If by our perspective you mean our logic, sure. But then, since our logic is the only one we have access, it is either to embrace the fact or accept nihilism.

>How do you solve the problem of evil?
All things exist as necessary to the nature of reality (leading to things such as free will) or are means towards God's will. Redemptive suffering.

God isn't omnipresent: otherwise there would be no Hell.

No it's more like

A. God is good
B. Man is bad

God sustains all things at all times. God is omnipresent. What Hell is isn't a complete lack of God but a lack of His mercy.

Nice heresy.

...

Easy, evil doesn't exist. We're all just big molecules anyway.
-Not that I believe that or anything, but it is the naturalist answer.

>How do you solve the problem of evil?
>Here's a solution I don't believe in.
Seriously, get out.

You need Stirner.

Stirner wouldn't promote anyone but Stirner.

So why'd he write a book?

To promote egoism.

Something you should aquatint yourself with, considering you think evil exist.

This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .

People attribute evil to random events or things that run contrary to their will to life but create grand narratives so they don't feel selfish and base but also to see where people can cooperate in the maintenance of the will to life (social contract).

God is only where He is accepted. Those that reject God will experience evil.

God is not actually perfect and you'd be foolish to think so even if you are a believer. Nobody thought Zeus was perfect, he was an asshole. YHVH is just yet another in a long line of asshole gods. The whole "let's make God absolutely perfect and all powerful and all knowing etc etc etc" are just the religious equivalent of fanboys.

>Zeus
>The Abrahamic God
>even the same thing ontologically
>comparing them because they are lumped together under the umbrella of "god"

Fuck off back to /v/ you dumb tripfag.

But he is right. Yahweh was once part of a pantheon and was merely a god of war and weather, particularly storms. It's relatively recent that Yahweh was ever thought of to be the god of everything or the only god or even omni-anything. Hence why god tests people in the Bible, loses to iron chariots, etc. A lot of things people try to do apologetics for makes sense if you understand that Yahweh was once an imperfect god and was even then only the tribal god of Jews and not all people.

So, he's right. It was essentially Jews writing fanfiction that made god out to be much more than he originally was claimed to be. He changed drastically over time.

kek people will actually believe this is the sad part

then you have C. based gods.

>Ignoring everything I said

You're making the argument that God's perfection is just exaggeration from proponents to look better than other god figures such as Zeus without realizing that Zeus and God are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS even in concept. It's the difference between theistic personalism and classical theism. Your unawareness of the situation you speak about is very clear.

>relatively recent
>2600+ years ago

user what.

Common apologetics on the disposition of God to man is one of man coming to know God better, not God changing and man grasping the proper picture before and after.

I understand that early on many laypeople understood God in an anthropomorphic way - we see that now with current laypeople - but while I can't attest to what early Judaic people thought of God's ontology, the growing scale of covenants with God through the Old Testament is blatantly clear and with that is not God changing but people being opened to God more.

And if you're talking about God being "omni-anything" as recent, then "perfect" is just as recent and both of these are understood in a classical theist manner rather than a personalist one like how Zeus is traditionally understood.

Now I'm going to fuck off to /v/ as per

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

Yahweh as you know him (in general since Christians changed a lot themselves) didn't appear until the Babylonian exile in the 6th century.

That is thousands of years that people believed exactly what I just said. And over time he became the god you see today. But the earliest writings and understandings of Yahweh were nothing like the modern day Abrahamic faiths and their views of him.

Only Jews worship Yahweh, Christians do not and Muslims arguably do not

Evil doesn't exist. Not a problem at all.

>since Christians changed a lot themselves

Because God himself told us to.

Nihilism makes more sense than attributing human consciousness to the universe..

>the growing scale of covenants with God through the Old Testament is blatantly clear and with that is not God changing but people being opened to God more.

First he made a covenant with Noah, which applied to all of humanity
Then the Mosaic covenant, for the Jewish nation
Then the Priestly covenant for the Jewish priesthood
Then the Davidic covenant, for David's dynasty

Looks like they've shrunk in scale.

C. All things are for the glory of God.

C. You don't have the entire picture and are in no position to say that God permitting evil doesn't make sense.

>Nihilism makes more sense than attributing human consciousness to the universe

1. God's consciousness is not human-like to begin with
2. Nihilism is self-defeating non-sensical drivel. And I don't mean it as "the people that follow it are self-defeatist". Nihilism contradicts itself.

This is only relevant if you choose to believe in a god, and why would you do that in the first place?

By not being a whiny little bitch arrogant enough to assume that I know better than God simply because I feel the world isn't made to my personal satisfaction.

This is a bad argument because it just means "based on things we can't possibly know, the problem of evil isn't a problem." It is arbitrary.

The problem of evil is a problem in the context of the knowledge available to us and we can't actually propose anything outside of this context.

Free will argument.
Movie argument.

>But he is right. Yahweh was once part of a pantheon and was merely a god of war and weather, particularly storms
Do people actually believe this shit?

Remember kids, a borderline retard that managed to think for himself one day and deduced that yhvh is evil and theres a God above him is an evil creature from hell nao.

It's a fact

What believe in truth?
>show me a gospel written in the alleged disciple own hand that can be dated from the 1st century

Oh what you can't! Christians have less primary sources than wiccans and rapist, cuckold leaders.

I googled Yahweh war god and got:

jesusneverexisted.com/brutal.htm
Which is a polemical site that looks like something from 1998 geocities

loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-bibles-yahweh-a-war-god-called-lord-of-armies-over-280-times-in-the-bible-and-lord-of-peace-just-once-i/
A Muslim propaganda site

A reddit question with an answer that says it's a load of shit:
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ehewd/how_well_supported_is_the_theory_that_yahweh/

And a whole bunch of actual historians who say it's a false theory and all evidence points to the earliest forms of Judaism being monotheistic, so I think you're full of shit. Fuck off.

Gospel of Mark. That was easy

Mark is anonymous, popularly believed and ascribed to mark. Try again you dumb nigger

Also you stupid fucking nigger show me an actual piece of paper with writing on it, claiming to be a disciple. Everything we have is copies of "original" sources. There are literally no direct sources for Jesus, his disciples or their writings. So fuck off chaim this is a white board.

Prove the Apostle Mark didn't write it. I don't give a fuck what (((historians))) say, give me some proof or fuck off.

Give me proof mark did write it you dumb nigger.

>The Gospel according to Mark
BTFO you dumb nigger

How about some wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

Or Mircea Eliade, a historian of religion and Christian himself who believed Yahweh started out as a sky god (Patterns in Comparative Religion)

And why do I care what some random guy 'believes' when virtually all scholars of antiquity disagree with him? Some random guy thinks Yahweh was the god of farts and suddenly we all take him at his word despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to support his assertions?

Gee you dumb nigger do you know what a primary source
>original documents you dumb nigger
Oh wait you chucks have less primary documents than Wiccans. LOL

>when virtually all scholars of antiquity disagree with him
But that's wrong

>I took a quick look at a Reddit thread and decided virtually all scholars of antiquity agree with me

Sorry I meant all reputable scholars of antiquity. I'm sure you can pull plenty of random 'scholars' out of your ass who have never published anything of worse and have an axe to grind against Christianity. Judaism was never anything other than monotheistic. That's just fact.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

The person being interviewed in the above source is a Christian and pretty much the definition of a significant reputable scholar.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

Like I said, you took a quick look at a Reddit thread, didn't even read it properly and decided "all reputable scholars of antiquity agree with me".

>evil exists
>so does god
>god feels bad about it
>can't really intervene because it would cancel out my dogma of giving humanity the gift of free will
>damn son
>I fucked up?
>wat do?
>build super sweet awesome paradise realm you get to be in forever
>god is super bummed he fucked up so he's pretty forgiving as long as you have love in your heart

tell me friend

what problem CAN'T be solved by gnosticism?

Canaanites and Israelites are not the same thing friendo. Maybe you need to go back to the drawing board.

The Israelites emerged from the Canaanites.

>mfw he is right

Wrong. Thought it does shed light on why you're so easily duped by frauds talking bullshit when you're so ignorant of actual history.

I just provided a source from an extremely distinguished professor.

>What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

>The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.
So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

Random speculation. Where are the written accounts? Oh right, in the Bible.