2500 years and religioncucks still have no answer to this

>2500 years and religioncucks still have no answer to this

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Outside of the stupider forms of Christianity, I'm unaware of any religion that considers God omnibenevolent.

free will

Leibniz laid it all out, this is the best of all possible worlds. The existence of suffering will be worth it in the end.

could god have created a universe with free will but no evil?

Evil is necessary for the world with the highest potential good. A world without evil is by necessity less good than this one. Easy.

Could we have free will if God is all knowing?

>All these brainlets not understand the mechanical nature of the universe
>durr evil exists, just like when my gym teacher made me run THAT WAS EVIL

fucking brainlets can't focus on the bigger picture

No.

Given free will, some choices/actions will be sub-optimal. The worst of these will be the worst choices/actions we have ever known, and will seem evil.

Argument depends on an infantile presumption that suffering = evil.

so if god can't create a world without evil why is he omnipowerful?

Yes, since WE are not all knowing.

read

He could have, but this one is better in the end.

can we have free will when we didn't get raised with a value system that we didn't choose manipulating our choices?
not advocating sitting helpless, but if you were playing villain would you change?

Is a programmer incapable of programming something different if they don't include something in a functional program?

If we define God as being omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything possible then this shitty image gets destroyed. Creating a world with free will but without the possibility of evil is not possible, therefore God cannot make such a world. God not being able to make such a world has no bearing on if he's "all-powerful" or not since it is not within the range of possible actions.

>so if god can't create a world without evil
He can but like I said, it would be a world with less potential good than this one. Existence of evil is necessary for the highest amount of good to exist. Everything is as it is meant to be.

>Existence of evil is necessary for the highest amount of good to exist
why couldn't god have made a universe were evil wasn't necessary for the greatest good? he makes the rules after all, right?

Evil comes from free will. Without free will we're just characters in a book. We don't exist.

>mfw

good and evil must look very different from the vantage point of god and the knowledge. One can imagine if you can bear with me that the universe being the mind or body of god and all else being like the constituent parts of this enormous body. When you work out with the mind separate and in some cases hurting the body stop cause of some small growing pain. I should hope not because you can see the bigger picture

Depends if you think God could create a universe where triangles have more than 3 sides.

How is that even relevant to my objection?

That is just silly sophism over the hard or soft definition of omnipotence. It's like saying that God isn't all-powerful because he "can't" make a triangle with only two angles. It's logic-breaking. The best world has evil and suffering, so God went with that one. That's just how it is.

This is true. From Gods perspective things change dramatically. Think of a child who thinks their parent is being pointlessly mean by not letting them eat ice cream for dinner. The parent has a better perspective of what is good for the child than the child does, and because of the childs lack of perspective and knowledge it seems to them that the parent is being cruel for no reason.

We need to admit that we simply can never have a perspective that matches an immortal being that lives outside time and space. Making judgement on it's actions is pointless because we can hardly understand our own nature let alone the nature of a being so far above us that we might as well be ants.

Good and evil are subjective human value judgments. To get rid of evil would require getting rid of our ability to make value judgments.

How the hell couldnt he if he is omnipotent

That's a dumb argument. We can imagine a world where evil isn't necessary for greater good, because there's nothing contradictory in such a concept. We cannot imagine a triangle with only two sides, because a triangle by essential definition has three.

To your false quote falsely attributed to Epicurus? Did you just crawl out from under a rock?

God will eradicate all evil, when he said he would, how he said he would, and not on your timetable.

Now scoot along and consider that YOU are part of the evil that you want God to eradicate.

replied to the wrong reply my bad
why couldn't he? he created everything we consider normal, why couldn't he change our sense of logic to make sense of whatever he created? or is our sense of logic created independently from god, which would make him not the creator of the universe?

You're the only woman on an island with one man.

Do you believe he really loves you?

>God will eradicate all evil
why does god allow evil to exist in the first place?

You're defining omnipotence in a way that it can cause logical paradoxes. That makes no sense. Omnipotence is the power to do all things that are possible to be done. Not the power to do all things that you can conceptualize. Hence the "Can God create a boulder so heavy even He couldn't lift it" paradox is null. Logical paradoxes are impossible and hence outside the scope of omnipotence.

And the best possible world, by essential definition, has evil and suffering.

> We can imagine a world where evil isn't necessary for greater good
If God could have imagined such a world, with the greatest good, then he would have made it. And his imagination far surprasses ours.

But are you going with these arguments anyway? What's your goal here? If someone were to say, "you're right, God simply didn't manage pulling that off", how does that change things significantly? He'd still be the creator of all the universe.

it doesn't matter, because we are talking with the sense of our current universe. what i propose is why did god not create a universe were evil was not necessary for good to shine?

Just consider the alternatives, and keep in mind that God's priority is to have Love as the greatest ideal.

1. No creation. No love for humanity, no love of humans for God.

2. Automaton creation. No love for humanity, no love of robots for God.

3. Pollyanna creation. Everyone is good because there is no evil. Everyone's actions are good, and everyone always does the right thing. What is the value of human love, and of God's love for humanity, under such circumstances?

No, in order for you to properly exercise your agency, to choose whether to love God or reject God, you must exist in a universe where good is possible, and evil is possible. Where you can worship God and be adopted into his family, or you can be one of the devil's prisoners.

Love freely given; Love freely received; and the greatest act of Love is now possible: For Jesus to give his life for us, while we were all sinners and did not deserve any of it.

In fact, you could argue that God created this universe so that he could perform the greatest act of Love possible, and the greatest act of Love ever.

...

Are you suggesting that a man can't fall in love with a woman if they're all alone on an island?

...

...

(I'm suggesting he can do nothing else.)

>And the best possible world, by essential definition, has evil and suffering.

There's no reason to think that this is the best possible world.

>If God could have imagined such a world, with the greatest good, then he would have made it. And his imagination far surprasses ours.

Your reasoning is circular. "this world must be the best possible world, because god made it, and god must have made it because it's the best possible world."

>But are you going with these arguments anyway? What's your goal here? If someone were to say, "you're right, God simply didn't manage pulling that off", how does that change things significantly? He'd still be the creator of all the universe.

It means the the standard descriptions and definition of God are wrong. And implies either a different god (perhaps Spinoza's God) or an absence of God.

>in order for you to properly exercise your agency, to choose whether to love God or reject God, you must exist in a universe where good is possible, and evil is possible
why can god not create a universe were i can freely love with without the existence of evil?

I think the best response is to deny that evil exists. This is a sentiment which many (but not all) Hindus have. Despite the negative effects of certain things, and our interest in ceasing or ameliorating them, no thing is truly 'evil'. Any thing which has negative effects can also have positive effects, and effects we consider at first to be negative may have some positive effects which follow.

For example, burning yourself after touching a hot stove is painful and negative, but a positive effect flows from that which is that you learn how to avoid future negative effects and your understanding of the world around you is improved.

Obviously, some people might find this to be unsatisfactory. There is no logical reason why a person must feel pain when touching a hot stove - except to cause him to pull his hand away so that he doesn't burn himself more, but this problem, of course, is also unnecessary. Learning to avoid pain isn't necessarily good or positive; really it is just a response to that which is negative. However, just as nothing needs to be 'evil', nothing needs to be 'good' either.

Just as unnecessary as it is that God should create pain, it is also unnecessary that God should create pleasure. God needs not create evil, but it needs not create good either. The realization which I have drawn from this, personally, is that no thing or effect of a thing is fully and completely good or evil - these are merely labels which I might place on them based on how they affect me. I don't like that a stove burns me, but I do like that it cooks my food; I don't like that pain causes displeasure, but I do like my bodily safety; and so on and so forth. Ultimately, once one recognizes the ambivalence of the universe, rather than attaching fatalistic 'evil' or 'good' to it, then he can truly appreciate God's colorful creation.

Already answered, you stupid faggot.
>it is immoral to allow evil to exist
says fucking who?

>There's no reason to think that this is the best possible world.
If there is an all-powerful benevolent God, then there is no other possibility. And to a religious person, the existance of such a God is a matter of faith, we simply choose to accept it as an axiom.

...

>linking to /pol/
Why does God allow this to happen?

>Posts flow chart
>Literally thinks insides boxes

>says fucking who?
literally god lol

>could god have made a world...
This argument to me sounds like the old "can god make a bridge he cannot cross ?".
Omnipotence is a logical contradiction, and an omnipotent being cannot exist.
But as points out this is not so damaging to monotheism.

The actual issue with God is that even if he can only accomplish what is possible and free will without evil is impossible, the fact remains that the world is obviously not as good as it could be.
People need to suffer ? Maybe, but clearly not quite as much as they do. We don't need rabies, hurricanes, volcanoes, malaria... We don't need to starve.
We don't need to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow (disregarding the fact that this curse doesn't seem to apply to everyone), and women don't need to suffer to give birth.
Why can't we have eternal life and never die ?
That would not prevent evil and suffering in any way, nor exclude free will.
We could still sin and hurt each other and we would be entirely to blame, demonstrating our shortsightedness and inequity to all.
But no, god had to put us in scarcity, to make us fight each other for ressources.
He could have offered us a guiding hand anyway, but instead he chose to obscure what he wanted us to see and to punish us for not perceiving it.

God chose to make us suffer more.

And all because of a sin we didn't commit.

He just can't be omnibenevolent.

>flowcharts are used universally for logical processing
>"YU TINK INSAID DA BOKS"

But if free will exist "Then god is not all knowing"

Not that user, but then you must also accept that this entire system of reasoning is not applicable to people who do not believe in such a God. The model works once you accept that its premise - an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God exists - is true. Why accept that as an axiom and not anything else? If your argument is just 'because I believe it', then what's wrong with the counterargument 'well I don't'?

I think inside the book.
Now go read the bible, user.

The restoration of Christian America begins with you fully submitting your heart, mind and soul to Jesus Christ.

Evil is a human concept, a creator being would call evil "human behavior" and dont distinguish it from good.

The argument i usually see against that is either "there is a reason for why that is (scarcity for example) but God is the only one who knows (or can comprehend) it" or "the reason is so that, through struggling with suffering, we become fuller beings than otherwise would be possible". I don't necessarily agree but those are two arguments.

>Creating a world with free will but without the possibility of evil is not possible,
>omnipotent

Christians are so retarded they cant even understand one of their meme words.

Good and evil are arboreal concepts.

You're just having some issues with abstract thought.

An omnipotent is not limited by logic they can anything you stupid christfag.
>arboreal concepts
What?

i think you are actually

Why do Christfags say God is good? God is amoral actually he has the moral compass of a star or a hurricane meaning no moral compass period. Morals are for inferior creations like humans who need it to function but God is so powerful he doesnt need it anymore. So does God throw humans into hell because they are evil? No God throws humans into hell for a reason you cant comprehend since he doesnt operate on morality.

No one going to address this analogy? Okay.

not just christfags, all religions with anthropomorphic gods present them as omnibelevolent

I'm not a Christfag but "God made us in his image" resonated with me. We have full agency within our finite world because what possible love or interest could we hold for God if we were just dolls?

>not just christfags, all religions with anthropomorphic gods present them as omnibelevolent
Zeus

It was really hard for humans to admit they are just cunts naturally thats why they invented these origin of evil explanations like LE fruit of knowledge or Satan.

on second thought religions like ancient greek paganism did not present their gods as omnibelevolent, i retract my statement, MOST religions with anthropomorphic gods present them as omnibelevolent, especially abrahamic religions

>His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Issue solved.

No, God is good and he is opposed to evil. Give the Bible a read. Good and evil are religious terms to begin with.

A programmer that can but doesn't include a feature in a program is a programmer that doesn't want to include it.
Assuming that feature is "good", this programmer doesn't want "good" in that program.
The programmer is thus not always coding "good".

The wording is confusing. Makes no sense.

>God is good and he is opposed to evil.
Stop applying human concepts to a higher being dumbass christfag. This God guy doesnt give a shit about you.

How do you, as a finite entity contained within that code, have a frame of reference for what constitutes "good" on the level of the programmer?

Because the programmer let me eat the fruit of knowledge.

So in other words god isn't omnipotent and is subject to logic? Doesn't that mean logic is more powerful and precedes god?

They're not human concepts and God does care, he walked among us as a man, for our sake.

>morals are totally real guys!
No they arent the only reason a human can conceptualize good or evil is due to emotions. Make a human who cant feel disgust and you have a human cant perceive evil, make a human who cant feel oxytocin and you have a human who cant fathom good.

>So in other words god isn't omnipotent and is subject to logic?
No, that's not it. It boils down to the fact that all these "can God xy?" are nonsensical constructions and not logically coherent questions.

>oxytocin
Cringe.

but WHAT makes these things nonsensical?
If god created sense and logic, couldn't he have made it so they made sense?
If he didn't and can't, doesn't that mean he is not ompnipotent?

Morality in humans is caused by empathy, get rid of empathy and you have a human who operates on I LIKE THIS/I HATE THIS thinking process. Something is good if it makes you feel oxytocin like helping people and something is bad if it makes you feel empathetic dread then its evil hence why sociopaths dont care about good nor evil as they cant experience none of these.

Now if we define morality by behavior then humans are naturally evil as they like to do anything that causes pain and suffering to other living things, and naturally good lifeforms simply dont exist.

So you understand that the framework of the program allows you to appreciate the nuance of "good" and "evil". You would prefer a program that keeps that knowledge from you?

In some cases good can become evil as empathy can make you do immoral things such as murder or lying but because of the oxytocin pleasure you get from "doing the right thing" you dont feel any guilt afterwards.

So christians totally believe an entity that made the universe killed his son so every human could join them in heaven? This is why monotheism is stupid it assumes beings of this caliber would even register humans at all.

>but WHAT makes these things nonsensical?
You do.
>couldn't he have made it so they made sense?
Yes, God should rework the inner workings of the universe so that your silly non-questions make sense.

evil is a subjective term
killing sodomites and non believers is not evil in my opinion

Because you could not choose to love God if you are programmed to love God.

Where does God say that it is immoral to allow evil to exist?

Ok.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And ends with avoiding being cast into a burning lake of fire forever.

How does this disprove anything I said dumbass?

Do you even comprehend how insignificant you are an entity that could create our galaxy alone? No you dont you wont matter to such a being or a universal maker like the deity of Christianity either.

Correct. We were created to house the Holy Spirit of God within us; the first man was brought to live by having that Breath of Life, the Holy Spirit, blown into his nostrils.

After Jesus rose from the dead, and before he ascended bodily into heaven, he blew into his apostles' mouths and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit".

We were not meant to live like animals; we were meant to collaborate with our Creator in the creation, and in creations to come.

I have no preference regarding this.
The programmer though has updated the program to make me suffer from being part of it, on account of my unauthorized access to the fruit of knowledge.

So I would prefer a better programmer.

And yet, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever might believe on him may not perish, but have everlasting life.

>Yes, God should rework the inner workings of the universe so that your silly non-questions make sense
why can't he?
in fact why did he create a universe where his attributes don't make sense?

It is not, actually. It is objective. When you encounter objective evil, you will know it.

This is such nonsense, I cant believe this kind of monotheism is the most popular on earth. A monotheism with an earthbound representative of the entity like Jesus or Muhammed if pure stupidity. Even jews had a better way of viewing a universal entity than this.

>how insignificant you are an entity that could create our galaxy alone?
That's up to him to decide, not you.