They say God is all powerful, knowledgeable and benevolent

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

EBBINN POLITICS THREAD MY FRIEND

VERY POLITICS HAHA MUCH WORLD NEWS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHON

Even though you're fedora posting I'm going to actually explain it to you OP.

God did not create evil. Evil was a betrayal. Satan betrayed God and then humans used their free will to allow evil to flourish, it is not God's doing.

He is all powerful and all knowing, which means in the end evil will be destroyed. Evil will exhaust itself in the end, it just hasn't happened yet. This is the entire point of revelations, how evil will eventually be destroyed and how we are all waiting for the second coming

>inb4 why didn't he do it yet
your concept of time as a human is completely meaningless compared to a God's. By thinking of all events of time occurring at once we can see that evil does not actually exist.

>TLDR:
God did not create evil, it was a betrayal, and evil does not actually exist in the end because it is destroyed.

Hope I cleared that up OP feel free to keep tipping your hat though

>personifying omnipotence
Christcucks, everyone

Wow, op. You're quite the logician. I'm sure you're the first person to think of this.

If all God wanted was a lack of evil, he could have had it handily enough by not creating anything.

Jesus wept. Read the fucking book. The answers in the first few pages. We have dominion on earth.

Christians say that God must exist, since something must've created the universe.
When you ask them about what created God they say "God wasn't created, for he is God."

But if that is true for God, why wouldn't it be true for the universe in the first place? What justifies God being something that has neither beginning nor end and yet if the same were said about the universe it would be wrong? It's wrong because it doesn't match what's written in your holy book, amirite?

Suggesting God having been created presumes that a 'before God' could even exist. St. Thomas Aquinas was of the position in his Summa Theologica that time was an aspect of creation; as such talking about 'before creation' is a logically null concept.

Modern physics eventually came along and said basically the same thing.

Atheists say that God doesn't need to exist, since the universe can exist with no creator. When you ask them about why God then can't exist without a creator, they say "If God created the universe, then someone had to create God"

But if it is true than in their minds the universe can exist without a creator, why wouldn't that be true for God? What justifies the universe as something that has neither a beginning nor end, and yet when the same is said for God you say it's wrong?

These stupid ''arguments'' just go nowhere.
>They say God is all powerful, knowledgeable and benevolent.
Who is ''they''? What if they are wrong?

What if God does actually exist and ''they'' are simply misinterpreting things.
What if god being ''all powerful'' doesn't mean he controls every aspect of our lives, but instead it means that it's a being so powerful it can create a big bang?
What if god isn't ''all knowing''? What if god is actually running a simulation of the world, and he simply observing the simulation outside of time and space, which would mean that it's knows everything, but the nature of it knowing prohibits it from interacting with the universe at the any given time as it would alter what god knows?

You idiots aren't even remotely prepared to have this conversation.
I don't care if you believe or do not believe in a god. You should shut the fuck up if your IQ isn't at least 160.

Which God?

That's not even remotely close to what atheists are saying.

What atheists are saying is that if you use this ''argument'' that universe can't exist without a creator, the same ''argument'' can be used to say that a creator can't exist without a creator. It's an infinite loop created by flawed logic of ''if it exists, someone made it''.

Atheists aren't suggesting that god can't exist without a creator. What they're suggesting is that your retard logic is flawed.

>You should shut the fuck up if your IQ isn't at least 160.

>80 IQ

>creator can't exist without a creator. It's an infinite loop created by flawed logic of ''if it exists, someone made it''.
>implying this hasn't been explained for centuries

As usual atheists don't want to read or explore some of histories greatest philosophers and would rather just repeat bullshit they heard from their prophet Dawkins

>this much denial
Kek. Autistic faggot confirmed.

>God is buisy right now

its easy to see somebody's power level by how much they project their own humanity towards the greatest abstract.

from floating human in clouds, all the way to quantum physics effects

Denial of what, idiot?

>I learned my IQ from an online test

>this much ad hominem
The only sure fire way to tell an idiot

You don't even know what an ad hominem is.

>He decided to create a world that has evil. The excuse for this is that he wanted us to have free will

Wrong. The world was perfect until the fall of Man.

Not going to bother with any more of your retarded fedorashit considering you can't even get one of the most basic things correct.

AYO DIS IZ CTR

DONALD TRUMP AINT FIT TO BE PREZZINDENT CUZ:

he racis
he hates da bitchez
he iz like a nazi frog
he be fightin 4 wite power
HE SAYED HE GON DEPORT ALL DA MEXICANS
HE GOT BANKROPT 4 TIMES
HE WENT BROKE MORE TIMES THAN ME BRUHH!!
nigga, HE MOTHAFUCKIN HITLER

VOTE 4 HILLARY
SHE GON SAVE SAVE ALL DA NIGGAZ AND DA BITCHES
SHE GON SAVE THE WORLD n SHEEIIIIT

physics has disproven that the universe could be eternal. Especially if inflation theory is true. Any attempt to solve this as an atheist would be just as speculative and impossible to prove as theological statements about God.

Abstractions are only important to the human condition when they are. If the greatest Abstraction has nothing to do with humanity, then it's so abstract it's meaningless. In short, if there's a GOD, and he/she/it dosen't CARE about humanity, then what's the point even contemplating it.

>implying this hasn't been explained for centuries
Go on then

Yes...

You realize 160 is Einstein tier? Barely anyone alive has an IQ that high.

Why?

Hopefully you can wrap your puny brain around it.

Here we go.

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, but that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

>physics has disproven that the universe could be eternal
Actually not true

As an information system, how is a simulation any different than 'reality'?

I'm atheist, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate. or, uh ... God's Advocate, in this case. let's examine your assertions.

>1) He did not care about evil. If so he wouldn't be benevolent

>2) He wasn't capable of creating this kind of world, meaning he isn't all powerful

>3) He wanted to create a world without evil but wasn't sure how, meaning he isn't all knowing

I agree that #2 and #3 are logically sound. however I take issue with #1.

>1) He did not care about evil. If so he wouldn't be benevolent

I don't think this is necessarily true. the assertion you're making here is that God, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, must have intentionally included evil in the world he created. However, there are many possible and discrete explanations for why he would do this, not just "he didn't care."

For instance, most Christian denominations say that God created the world as a sort of testing grounds for the character traits of people - those who choose good receive a reward, and those who choose evil are punished. If evil did not exist, then nobody would be able to choose evil, the test would not exist, and there would be no point in making the world. In this case, we're talking about a God who knowingly includes evil in the world because he understands that it serves a higher purpose, and that giving people a free range of choices is more important than ensuring that they are comfortable during their brief mortal lifetimes.

here's a meaningless frog for your meaningless thread

>he wants me to sum up the Summa Theologiae in a 4 chan post

This little info pic doesn't do it justice since it's a brilliantly written text by one of histories greatest minds, and this is a few words on top of pictures, but it will give you the basic premise. You should actually read Aquinas' argument in his own words if you're interested

Hold up. What makes you think that the "uncaused cause" is a being? Could one not say that the big bang was the uncaused cause? I wouldn't call the big bang a "being".

No one would tell lies on the internet dude

Define "nothing". Congrats you just created something from nothing. Its like some kind of paradox or something. You must be God.

It's not that uncommon, and I have a hard time believing Einstein had a high IQ seeing as he was a literal autist who was only good at physics. Everything outside of math was too complicated for him.

If we were to take the account of Afam and Eve as fact is basically proves that god is fallible.

>God creates beautiful garden
>Hmmm this garden alcks sentience.
>Creates first man Adam and gives him garden
>Adam names the animals and flora.
>Adam is sad when he realises all the animals have mates but he does not
>God creates Eve oit of Adam as a mate
>Satan passes in and out of the garden freely with devious motives
>Satan tricks Adam and Eve into giving up perfection and immortality

This means god, who claims he loves humans unconditionally, allowed his nemisis Satan to go into his perfect stronghold and trick and hurt what he claimed to love. This means god either didnt know or knew of Satans intentions and allowed him to hurt Adam and Eve.

God allowed this to happen, full well knowing humanity would be damned for countless millenia to pain, suffering and death.

HE KNEW.. Adam and Eve were niave..HE KNEW they were like children. HE KNEW Satans intentions...

He allowed it anyway..

Would you let a pedophile roam your house with your kids in it?

Youre an imperfect human and even you wouldnt do that.

God either...

Fucked up
Didnt care
Or doesnt exist

Either way he is fallible.

One can't say that. The big bang was not uncaused. I can see your level of understanding in regards to these matters is zero.

Test not the lord thy God for he does not test ye. -Jesus (paraphrased)

Sage and hide CTR threads, one-posts, "What Do You Guys Think," irrelevant posts, celebrity gossip, five new threads on the same topic even if legitimate.
We are standing up as a people and becoming our own janitors.

read the last frame in my info graph. The uncaused cause must be omnipotent. Omnipotent implies sentient, or something above sentient. If the word "being" triggers you then just call it God or use what ever name you prefer. The point is that it's a noun not a verb.

>I have a hard time believing Einstein had a high IQ seeing as he was a literal autist who was only good at physics.
Do you know what an IQ is? You can have a high af IQ and be utterly shit socially.

Einstein was also a really good violin player I recall.

Nothing: the lack of a thing.

It is an abstract concept to explain the lack of any "thing" being present.

Congrats, I didn't create any physical object, not something that possess actual being. You're an idiot. You must be 12.

>The big bang was not uncaused.
How do you know?

Nice trips btw.

>The uncaused cause must be omnipotent.
eh..

Why? If it wasn't omnipotent how would we know?

I'm with Italyfag on this one it's self evident that an uncaused cause must exist somewhere, or else nothing would exist. at least some event must have occurred that violated the concept of causality.

however, I don't see any compelling reason to tie that conclusion into the conclusion that the uncaused cause must have been God. It could have been anything. you may have winked into existence 20 minutes for no reason at all, and that would also be an uncaused cause and satisfy the conundrum equally well as an uncaused God does.

>what is free will

come on dude this is a kinder garden tier argument

God created and creates and will create our reality. Evil is a part of that reality, but we have the ability to understand this reality and make choices. If those choices bring more goodness into the world, then further goodness can grow to combat corruption, morally strong ideas can combat mind-viruses, and those strong enough to lead by example through humility will inspire more to do the same.

Our reality exists in a way consistent with our ability to understand and learn from it. Discovery and perseverance lead to more self consistent patterns of behavior.

>far too self important, an human centric.
does ageless entity need to care about ~million years of 1 sentient creature/eternity

do we need the world to revolve arrund us, in one spec of dust out of the galaxy.. galaxies...

>Why?
please reread my info pic or read the actual summa theologiae. The first cause must be fully actualized. Fully actualized means no unrealized potential. This means omnipotence

Because it wasn't an ever present occurrence. At one point there was no Big Bang happening. It was an effect, caused by something. The Universe is the effect caused by the Big Bang.

>The first cause must be fully actualized.
But why? All I hear is claims that this stuff must be true. Why couldn't the first cause not be fully actualised? Why would that not result in the current universe?

I don't think you read the end of my info pic. The uncaused cause must be fully actualized with no unrealized potential. That is omnipotence by definition. What you're suggesting could have happened violates the laws of physics

Cannot get more in the effect than the toal sum of all causes. Intelligence is present in the Universe. Intelligence was present in the cause. Intelligence is an attribute of thinking beings.

Autistic people are cheating. It has literally nothing to do with social skills.
An autistic person can be great at pattern recognition and great with numbers, but then when you ask them to explain why they hate nationalism, but support zionism they can't do it, because they're just dumb people. That's Einstein.

IQ tests are really good at telling who is smart and who is not, except when it comes to autistic people. They can score extremely high while struggling with something as simple as figuring out how to tie their shoes or grasping simple concepts.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is all powerful. After all, it took him 6 days to create the universe and then he had to rest for a day. An all powerful god could create infinite universe before his morning cup of coffee.

Also, where do you get the impression that God is supposed to be benevolent? No, he's not benevolent. He is merciful. There's a difference.

The Bible is God's fight against death (which most people claim is the devil). He spent the entire first testament figuring out the best way to defeat death, and in the new testament he finds a way through the sacrifice of Jesus. Humans can now defeat death by accepting Jesus Christ, just as god wanted

I'm an atheist, but these arguments are weak as fuck. If you're a supreme, all-knowing, perfect being, the only enjoyment you'd get out of existence is creating instances that aren't driven completely by you and thus interesting to observe. The same reason we keep ant farms or play games.

>Why couldn't the first cause not be fully actualised?
because then it cannot be the first cause. If it is not fully actualized and has unrealized potential then there was something that came before it and it is still changing

>At one point there was no Big Bang happening.
That's not true though. By most common interpretations of the theory, the big bang literally represents the beginning of time. There was never a point in time before the big bang by this definition.

Not everyone agrees that that's what happened, but it's the most common understanding of the theory.

I agree. That's not cheating though, it's just not what an IQ is meant to measure. If you look at someone IQ hoping to find a gauge of someone's social skills you're an idiot.

that's nice, Leaf, but we're talking about rational conclusions and metaphysics ITT, not appealing to scriptural authority. if you believe everything in the Bible is true, good for you.

I'm not following this logic. who says it has to be ever present? who says the uncaused cause has to be "fully actualized"? the idea of an uncaused cause violates the laws of physics in the first place. life on earth evolved from environmental conditions. who is to say that intelligence cannot arise from unintelligent causes? on what evidence or reasoning do you stake that claim?

how can you prove you didn't come into existence twenty minutes ago?

Humans were a new creation, naive and stupid we had very little knowledge. God was going to reveal the knowledge to us all eventually little bits at a time. But Satan tempted us and told us God was hiding secrets and like dumb asses we are we listened to him. So we learned the knowledge of good and evil instantly.

Satan promised us we wouldn't die and he was kind of right. There is life after death and this life is very short and it's a learning and growing experience. Yeah it sucks but it's the best way to appreciate what we had in the first place and to grow spiritually from it.

You created a physical objective negative aspect of a "thing". An idea was created, and we observe it and maintain it. If Nothing existed but a paradox is formed then something always existed because of nothing. It's confusing but think about it.

>If it is not fully actualized and has unrealized potential then there was something that came before it and it is still changing
How does one thing imply the other here? Why can it not be the first cause? What does it need to be "fully actualised" in order to be the first cause?

youtu.be/4fj74k8lqxY

Skip to 1:40

if god was all powerful he could destroy all evil in the universe right now with a mere thought as I type this out. Why wait for some vaguely determined point in time?

See

Because these are the laws of physics. Potential cannot become actual without a force behind it. If it has any potential or is not fully actual then something came before it. If there is any actual witnessed, there was a state before it. Nothing with unrealized potential can be at the start of the chain. This mean the chain started with something that has zero potential, and is therefore omnipotent.

>it's a Cred Forums user finally reached 13 years old and has a common sense ''revelation'' episode

Lol wut

In Jesus last days he predicted the signs of the end. If god coud see into the future hed know what was going to happen, he could have stopped Satan. If he loved humanity like he says he does he could have prevented the suffering and he didnt. If free will = suffering, why make perfect humans at all?

>not obeying the inb4

I just addressed that. Becuase by his perception he destroyed it in a mere instance but it could be millions of years for us. Something eternal by definition has no concept of time

Yes, because the bible claims it does.

No one is talking about social skills, except you.
This has literally ( literally ) nothing to do with social skills whatsoever.

What the fuck is wrong with you, idiot?

High IQ in a normal person is directly related to success. High IQ is great for problem solving, fast thinking and comprehending various subjects far better than the average person. No one is talking about social skills, especially when it comes to aspies who can do great at IQ tests without having the mental capacity to do the things a normal high IQ person could do.

See He did defeat death. The book of revelations is just biblical fanfic that claims evil will return, but God will once again defeat it.

Why do atheist-autists even exist? You should kill yourself because life is more pain than pleasure for you.

The only thing which gives you joy is trying to persuade the faithful into being as full of loathing and doubt as you are.

And time does not go infinitely backwards..... which means the big bang is not an ever occurring process, it isn't happening now. It happened once. If it "happened" at one point it was not "happening". This isn't difficult.

It has to be ever present in order to be uncaused. It did not ever "begin" to be. It always was.

Yes, and the laws of physics break down if we go before the big bang. The law doesn't apply as the Universe didn't exist, neither did the laws.

>This mean the chain started with something that has zero potential, and is therefore omnipotent.
huh?

Hold up, what implies exactly that whatever is at the start of the chain must have zero potential? Does zero potential mean zero energy here?

>Potential cannot become actual without a force behind it.

I can agree with that, but I don't agree with all of the conclusions that Aquinas draws about characteristics that an uncaused cause must necessarily have.

I like my life, for one, but I don't think it has much to do with me being atheist

Doesn't possess being. It is not a physical object. I used words, none of which I created, to explain what nothing is. If you can't understand the basic concept of nothing you really shouldn't be talking about God.

>aspies who can do great at IQ tests without having the mental capacity to do the things a normal high IQ person could do.
That doesn't mean they are cheating, it just means they are abnormal compared to most high IQ people.

Because if it had potential, then it would depend on something else to become actual. Potential means it has no yet become actual. To move from potential to actual requires a force. If there is potential, then something must come before it to make it actual. A potential cannot become actual on its own, The start of the chain MUST therefore be fully actual or else it is not the start of the chain and something came before it

Actually, Satan has control of the earth.
When Adam went full derp and bit into the forbidden fruit, he transferred all rights of the earth over to satan, and that's why our world is so fucked today.

W-wow...
And here I was walking into this thread thinking that my intelligence would be ample enough to be able to comprehend a thread of this caliber...
I still have a lot to learn...

Really made me think... Thanks guys...

>it isn't happening now
uh, yes it is. The big bang refers to the how the current universe formed, which is still expanding. The "bang" is still occurring, but the further back in time you go the closer everything was together.

I'm not sure what this implies in any case. Let's say the big bang isn't happening now. How does that imply the big bang cannot be the uncaused cause?

a big bang implies an explosion however, and explosions need fuel and substances by our physical laws to occour, if nothing existed 'before' how could said explosion have occoured? what was the fuel source and where did it come from?

If God is all-knowing why didn't he know Lucifer would betray him?

>It has to be ever present in order to be uncaused. It did not ever "begin" to be. It always was.

I can agree that it never began, but who's to say that it continued to exist for even an instant after the beginning of the universe?

and who is to say that an uncaused cause is the grounding of all true propositions? couldn't you just as easily say that that true propositions are true in and of themselves, and not because of any grounding in an external cause?

anime girl

What definition of "potential" are you using here? Is this "potential energy" from physics, or what are you talking about exactly?

No.
The lpoe is shit bait.

>evil exists
Grow up already fucking christ man

>ITT: christcucks on suicide watch

He did, but he loved Lucifer so much that he couldn't bring himself to punish him until after Lucifer had betrayed him.

You might as well just say you didn't read the original simplified argument by Aquinas I posted for you at the start at this point.

pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

The universe is expanding. That is a totally different thing. Please go to the wiki for a crash course, maybe youtube. Perhaps even buy some real books.

sounds like the emperor in the horus heresy

Evil is just that which isn't in accord with God's will (the natural consequence of which is obviously death). He allowed people freedom of will - we either can comply with God's will or not. You are saying that we should be able to comply with God's will *without complying with His will*. That doesn't make sense.

Your argument is based on false premises. Try again.

Obviously they're not literally cheating. Thanks for making me clarify something so obvious.
They're simply good at one specific thing which skews the results and doesn't represent their real intelligence because they're only good at very specific problem solving.

Because it is eternal by its own nature. It will never stop being. Go back to my first post (the large one).

Nevermind, you just don't get it.

>a big bang implies an explosion however
That's not what the big bang is however, it was just a term coined by some journalist to make the "cosmic egg" theory easier for normies to grasp.

>what was the fuel source and where did it come from?
The fuel source was present at the beginning of time, and therefore exists by necessity and without cause. The "fuel source" is space and time itself, which is what is doing the expanding. Kind hard to find a "cause" for spacetime itself.

Yeah, I didn't.

If it an actual and it has potential, then it is a changing state

Any change requires a force to drive the change

therefore

Anything in a changing state could not have been the first occurrence because it required something before it

therefore

to be uncaused, as in the first, requires something fully actual that has zero unrealized potential and cannot change state

this means omnipotent
Which point in this do you stop agreeing?

people who make this argument do not appreciate the struggle that sculpts them into a better person.

They don't understand how to be a man

aka

people who make this argument wish that God was their rich sky daddy who gave them everything they would ever need and they resent their sky daddy because he didn't buy them a pony.

>That is a totally different thing.
different to what? What do you think happened in the first few seconds of the universe? It was still just expanding, everything in it was just squished together a lot more.

Evil is a consequence of death, not the reverse. The original sin is what gave death power over humanity, allowing him to plant the seeds of evil that would take god several years to purge

So you're arguing against an argument you didn't read.

Wow dude. That's some next level intellect.

That is because you are talking nonsense.

>Obviously they're not literally cheating.
Earlier you said they were.

>They're simply good at one specific thing
The one thing the test measures.

>doesn't represent their real intelligence because they're only good at very specific problem solving.
And as such it should be clear to you that an IQ test does not measure "real" intelligence, only one kind.

I guess so. I was hoping you'd just explain it to me though.

>How does that imply the big bang cannot be the uncaused cause?
Because the Big Bang is a physical phenomenon and bound by the rules of physics (if it weren't it would be scientifically useless since we would be unable to draw accurate data from it's observation), since it is physical phenomenon that abides by concrete physical laws then it cannot be uncaused.

Furthermore I'd like you to sit back and reflect upon the terrifying logical implications of the Big Bang being an uncaused phenomenon, not bound by the laws of physics, and therefore capable of reoccurring at any time for no reason whatsoever, with no warning whatsoever.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
>CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

atheists can not justify logic existing.

In order for logic to exist as a secular construct, then it must ALWAYS exist, because if it didn't, then you would not be able to logically prove anything, since logic can be arbitrarily suspended anyway, so it means nothing.

Atheists believe that the universe began from nothing

therefore, they believe in an effect without a cause

as a result, logic was temporarily suspended

and because of this, an atheist should not be philosophically capable of using logic

they still DO use logic, because they have cognitive dissonance.

Different to what the big bang actually is.

That last frame made a huge leap, it makes the assumption that our universe contains all potential in existence.

I gave you an explanation at the start and you didn't read it.

No evil comes from God.
God created the universe to trap evil.
And in this universe is where evil will be destroyed forever.

>it makes the assumption that our universe contains all potential in existence.

What exactly do you define "universe" as, because from what I understand it refers to all that exists. Nothing can exist outside the universe or else it's part of our universe.

Oh and no, I'm not christian.

I'm just a simple theist.

>since it is physical phenomenon that abides by concrete physical laws then it cannot be uncaused.
As I said, the most commonly held interpretation of the big bang theory is that it is literally uncaused. The laws of physics are made by humans. The universe does not always follow even our best laws.

>and therefore capable of reoccurring at any time for no reason whatsoever, with no warning whatsoever.
Some believe that is possible.

The mental gymnastics that you all do in order to believe in a Jewish god is ludicrous.
Literally kill yourselves, christcucks. There's nothing wrong with believing in a god, I'm not even an atheist, I'm a pantheist, but to believe that that god is conscious of itself even though it's not physically possible for such being to have a brain is... ugh.
It's incredible what a person can do to deny the cold truth. Again, kill yourselves.

>This is an excuse that holds no weight as a real argument

And yet this is the cornerstone of faith
We are humans, we cannot possibly know God, we can know SOME things about God and often those are just limited, distorted and unsatisfactory pieces

Just stop applying rationalization to faith, if it worked that way the problem would be solved a millennia ago and we would all live in heaven

How?

I guess so.

that's true.

that's why multi-verse theory makes no sense.

a 'multi-verse' would still be the universe, by the definition of universe.

Evola is based

Sup fellow pantheist bro.

Reminder that God vaporized a person who attempted to prevent the Ark from hitting the ground after a pallbearer tripped because he touched it. If God loved his creations, why would he smite them for saving it?

I've read it multiple times but I don't see which part of the premise necessitates that the uncaused cause must be eternal in nature. how can you say that it didn't cease to exist immediately after causing the universe?

I'm not 100% clear on what you mean by each of those statements. however it seems to me that whatever uncaused cause created the universe could have simultaneously caused itself to stop existing.

furthermore even if it didn't stop existing, and still exists, I don't see why it would be omniscient at all, or "omnipotent" outside of a somewhat technical interpretation of the word that doesn't actually include changing the course of events at all.

Every way imaginable. It is not my job to educate you, especially not for free. I'm not here to hold your hand any longer, you want to understand something, research it. It is not that hard, you have a computer and google at your disposal, use them.

this planet is actually Hell
it just seems like Earth because that's what Hell looks like when you're in Hell
that's why evil exists
because you're in Hell

Because it is eternal..... do you know what that word means? And it's explained in the last few sentences.

That was already discussed thousands of times during the early christianity until the middle ages

god is not your bro
god is omniscient, so he knows you're a fag.
god really fucking hates you for being a faggot
and that's why bad things happen to you, OP
because you had to be a faggot

>Furthermore I'd like you to sit back and reflect upon the terrifying logical implications of the Big Bang being an uncaused phenomenon, not bound by the laws of physics, and therefore capable of reoccurring at any time for no reason whatsoever, with no warning whatsoever.

I've reflected on them. terrifying as they may be, they don't have anything to do with the possibility of whether or not the premise (Big Bang being uncaused) is true. however my current understanding of physics has led me to believe that the totality of physical existence is at least one or two orders of magnitude larger than the matter incorporated by the Big Bang

yes he is.

spiritualism is necessary. I'm very wary of someone who doesn't even give spiritualism the ol' college try. In my opinion, they aren't willing to investigate knowledge in the way any real white man would.

it's like they are afraid what they will find. Or what they could end up believing.

Well, I feel like I understand the big bang theory a lot more than you. You say what's occurring now if different to what was occurring seconds after the beginning of time, but you can't explain how.

>It is not my job to educate you
Well, i was simply enjoying a debate with you sir. Please don't feel any great need to keep talking to me if it's bothering you. It's not worth getting stressed over.

a friend of mine who is a Jehovah's witness said that they believe evil and suffering in the world exists to 'test' us as we have free will and therefore have to be a good person despite what happens in the world, so remember baby's get rapped to see if you will still praise god, but why does an omnipotent being need praise? or for humans to be good? if he was all knowledgeable he would know the entirety of what would happen on earth without ever needing to create it, that's why i think if a god exists he is not Omnipotent, and if the world is a test, how many other test exist, what has our creator created in its quest of 'what happens if i do this?'

God creates a universe and evil appears so he plans to destroy this universe and all the evil. Puts his creation (man) there to suffer along till the end. Such a loving God.

Ok, so god exists, then which of the 1000 existing religions holds the actual truth?

>however it seems to me that whatever uncaused cause created the universe could have simultaneously caused itself to stop existing.

To stop existing, means it changed state. To be able to not exist means it had unrealized potential that it could make actual, which as we already discussed means it wasn't the first in the chain.

This is why Aquinas' argument proves not only the cause of the universe being omnipotent, but that it is still active today and is eternal.

No

I think that arguing about demons and their existence is more interesting
Like: can demons control your mind? can they be detected by the scientific method?

No, I said what is occurring now is different than what the big bang was. You actually don't understand it all considering you didn't even know that the big bang was caused. This isn't a debate, you aren't arguing anything against me. You are asking me to teach and explain things to you.

Does the bible not exist for us to understand God so we may worship him? If our only way to understand God is though the bible or thinking about what "He" is then how is that any different than us creating God? Seeing the flaws in the God concept and saying we can't understand "his" way is a cop-out. You just want everyone to shut off their brains and faithfully follow the sheep.

I think you're lumping together two things that aren't necessarily mutually inclusive - "uncaused" and "zero potential." how can you prove that, just because something happened without cause, that it must therefore also have no potential to change, as well? sure, you can say that having both of those qualities at once contradicts principles of logic, but the existence of an uncaused cause contradicts those same logical principles in the first place. the entire discussion is predicated on a contradiction in logic that, as we can tell from empirical observations, must have occurred. how, then, can you use a logical contradiction to draw logical conclusions?

we have reached the "sir" phase of the discussion.

best thread on Cred Forums right now

>Needing to be pushed into a purer state wouldn't be necessary if there was no evil. Since he is all powerful there is absolutely no reason for evil to exist
>why doesn't God just do everything for us lol that'd be so much easier

m8

>No, I said what is occurring now is different than what the big bang was.
Well in a lot of ways that's true, but i'm not sure in what way you mean. What in your opinion was the end of the big bang?

>You actually don't understand it all considering you didn't even know that the big bang was caused.
How can something cause the beginning of time? Do you have some kind of source of this?

>You aren't arguing anything against me. You are asking me to teach and explain things to you.
I'm disagreeing with you and asking you explain what you are saying. Perhaps you should stop responding if this is too much for you. I can't pay you money. I enjoy debating this shit on Cred Forums, but I don't want to make anyone miserable.

free will necessitates the potential for evil, evil being defined in the christian context of ungodliness, or distant from god.

if man is to have free will it logically follows that he must also have the freedom to disassociate with god, thus evil is brought about.

>but muh suffering
suffering is not inherently evil, in fact suffering is often good. man needs to suffer from time to time so that he can improve himself, as pic related suggests. furthermore, you have to view god as a paternal figure if you have any hope of better understanding god. its quite natural for a parent to allow their child to harm themselves or be harmed to teach them a valuable lesson.

>but muh children with cancer.
this argument can't see the forest for the trees. a dying child is only suffering temporarily and their suffering can lead to others becoming better people.

tl;dr: just because you can't see the bigger picture doesn't mean god isn't all powerful and all loving.

>it's like they are afraid what they will find. Or what they could end up believing.

I've always thought this too, it explains why atheists get so irrationally angry over something they claim doesn't exist. They say spirituality is absolutely inconsequential and a waste of time and claim they refuse to even attempt it, yet they get militantly angry and constantly exert their energy being contrarian to it anytime it's brought up

>look around
>no one burning in brimstone and fire
>no demons poking me with forks
>you're in hell user

wut?

Disagreement it is not a counter argument. Use google. Type in "what caused the big bang" you'll get a millions of results you can decide to read. The moment the universe started to expand was the beginning and ending of the big bang.

The bible says God made us in his image. So its reasonable to believe god has a head. A brain on the other hand, who can know.

Btw, im agnostic.

>I think you're lumping together two things that aren't necessarily mutually inclusive - "uncaused" and "zero potential.

Those are mutually exclusive. If it has potential then it is a changing state and requires a force to change. It cannot change or exert force on to anything else without something else before it.

>how can you prove tha
The laws of physics prove that. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change state. Every change is a chain that required something before it. This is thermodynamics. The first, the uncaused, in order to be able to exert force to change the next in the line, must be fully actual with no potential.

>The laws of physics are made by humans.
Scientific theories perhaps but one of the root assumptions of the modern world view is that these theories are imperfect encapsulations of actual concrete physical processes that are the foundation of the universe.

>The universe does not always follow even our best laws.
Then science loses any claim to being the superior successor to old fashioned human mysticism and magical thinking. Sometimes shaman get things right too. If the universe can spontaneously decide to cause the sun to rise in the west tomorrow inspite of all logic and scientific observations to the contrary why shouldn't we just drop the hubris and go back to the shaman?

>They say God is all powerful, knowledgeable and benevolent.
Yes, which means, there's no free will. The past present and future is already know.

Could be we are just God's thoughts. And he's going through all what if scenarios simultaneously.

>Type in "what caused the big bang" you'll get a millions of results you can decide to read.
Yes, all explaining that it was causeless as there wasn't any time before the big bang, and therefor no events. At least it the widely accepted interpretation of the big bang. Some thing the big bang was not the beginning of time, and therefore could have a cause, but that's not common.

>The moment the universe started to expand was the beginning and ending of the big bang.
So T=0 was the start and end of the big bang? I concede this too you.

Your beliefs hold as much truth as the muslims or the jews. I don't get angry over something that doesn't exist, what pisses me off is every religion having their own definition of "good" and trying to push their beliefs thinking it's the one and only truth.

not to mention that you can't prove either atheism or theism, but you CAN prove that belief itself, the ultimate of which is faith/ spiritualism, is beneficial to humanity.

So when it comes down to it it's 'which do you choose to believe'

and one side is better for you to believe than the other.

Sure there will always be the argument 'just because you WANT to believe it doesn't make it right'

Sure, but that doesn't make it wrong either, which everyone often forgets with that zinger.

The bible states that the earth is in the power of the wicked one, reffering to the devil. By this we can assume god means hell is on earth as there is no garden of eden and we are shut away from gods kingdom.

jehovah witnesses don't know shit

There is no test. Humans broke of from God in Garden of Eden, "ate the fruit" and became sentient too early (they had to live in God's presence for many millennia more before they made that step)
God removed them from Garden to protect them from further damage (becoming immortal at that state), they became mortal, and this mortal flesh is only protection against endless sin (imagine all people live forever, that would be hell)

But God loves man, and was sad to see him fall. Jesus found a way and repaired human to God connection by sacrificing Himself and destroying Death.

Everyone will now live forever in the presence of God. But this will be torturous if we don't manage to subdue our passions. And that's what life's for, because you'll never get this good of a chance to extinguish your passions and achieve theosis as while you're in flash.

Regardless of whether these questions or thinking solve anything, they still imply a creator regardless because your using causality. Truth, Logic and Morality do not agree with each other all the time. Can't disprove the unknown with the known. Top meme.

No, Calvinist.
You can hold that there are a literal infinite of concurrent realities, in which every possibility of every person is played out over each of them. God knows how each person's lot plays out in each reality via omniscience, but given that it's a literal infinite and that people will experience every single possible set of circumstances according to variations in their choices, it seems that - given one could be in *ANY* of those infinite realities - that you effectively have free will. If you're able to experience every single possible state of affairs in accordance with an infinite and concurrent set of realities, then even if God knows what you're going to do, you can't possibly effectively be *more* free than what you are.

Not a single will say it has no cause, even if there was there are thousands against it. It has been one of the most important and hardest to answer question in the scientific community since the conception of the big bang theory.

*tip*

The simple answer to this dillema is that god has choice. Just becasue you know all about a subject does not mean that you must act on said knowledge. Only that you can choose to.

>The excuse for this is that he wanted us to have free will
Man was created to love and be with the creator and the creator loves man
Free will is the exercise of spirit that allows love to be genuine and free of deceit, god is personal and so is hurt by betrayal.
God is love and the source of all life and goodness and so has an affinity with life that floods the world with meaning and joy.

1) He does care about evil. But it is not what goes into man but what comes out of man that damns him. There are two kinds of evil. Natural evil and moral evil. The one god is concerned about is moral evil because the determination of the soul and the intense joy of responding to god is what fulfills man AND god. God is also fulfilled by us returning to him of our will (this is deeply satisfying to us because we are bound to god by soul and spirit).
Since this evil is chosen, and good is chosen. To protect the choice which is the 'test' demands authentic restraint on behalf of god and hence authentic love from us. Just as we do not like fake friends or fake lovers. God who made us in image and likeness does not either.

For environmental evils, this restraint is emphasized in two logical directions. One is the consistency and rationality of the physical world. This consistency lends meaning to wisdom and learning and allows us to live with the appearance of stability and separation such that faith is actually meaningful/ consequential because life is not immediately dependent on god.

As the world is logical and consistent, being in the wrong place at the wrong time is possible and unfortunately but unavoidable. Natural "evils" are only perceived as such because they encompass subjective tragedies.

One must ask. Is death worse than the destruction of reality and free will?

But he loves us so much he punishes us. :-]

God is a meme

I love my children more than life itself and I punish them when they misbehave.

>Scientific theories perhaps but one of the root assumptions of the modern world view is that these theories are imperfect encapsulations of actual concrete physical processes that are the foundation of the universe.
Eh yeah. But we don't know with infallible certainly what those concrete processes are. We don't know with certainty that the big bang isn't uncaused for example.

>Then science loses any claim to being the superior successor to old fashioned human mysticism and magical thinking.
Science is about finding what is more or less likely to be true more than absolute truths. We use science a lot because it is powerful at developing theories of reality with powerful predictive powers.

Sometimes the shaman get it right too, but simply less often than science. Maybe the sun will spontaneously decide to rise in the west tomorrow. In this case science will have to reevaluate many of out theories of reality. In the meantime, it's still the smarter bet to bet on science than the shaman simply because science gets it right far more often, even if there's always a chance it will be wrong.

We are all here in this reality to learn.. it is designed for us to grow and develop as Beings.

Atheists are so fucking retarded.

No you don't.

New to this site, but wanted to check it out. Saw it mentioned in "we are legion" anyway, in response to the thread, I wanted to throw my two cents in by saying, god did not create evil, and that evil was a betrayal that was allowed for a couple of reasons. One being to allow us to express the misnomer of free will, and so that whoever God chosen to be saved could be. If in the beginning God punished evil and destroyed his creation after the act of disobedience in the garden of Eden, then not all the souls whom he deemed within his sovereign will would be saved throughout the expanse of time. To address free will, it's my opinion that we only have a resemblance of free will. To explain, let's look at the play Macbeth. In the play, Macbeth kills king Duncan. But who is to blame? In one way, Macbeth is 100% responsible for king Duncans death, and in another, William Shakespeare is 100% responsible for the death of king dung as author of the play, and having wrote the part where Macbeth kills king Duncan. If this makes any sense. In much the same way, we as creatures are free to make decisions, and those decisions have very real consequences. But we are never outside of the will of God because to be outside the will of God, would be to simply not exist.

>Not a single will say it has no cause
But they do. I guess I could find that shit if I looked. But yeah, most say the big bang is the beginning of time and that is enough to make clear there was no cause. A "cause" requires the presence of time. Before time begins there can be no causes. That's pretty straightforward.

>taking philosophical advice from a man who thought you didn't exist

>No you don't

Oh come on. Quit graping at straws. If God was sad to see man fall why didn't he prevent it by putting the tree somewhere Adam and Eve couldn't reach it?
The answer is, because God needed man to fall to start the ball rolling. Or; the people writting the bible(s) needed a catalyst to progress the story somehow.

And you're a shitty father that, proven by statistics, will imprint depression and other mental illness' on your child. Leading your child to a shitty life with unnecessary hurt because you 'love them'.

Where does it say God is ALL benevolent? Do you claim to understand the ramifications of omnipotence? If so, why are you on Cred Forums instead of creating artificial intelligence to make yourself a God?

Paradox, though, as often found in the bible.

Okay. Lucien, God's favourite angel, rebels. But he loves lucifer so he refuses to punish him? But he loves humans. But he allows lucifer to influence and claim human souls for eternal hellfire.

BUT he's all loving and all powerful. So he made lucider and planned for him to rebel so that he could punish him later on in time. For... some reason.

>God's plan

Kek.

The fact is if God were an all loving, omnipotent, perect being, then there would be no humanity. No angels. No creation. God would be content with just god. God would not have felt the urge to create an elaborate rebellum scheme that led to a great battle in heaven that he could've prevented but knew about.

It's so absurdly paradoxical it cannot be taken seriously.

>was no cause
this is outright false man. I'm not butting into your argument with that user, but you clearly don't understand the big bang theory like you claim. No one says there was no cause. The cause was density and heat of all the atoms in the singularity

Which "me" goes to hell and which "me" goes to heaven? Is there going to be a billion "me"s in the afterlife all in one room being judged or something?

How can God judge "Me" as good or evil if billions of Me's are living in alternate universes doing either good or evil?

The flaw in your argument is that you're treating good as a monolith. Some things are more good than others, and it's god that knows what the greatest good is.

As far as God may be concerned, being able to be evil but choosing to be good is a greater good than not having the free will or capability to be anything but a good little robot.

Applied to the whole human spectrum

Some humans choosing to be evil and some choosing to be good > all humans being forced to only be able to exhibit good traits.

In God's eyes, even one single person choosing to be good where everyone else is evil may be a greater good than a world where there is no ability to choose to reject evil in favour of the good.

>inb4 that's not good/not as good/dats evil

If God exists, it certainly him that determines what is design is good for humans and for Himself since He was the one that engineered humanity. Not you.

>punishing a child is bad for it

You wrote a wall of garbage to say you have free will. You don't.

It's tesable that decisions come from the subconscious and your conscious becomes aware of that and fills in the gaps.

He gave you a choice. You chose evil, and death, and hell.

Why are you whining about it?

What if I come along and give your child a gun and he accidently shoots your wife with it? Who you going to punish?

>The cause was density and heat of all the atoms in the singularity
but what caused that? What caused the beginning of time?

Does any christian genuinely believes the bible has remained the same for thousands of years? Considering that in ancient times only the church was allowed to interpret it don't you think it'd be modified to fit certain interests?

>I can't understand his motive therefore he isn't real

literally argument from ignorance

God: eternal spirit being not subject to entropy or heat death

Universe: made of matter and energy that are subject to entropy and heat death

That is why one can be, and is, eternal, and the other cannot be, and is not, eternal.

that's what we're discussing in this thread isn't it?

You. There's not multiple you's. They're all simultaneous and identical (as in essential).

If you get it right once you get it right period. You'll be judged for all your fuck ups too though.

Your mistake is in #1. Sometimes you've got to let someone fail so that they will learn.

it's a fucking metaphore, a mythology

we cannot know God. we can know some things about God, and write down pieces, distorted, sometimes without sense.

maybe we could know more if more of today's people would try to reach spiritual enlightenment instead of jerking off on porn

>wanting your child to grow up to be a spoiled peace of shit

punishment isn't always physical retard

Nice rebuttal. Really makes me think man.
"You don't" fuck how do I counter that?

You. It was an accident. You willingly go against God.

Yes, and I'm saying it was causeless by definition, because this was the start of time.

Although the question regarding "who created God?" is a strawman, assuming the arguement had any foundation to it, the answer would still be God, and you can keep on asking the same question but the answer never changes.

and you're wrong, and no scientist agrees with you. The big bang happened. Before it happened, it was a singularity. The cause was the head and density of the singularity. Therefore, not causeless.

Where do you exactly get the "pieces" to know god? You mean the holy text which other 3000 religions have their own version of?

You had no points, so, you don't.
That's his distinction to make. Punishment is one thing. Discipline is a completely separate one.

>In the meantime, it's still the smarter bet to bet on science than the shaman simply because science gets it right far more often, even if there's always a chance it will be wrong.

Reverse gambler's fallacy.
There is no way for you to determine the statistical frequency with which the universe inscrutably decides to violate what we perceive to be it's laws, therefore any "safe bet" is an impossibility.

If the universe is not bound by causality then science goes out the window as any correlation between scientific observation and reality can be dismissed as a statistical fluke.

The Big Bang being uncaused is logically incompatible with a scientific worldview.

The singularity is the beginning of the big bang and the beginning of time. So what causes the beginning of time?

sterner is a meme lol

please tell me how time and the universe just "popped" into existence when there was apparently nothing before that.

>That's his distinction to make. Punishment is one thing. Discipline is a completely separate one.
I'm going to give you credit because I assume English isn't your native language, but you're talking nonsense

You see, you're supposed to find the cure for this madness you call evil.
That is the challenge you're facing right now. You are incapable of noticing how powerful you truly are.
Verse related: This isn't a metaphor for some challenge in your life. That's what prosperity preachers tell you (the cancer that killed the church).

Come home, MAN.

I gave a way for omniscience and rigorous free will to exist simultaneously. And you can't logically critique it, because it's actually sound logic~

any cause that you cite as before something else, that cause would need a cause. There is no point in arguing with you about this, though, because youa re confusing a how with a why and you won't be able to understand the difference

That doesn't even make sense. If I choose to do some abhorrent action of evil in an alternate universe, how is that even "me"?

For example. Right now I am just sitting here discussing religion, not an evil act, might even be considered good. Suppose I decide to go next door and rape and murder my neighbour, an obviously evil act. This creates a divergence of reality right? A reality where I remain seated discussing religion and one where I become a psychopath. Which is the real and true "me" in this scenario?

>2) He wasn't capable of creating this kind of world, meaning he isn't all powerful
>3) He wanted to create a world without evil but wasn't sure how, meaning he isn't all knowing

The existence of the garden of eden theologically refutes both of these options, therefore the only logical "conflict" happens in the first.

The problem of evil, as with my previous comment. Is that evil is not tangible nor physical, but the experience of a disruption of the natural order of the soul in one who is sensitive to said disruption. Murder is not evil in a nihilists world and without god or metaphysics, nihilism is the most accurate description of reality. But if man was created with purpose and meaning and this is connected to god, then we experience murder as a distinct evil because we are closer to god than we think and it is painful to god to do evil.
The natural conscience we have about good and evil is not perfect or rational, but it is real and insightful. And so, delineates a basic level of moral reality for us. Christ delineates another level that connects into theology but this "moral basis of man" is a good start to understanding evil.

This creates a nice theological blanket to begin the discussion of evil and explains why it is so hard for evil persons to "go back" of their own will or understanding.

and what was before time?

No, the rebellion happened after the creation of man. When Lucifer became a fallen angel, Adam and Eve were still in the garden of Eden. He was out of the reach of God, convincing Eve to commit original sin and thereby surrendering all humanity over to the power of death.

Lucifer isn't about eternal damnation. He's about denying you eternal life. He's the embodiment of death. God's whole purpose in the Bible is to save man from death. He has little to no interest in saving us from damnation, since the only damnation occurring is occurring here on earth due to the influence of death over man

God only managed to defeat death by sacrificing his only son, Jesus Christ

>The singularity is the beginning of the big bang and the beginning of time. So what causes the beginning of time?
>and the beginning of time
>so what causes the beginning of time

The singularity by your own sentence.

Holy shit dude, especially considering the fact you didn't even read my argument which you argued against in like 25 posts earlier, it's clear you have no actual interest in arguing what happened and just want to argue words. Have fun practicing your sophistry.

100% wrong. Like I said from the beginning you understanding is about zero. The singularity and big bang are two totally different things. The big bang and the universe are two different things.

The Lord.

>There is no way for you to determine the statistical frequency with which the universe inscrutably decides to violate what we perceive to be it's laws
Historically people who believe science over the shaman regarding the physical nature of the universe are more likely to strive and prosper than those who don't. I never said there was a safe bet, I said the opposite in fact. There are no safe bets.

>science goes out the window as any correlation between scientific observation and reality can be dismissed as a statistical fluke.
Why? No science is considered to be 100% correct, it's always waiting for the next piece of evidence/observation to prove what we thought was true before to be wrong. The universe having a causeless begin doesn't change that.

>If I choose to do some abhorrent action of evil in an alternate universe, how is that even "me"?
Is it impossible for it to be you?
Are you saying you are existentially incapable of making such a category of decisions you'd term abhorrently evil?

There was no before time. Time and space are made of the same thing and related through gravity.
Where there is no space, there is no time

Your lord, or muslims lord?

Replace gun with apple, wife with Adam, and me with Satan. And forget I said accidently in the above comment. I give a gun to your kid and he shoots your wife with it. Do you punish your child or the one who gave them the gun, or both?

well assuming that is true then, what causes the singularity?

Technically the same. The only difference being the "angel of light" Muhammed spoke to was Satan.

There are no 3000 religions, at least not relevant ones. And I think if someone is intellectually curious he should acquaint himself with other religions.

That sad, I think one should practice religion of his civilization. Religion is not just faith, which is deeply personal relation with God, but the pillar of civilization and culture too.

you see, I would argue that christianity is not the cure for evil, and it only furthers it.

for example, supporting africa (which most christians do), in the end causes more suffering.

>inb4 using quotes to justify your particular brand of uncucked christianity

If you need to provide your own interpretations, it only proves that the text is not clear enough to achieve what you want it to.

>They say God is all powerful, knowledgeable and benevolent.
they? how scientific

>He decided to create a world that has evil. The excuse for this is that he wanted us to have free will
nope
>However Because he is all powerful he could have created a world in which we have free will but there is no evil -- this seems impossible by our logic, but remember God dictates whats logical and not.
nope. we don't have free will. if we had free will, God wouldn't be all powerful.

>So because he created evil it means at least 1 of 3 things

>1) He did not care about evil. If so he wouldn't be benevolent

God isn't benevolent. he loves some and hates others.. and righteously so
>2) He wasn't capable of creating this kind of world, meaning he isn't all powerful
nope

>3) He wanted to create a world without evil but wasn't sure how, meaning he isn't all knowing

nope

>Modern physics eventually came along and said basically the same thing.

Most standard big bang models have no information leakage from before the big bang, some do.

Of course there's a whole bunch of oscillating universe and breeding pool universe models as well.

They are separate things. Learn the difference before you have kids or continue to raise the ones you have incorrectly.
No, the lack of free will stands alone. You either have it. Or you don't. You only exist here because if any one thing was different in the past everything would be different. You don't exist anywhere but here.

these people aren't going to understand user.

scientists have absolutely zero understanding. They can't grasp that science is not an answer, and does not explain anything, but is simply information. They think that science is a why. When it is a how.

because of this assumption, they end up thinking how and why are the same thing.

It was the other way around by the way, Eve gave Adam the fruit. Both.

Do not eat of the fruit, you will surely die.

FPBP dont know why this hasnt been mentioned yet

It all boils down to God.

Ok so you are saying that only people who create realities in which they only do good are the ones worthy of an afterlife in heaven? Anyone who does evil things and creates divergent realities where they are both sometimes good and sometimes evil go to hell? Or the good versions merge together and go to heaven and the bad ones burn in hell? This is confusing, is it a point based system, score more virtue points to get the reward?

>They think that science is a why. When it is a how.
Science explains the why of a lot of shit though.

We have it. I gave an explanation as to why we have it. A logically sound explanation.

>You only exist here because if any one thing was different in the past everything would be different
There's no time difference. It all happens simultaneously and concurrently. Do you struggle with English?

They is no why
Existence proceeds meaning

These arguments don't work, because an all knowing benevolent being could find a way to achieve this (or any other objective) without suffering.

Never have I mentioned the word Christianity in my post. You're right. It definitely isn't the cure. YOU CAN BE THE CURE is what I'm saying. It is your duty. The verse in short tell you that you mustn't look up, down or sideways for some magic, when it can easily be found on your hands. Find yourself.

You have assumed that suffering is always a bad thing and is not capable of leading to a greater outcome.

"When creating himself a man must suffer, for he is both the marble and the sculptor."

the idea of the universe actually being nothing, but it only exists because the laws of nature are such that there are opposite poles, and we exist within those poles when all added up it equals zero, is the best explanation for the 'ultimate cause'

Any big bangist will be unable to explain this, and they become just as faith based as the dumbest biblefag.

But yet, even the idea of the universe existing because we are the positive/ negative pole and the negative/ positive pole exists somewhere else in time, eventually to come together again or some such theory, still does not explain the following:

>why would these laws exist in the first place?

when does science explain 'why' laws of physics exist? it doesn't. That's not the intention of science. Any atheist you ask this to will say 'gravity exists because things have mass and they are thus attracted to eachother'

no, that doesn't explain why it exists. It explains how it works. Which is all science does, all it is meant to do, and all it will ever do. Our interpretation of the data is just as existentially futile as a desert man 2000 years ago, the only difference being that our interpretations can make more accurate predictions because we are closer to statistical precision in our observations. Regardless, science will never replace spirituality. Because these deal with 2 separate things. They literally exist in separate hemispheres of the brain.

No, it applies to all humans.
You only need to meet the requirement for salvation in one world. It's not actually that confusing.

>There are no safe bets
So why choose science?

>The universe having a causeless begin doesn't change that
Of course it does. If the birth of the universe can be causeless why does the rest of it suddenly begin to require a cause? Just because it appears to doesn't mean it actually does, it could all just be a statistical aberration or trick of the metaphorical light.

Once you acknowledge the possibility that causality is not a fundamental part of your cosmic model your entire cosmic model becomes suspect.

it's not problem with scientist, it's problem with people that pit science against faith which is ridiculous

while first one explains how the stuff works (i dare to say it discovers God's laws) the other tackles the problem why we exist.

Good and evil are subjective.

No, you don't. Again everything is done in the subconscious. I'll give you a starting point because you severely need it. Branch out from this because you lack knowledge to even have this discussion. Saged for standard Cred Forumsock out of his depth.
psychologicalsciences.unimelb.edu.au/

God is using Evil to test us.

To see if we're worthy the spot by him in the Heaven.

We took the apple and failed the first test, now if we want back in we have to prove our worth.

The Satan and The God are the same being - Satan is the punishment, God is the gift.

We do. Unfortunately for you and all Calvinists, you are going straight to hell for adding and taking from the Bible. That is your choice, though.

oh yea?

post proofs

no it doesn't.

Again, you are confusing the why with the how. Why does magnetism happen?

>well, because things have separate magnetic poles, or similar magnetic poles, which causes them to repel or attract eachother

this does not explain why the law exists, it only explains how it works.

yet you maintain an abrahamic moral compass

>So why choose science?
Because it's consistently the better bet.

>If the birth of the universe can be causeless why does the rest of it suddenly begin to require a cause?
It doesn't, but if every single thing we've ever observed in human history dependably appears to have a cause, then it's a good bet that most stuff in the future will have a cause too.Like i said, you don't need to prove something to an infallable point for it to be useful and science never does that.

>your entire cosmic model becomes suspect.
All knowledge is suspect.

I forgot the second logical arm of defending against environmental evil is in the nature of suffering.

Evil for many is defined externally as suffering. However, this is a limited perspective. While the alleviation of suffering is indeed a holy and important endeavor. Suffering itself is neither bad nor good. It just is.

Like Siddhartha had said, To live is to suffer. It is as much a part of human reality as the experience of joy or aesthetic beauty or pleasure. While the nihilistic connotations of Buddha undermine the purpose and meaning of life, the essential fact that suffering is a part of life is important. For one person, immense physical suffering with a broken leg may appear gruesome and deafening to one but mild to another. Further the experience of suffering has different effects on the mind.

Physical suffering is painful, but the person suffering does not feel immoral or evil from it.
Emotional suffering or spiritual suffering is intensely painful for the self and the identity but has no physical cause.

In this way, physical suffering can be said to be 'meaningless' spiritually within human experience despite its influence on human experience.

The full integrity and dignity of man is connected to a complete body but as choice is more important to god and to man, it is his choice within suffering, to see it under the blessing or the curse which determines how he lives and feels in response to it.

The blessing sees it as a horrible incident but thanks god and grows because there is good in everything and man can always find it. There is always hope.

The curse, sees it as a horrible accident of a cursed life. One is scorned or abandoned or "held back" as though entitled to something.

For physical suffering, the curse leads to more and more damning thoughts (ones resembling or engaging in evil) and greater and greater personal suffering.

I'm a philosophy grad. Let me give you an actual starting point.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/

>The Satan and The God are the same being - Satan is the punishment, God is the gift.

Blasphemy.

Then what happens when each civilization has it's own definition of "good" according to their religions? If there is one and only god aren't we supposed to be bound by the same principles?

>we took the apple
>we
I never took any apples so wtf is god's problem

>this does not explain why the law exists
but it does explain why it happens.

exactly. But the problem is people who believe solely in science don't understand that they are putting their own 'why' which has nothing to do with the how, and is just as faith based

but it is not only not beneficial to them or society to have this faith, it is really bad.

If infinite multiple universes exist where I am making every possible choice given by the opportunities presented in my life, then logically it stands to reason that in at least one of them I will meet that requirement. Also in another I am the worst version of self I could possibly become.
Your theory just doesn't seem to be necessary. Why bother with multiple realities when the best possibility can be better achieved with only one?

>abrahamic moral compass

Are you saying that only the abrahamic religions talk about evil?
Are you saying all the other religions don't mention the existence of evil?

>Any big bangist will be unable to explain this, and they become just as faith based as the dumbest biblefag.

It's a working model, they're not married to eternal truths created in 325 AD in Nicea.

no, it explains how it happens.

How
Usage as an Adverb

By what manner? For example, How did it happen?
To what degree? For example, How hurt is he?

WHY
Usages as an Adverb

For what purpose? For example, Why didn’t he behave well?

Christianity is based on the sins of the father carrying over to the son

if you haven't noticed, whites are pretty into that idea, even now when they are 'not christian' (they are just secular christians now)

Nevertheless, you are still fallen. You must ask for the free gift and accept Christ if you wish to be given salvation.

>They say God is all powerful, knowledgeable and benevolent.
Who said he's conscious at all?

A conscious being isn't a god, that's an alien.

neither am i, nice strawman though.

you literally posted a bible quote you're a fucking liar.

I thought christians were supposed to tell the truth? Except when it comes to convincing others to be christian ey? You guys have your own taqiya?

Sure.

But how is God any different?

>Why do people exist?
>Because God made us!
This explains how we exist, not why. Why does God exist?

well duh, if two religions have 2 opposite views of good, one is obviously wrong, just being religious does not make you infallible

that said, christianity having 2000 years of practicing monasticism and people living and dying as christians have really slim chances to get it wrong by much

Christcucks are laughably pathetic, their messiah was a cuck

You need to have freedom and omniscience + creation. That's the objective.
You have an alternative?

Something without consciousness is not a being, it's an object.

Because God wanted to love, and wanted to be loved. God always has.

>Christianity is based on the sins of the father carrying over to the son
Fascinating. So when are you planning on sending a reparations check to the NAACP?

>you literally posted a bible quote you're a fucking liar.
I didn't know you were dyslexic. My bad.
I'm detecting 0 levels of reading comprehension.

>Why does God exist?
>because he wanted to love
burgers

Why am I fallen?

>googles demand reparations for slavery in 2016
> lol that was hundreds of years ago, I'm not responsible for the actions of my ancestors.

>adam and eve commit the original sin thousands of years ago
>humanity is condemned to suffer for an eternity of years despite not being guilty of their actions, but that's gods will

Really made myself think.

So we aren't human beings?

...

What makes you think that god would want a subhuman like (((you))) near him?

No, that was my answer to why we exist, not to why God exists.

It's testable that you don't. How you fit that into your worldview is something else. Which is why this discussion never goes anywhere because you lack proper knowledge from which to start.

It's your job now to fit real information, not philosophical babble, with your current world frame. Or discard it, which you will. Real is real and that's that.

Your job is to now reconcile your lack of free will with any Abrahamic religion that says you're free. The answer is it's not possible and God isn't real.

We all are. Consequences of Eve..... leave it to women to ruin everything right.

Mankind was purest in Eden, before the apple thing.
Why God planted that fucking tree there? Was that a ruse?

By your logic jews are closer to the actual truth than christians.

So again it's because I'm guilty of a crime I didn't commit.

divineinformation.com

>it's testable that you don't have something that I says doesn't even exist to begin with.

Kill yourself, find out whether or not God is real for yourself.

I don't know how to answer that.

This is why nobody takes you guys seriously and you literally destroyed spiritualism itself in the west

fucktards

you guys are pathetic spiritual beggers, throwing yourselves upon the floor and pleading on your hands and knees for others to share in your misery.

God is so wise you can't even understand. As you said you can't understand this from your poin of view and it seems illogical but he is God and dictates what is logical or not. Reminder this is based of of what you said.

they are

FPBP

Secrets

Good quote.

Bravo OP

You commit it every day by sinning. Just not that particular situation. Ultimately it can be said as disobedience to God, (what Eve did). We do that every single day. Different case, same crime, same punishment.

My goodness. Your ignorance is painful. It's as if you hate reason. Sage

>Your great great grandfather was a slave owner, you must pay reparations.

Sounds really fair right?

You can't have a world with no evil... because it's in the eye of he beholder.

Someone might think farting in public is evil...

Someone might think eating meat is evil...

Someone might think having sex is evil...

See what I mean?

As far as I or any other philosopher that I'm aware of has been able to articulate, it's either that or else there isn't free will under the assumption of an omniscient Creator being responsible for our and the world's existence.

i don't know any jewish person that achieved theosis and i know and knew of several christians personally

once you see and talk to these people you have no doubt whatever they did works. maybe it could be achieved the other way but they did it the christian way

What are you ever rumbling on about?
Why are you on the defensive?
Articulate your point clearly.

I just asked you a simple question. What's stopping you from stopping evil?

>b-but muh degenerate fedora tipper atheism.

Then why aren't christians following the same beliefs?

Check Epicures:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

But the problem of Good and Evil was created later by Christian-Judean religions. They attributed all that is Good to God, and Satan was left holding the bag.

In Norse mythology the diabolos (he who messes up everything / throws it in disarray) was Loki. But there they at least acknowledged he had a useful function: Doing the dirty jobs that other Gods felt too good for.

Carl Gustav Jung repairs the concept of God and made Him consistent. He splits up God in 4 forces:

The Tree of Life (Wisdom)
The Destroyer (Death makes room for new Life)
Eros (Passion / Love)
The God-Sun (Creation of life and the most ancient of God forces revered)

One should see and acknowledge these forces in parallel, but not in unison. A lot of confusion comes from not realizing these 4 forces.

Jung also combines both Good and Evil into one God. This God is more complete and thus above the Christian God. This Abraxas: The Creator and Destroyer of His own World.

gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

"That is terrible Abraxas.

It is the mightiest creature, and in it the creature is afraid of itself.

It is the manifest opposition of creatura to the pleroma and its nothingness.

It is the son’s horror of the mother.

It is the mother’s love for the son.

It is the delight of the earth and the cruelty of the heavens.

Before its countenance man becometh like stone.

Before it there is no question and no reply.

It is the life of creatura.

It is the operation of distinctiveness.

It is the love of man.

It is the speech of man.

It is the appearance and the shadow of man.

It is illusory reality."

>god works in mysterious ways bro lmfao xD

False equivalence. You still commit the same crime in different ways. I don't own slaves.

Just because you were born and will die, does not imply that God was born or will die.

It's very apparent in World religions that the creator diety simply exists. It didn't come from somewhere, and it doesn't go anywhere.

That timeless state, and the de facto solitude of this entity may well be the motivating factor for it to create. It's all alone, and has all the time in forever to come to terms with that fact.

(One of the very few religions to address both states openly is Gnositicism, which heavily implies The Plemora's Shadow i.e. the absence of Divine Light is in fact the companion that it was looking for. And, of course, they hate each other, doh!)

>So we aren't human beings?

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly am.

Don't listen to him. Jews worship Satan and killed the messiah.

What the god-sun speaketh is life.

What the devil speaketh is death.

But Abraxas speaketh that hallowed and accursed word which is life and death at the same time.

Abraxas begetteth truth and lying, good and evil, light and darkness, in the same word and in the same act. Wherefore is Abraxas terrible.

It is splendid as the lion in the instant he striketh down his victim. It is beautiful as a day of spring. It is the great Pan himself and also the small one. It is Priapos.

It is the monster of the under-world, a thousand-armed polyp, coiled knot of winged serpents, frenzy.

It is the hermaphrodite of the earliest beginning.

It is the lord of the toads and frogs, which live in the water and go up on the land, whose chorus ascendeth at noon and at midnight.

It is abundance that seeketh union with emptiness.

It is holy begetting.

It is love and love’s murder.

It is the saint and his betrayer.

It is the brightest light of day and the darkest night of madness.

To look upon it, is blindness.

To know it, is sickness.

To worship it, is death.

To fear it, is wisdom.

To resist it not, is redemption.

God dwelleth behind the sun, the devil behind the night. What god bringeth forth out of the light the devil sucketh into the night. But Abraxas is the world, its becoming and its passing. Upon every gift that cometh from the god-sun the devil layeth his curse.

Everything that ye entreat from the god-sun begetteth a deed of the devil.

Everything that ye create with the god-sun giveth effective power to the devil.

again, I'm not a christian

this is why atheists have the fedora meme, because they play like they are logical but blindly follow the atheist jesus carl sagan and commit the largest strawmans in modern philosophical history.

they are closer. Why do you think they are more successful? What makes people so ready to believe that 'the spiritual truth' would not coincide with the real world, but be it's polar opposite?

Is it because it's easier for christians to tell themselves that the moral thing to do also happens to be the easier thing to do? Just maintain poverty through giving away all of your power?

how naive do you have to be to think that it's 'good' to be literally afraid of power?

How would this not be the ultimate 'evil' in their eyes?

they literally believe that it's the right thing to do to allow those they consider 'evil' to have all of the power. This is somehow 'good' for them.

What crime are you exactly talking about?

So pick. Are we beings or are we objects?

>Protip: we are both. So is God.

So to conclude.
God is benevolent AND created the contexts by which evil emerges in our human understanding. God himself did not "create" evil because evil is not a thing but the result of choices.

The greatest benevolence is in giving us the full respect of a free will, and the full ability to choose given a seemingly objective and consistent reality. It is just us who look to perceive or misunderstand or missattribute this benevolence for the purpose of delegitemizing god.

However, this does not solve the question of evil since god can choose to do whatever he wants. it only hinders man from understanding the ultimate purpose of his being in the world and understanding the complex beauty and goodness of god.

All of this "rebellion" comes from a limited perspective, one which we must take all that Christ has given us and grow beyond in understanding.

Sin.

> It is the lord of the toads and frogs, which live in the water and go up on the land, whose chorus ascendeth at noon and at midnight.

Kek!

>because it's consistently the better bet.
You just said there were no safe bets. Perhaps semantics have gotten in the way of our discussion.
My premise is as follows.
If causality is suspended there is no way to predict future events with any degree of certainty what so ever. There are no good bets, there are no smart bets, there are no safe bets. Literally anything can happen at any time.

>It doesn't, but if every single thing we've ever observed in human history dependably appears to have a cause, then it's a good bet that most stuff in the future will have a cause too.
If the universe defies causality then any conclusions you've inferred from observing 6000 years of human history out of 14 billion years of hypothetical existence (which also become suspect if causality is removed, since the age of the universe could fluctuate randomly) are just an exercise in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

>Like i said, you don't need to prove something to an infallable point for it to be useful and science never does that.
Neither does religion yet I doubt you consider that a point in religion's favor.

Omniscience and Omnipotence cannot be achieved simultaneously.

i'm not on the defensive lolol

what's stopping me from stopping evil?

why do you christians believe that power is the root of all evil? If it is, why would you allow evil people to gain that power?

the good man who gains power is better than the 'good man' who refuses power, he who refuses that power is allowing evil to gain it.

no point in arguing with you though, you are just a christian who literally posts bible quotes and pretends you arent a christian

you people are disgusting.

I am amazed that more people haven't responded to this... simply the existence of happiness proves the existence of G-d, even though we cannot understand it.

this will be too hard for atheists to understand because they will just say 'but muh happiness is simply serotonin' without even realizing how they continuously cite how as why

The issue is questioning God, that which Lucifer is keen on doing and insists you do as well.

There is evil? Does this mean God is weak or is evil himself? No, it simply means it is here and God has a reason for it to exist otherwise it wouldn't be here.

He gives us struggle, insists we overcome our obstacles and you atheists cry out "GIVE ME CONVENIENCE!"

The day of judgement will come though and you'll be judged accordingly, I pray you'll come to light before that.

define evil, please, my autistic friend

>it means at least one of three things

no, it doesn't. You just don't have a coherent argument.

>believing in abrahamic religions in 2016

When did I exactly commit this "sin" you are talking about?

christians are the reason the white race is dying.

their religion is the reason for white atheism

you HAVE to be as miserable as me or else my imaginary friend will strike you down when you die!

prove me wrong! you can't! ha!

Holy shit, this comment completely sums up the fallacy of scientism in one sentence.

Praise be.

>You just said there were no safe bets.
The best bet isn't always a safe bet user.

>If causality is suspended there is no way to predict future events with any degree of certainty what so ever.
Sure. But assume now that causality is only suspended at the beginning of time (t=0) and at no other time. Now there's no problem.

>are just an exercise in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Please explain, sounds interesting.

>Neither does religion yet I doubt you consider that a point in religion's favor.
You're right, I don't.

Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not. -- Kurt Gödel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

There is nothing needed to prove, knowledge of God is built into every human being, some are just masochist enough to silence it, almost all of them usually break on death bed though

>you people
>you people

Heh, that's where you fail, bud. It's all about individuality. You're not exempt. Use all the labels from your lame book, my point is clear. You're also responsible. Stop blaming others for your weaknesses.

>Was that a ruse?
The best I can come up with is for you to observe how we are the supreme animals on this planet and that it allows us to know good from evil and this is a blessing.

you also have to follow the customs of my book because those are the one and only correct ones!!

taqiya

what's your point hue?

Alright, Abdul.

I've always wondered, but how do theists justify their own belief systems as correct one when there exists so many other religions as well? We have actual historical proof for both dead and current religions, we roughly know where they started, how they fit themselves into the developing human societies and what made them successful in certain parts of the world. We also know that many of these religions either developed independently, while others borrowed beliefs and ideas from each other.

What makes your current belief system superior or more true than the other ones? Argumentum ad populum? I can perfectly understand why people like certain moral aspects of religions, f.ex. the golden rule which I myself also accept as a core principle of functioning human society, and in general from historical perspective religion in all parts of the world has had a positive impact on the first developing large-scale civilizations, but I can't for the life of me understand why a person believes their own system is the correct one from supernatural, "explaining all the mysteries of the world" perspective. What makes f.ex. the Christian creation myth and ideas of God more correct than Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever?

>this picture
>a liberal saying 'look, I don't believe in your dumb god because I am an enlightened atheist who has never read any spiritualism, but let me explain to you why I know more about your identity than you do'

and yet again, christians prove why they are the lowliest scum of the earth

What if evil is actually good, only that you don't understand that?

Except even the dying can't agree on which one, fear of death and Pascal's wager do catch up with most of us though.

Might as well roll the dice.

man was meant to eat the fruit, he just ate it too early, before he was matured

we are being repared though

once we're repaired, we'll serve our purpose of taking care of kingdom of God (universe) and bringing love to all it's creation

sorry, I am for Judaism, not Christianity. I hope my image wasn't too misleading. Jesus is a dead Jew and I am waiting on Moshiach.

Hey, what's your view on the matter?

>but I can't for the life of me understand why a person believes their own system is the correct
To be an atheist you simply have to be unconvinced by any religions that there is a deity. You don't need to have "faith" in some other origin of the universe and reality etc. You don't even need to be extremely sure there's no God, just just have to not believe a God exists.

Adam and Eve were kicked out becasue God let Snake in and because he planted the tree, God was mad about them eating the apple.
Blessing or not, we lost comfiest place EVER.

It was the first choice of man to eat the apple that god told him not to eat. From that moment he had conscience of good and evil. He chose this fate but satan tempted him (and her) ultimately. This resulted in a need to have man's love despite temptation. To choose goodness and holiness despite the inevitable evil we encounter. To live under the blessing and not the curse.

This was no ruse. Love can only exist when there is choice. Obedience when there is the alternative of rebellion.

Your "spiritualism" was written by humans just as much as every other book, so it doesn't hold any more value that any other philosophical text.

I was asking theists, those who believe in supernatural for opinions. I'm an atheist myself.

Universalism or Pan(en)theism solves this: God is in everybody and everything. All religions capture certain aspects of the One True God. They just differ in the way they look at Him.

Gnostics wrote that everybody is a God. When you become parents of children, you become the Creator.

Freemasonry also solved this. The British noticed that the intellectuals in India worshiped different Gods, but still had good hearts and wisdom. They decided that one can not say that your own God must be the best and only true one, because in the same time, you discard the Gods of many others. If you were born in India, you would worship other Gods, but still help old ladies cross the street, still fall in love.

Will there be catgirls?

I agree it was comfy, but the reason G-d gave the tree is to make us more like him. This causes pain, over many lifetimes. The best we can do is try to help our fellow man,

ohrite. i misread. my apologies.
*tips fedora*