How can god be all loving if he allows pointless suffering, I'm not even talking about murder or rape caused by humans to other humans, but shit like disease or flies that eat the eyes of children through no fault of their own. Either god can help but does not making him a monster or he is not powerful enough to help, and in that case, why bother worshiping him?
>>768641493
because papa nurgle loves you
>>768641493
Look around you, if you all knowing and all powerful, would you help such ignorant disgusting creatures? Also death is nothing to god, god created death, therefore anyone who has gone to death he can bring back by way logic.
>>768642826
>creates humans by his likeness
>doesnt help them in need cause we are "ignorant disgusting creatures"
Way to go god ya hypocritic bastard
>>768641493
Humans make up shit all the time. Sorry that the idea of god has stuck with you. Just forget it.
Likeness is not exactly the same, also don't forget freewill. Also we are suppose to learn from our downfall & improve ourselves to refine our soul of inpurity
>>768641493
Because God knows this life is temporary and only a test. The afterlife is eternal and that is where god resides.
>>768641493
some people just need faith in their lives, even if it makes them turn a blind eye to some things
>>768643406
Exactly, this is your time to prove that you deserve devine intellect and your belief that this is the only life you have is a deception handed from the devil as this life will be 'his' own but your future is so far unjudged until the end of days
>>768643444
Trips of truth.
>>768641493
my exact thoughts when I watch those mango worm videos.
>>768643352
I made the clarification of murder and humans doing things to human (though I don't know why the murderers free will is more important than the victims), what I'm saying is why does God allow children to die of shit like diseases, things that humans aren't doing to eachother or things that are out of out control. What lesson is a 3 year old meant to learn from a bug eating their eyes?
>>768643646
>Believing things without any evidence
How does this make you deserving of divine intelligence? Faith is literally useless at figuring out truth as it can lead you to any conclusion
>>768641493
why dont you ask him yourself
>>768644808
I can't, he doesn't exist
>>768644143
My mom would say that the three year old probably carries bad karma from a previous life but still I feel what your saying
>>768645684
Your mother is an idiot
>>768641493
The one part of the majority of religious texts people should take literally is the one no one ever takes literally. God is your father. You are his attempt at procreation. You know how some frogs lay thousands of eggs and from that a scientist can determine that that frog must have a really low rate of survival to adulthood? Well God laid, for all intents and purposes, a number approaching infinity of eggs each one is an entire universe meaning that your rate of survival into Godhood is a percentage so small it might as well be zero. He doesn't give a shit about what goes on here he doesn't even know you exist. You aren't even a single atom in an egg amongst infinite eggs.
>>768644143
Perhaps the 3 year old grew up to be Hitler, a paedophile, or would have been kidnapped in 2 weeks and raised under constant physical and sexual abuse before being tortured to death.
I suppose the idea is that we can't understand the very concept of infinite knowledge or power, and so we could never understand why a God would do any specific thing.
>>768647715
God didn't stop Hitler and it's not as if god stops kids from getting murdered or raped anyway. If we can't understand maybe god shouldn't have created us being incapable of understanding it, but again, because god is omnipotent everything happens according to his will, he condones the actions of horrible people
>>768641493
God allowed humanity to exist without such suffering in the garden of Eden. Humanity disobeyed and was cast into this depraved world. Still, is love defined as the absence of suffering? I think not. Sometimes love must inflict suffering to protect itself, or for the sake of personal development.
>>768648678
God created Adam and Eve without the concept of good and evil, how were they to know that disobeying him was a wrong thing to do? And the threat of death if they did eat the fruit means nothing as the concept of death doesn't exist in the universe at that time
God basically have a toddler a sharp pair of scissors and got mad at it when it cut itself, god is completely fucking inept.
Also, of God was all loving he would get rid of all suffering, you can't be 100% compassionate and allow suffering to occur, especially if it takes you literally no effort to stop it
Who are you to question God?
>>768641493
I don't know if he allows it so much as he has created far too many creatures who fail to stand up when they see it
>>768644287
The lack of faith precludes the possibility of conclusions all together. One may say evidence guides their beliefs, yet faith is necessary to trust the evidence. Moreover, a believer in God sees evidence just as a believer in science. The difference is not how they believe, but rather from where they seek their evidence. Do they look to the world without or do they trust the voice within?
>>768648928
Why is god above questioning? God knew perfectly well in advance that his creation would completely fuck up and allowed it to happen anyway, god allows the suffering, because of this he either must be all powerful and doesn't care enough meaning he can't be all loving, or he is all loving but doesn't have the power to change it meaning he's not worthy of worship
>>768641493
Don’t worship. Worst mistake ever. That’s not what you’re supposed to get from this idea. If you do something really fucking stupid it will come to you and your own psyche will fucking tell you in no uncertain terms. You won’t believe, you’ll fucking know!
>>768648911
The concept of evil predated adam and eve, that's how the serpent existed. Further, a parent can allow suffering for their child and still be 100% compassionate, if they know that suffering is necessary for their betterment.
>>768649155
oldest and most common atheist argument, yawn
>>768647715
People think I'm Hitler and I am being constantly tortured so why didn't he let me die? I know a lot of people who would love a chance to off me
>>768642826
If you were all knowing and all powerful why would you create such ignorant disgusting creatures in the first place?
>>768648911
>God created Adam and Eve without the concept of good and evil
gtfo with this mislead fundie crap
>>768649148
>The lack of faith precludes the possibility of conclusions all together.
That's not true, we don't have faith that gravity or cells exist as we have evidence that they do, are there details we don't know? Sure, but you don't believe cells exist on faith, you believe them on evidence, faith is belief without evidence.
>One may say evidence guides their beliefs, yet faith is necessary to trust the evidence.
No it's not, if you have evidence you don't have faith as faith is, again, belief without evidence
>Moreover, a believer in God sees evidence just as a believer in science.
They might see evidence, but someone who has faith in a god or concepts will believe something with a lack of or even if the face of evidence
>The difference is not how they believe, but rather from where they seek their evidence. Do they look to the world without or do they trust the voice within?
It's exactly the difference of how they believe is what separates a scientific belief from a religious one, scientists make believes based on evidence taken from experimentation, people who have faith don't. If you had evidence for you claims you wouldn't have faith
>>768648911
Also, if god is all knowing, god created Adam and Eve knowing they were going to do what they were going to do.
>>768641493
because this is perfection. Things develop freely even the bad because we chose the path that would open those doors of those possibilities.
>>768649155
God isn't opposed to argument or bargaining. Lot talked him down to finding one person who didn't behave like all the others instead of a thousand or something. God still knew he wouldn't find even that, though.
>>768649259
No, allowing your child to suffer is a form of being uncompassionate, if you are all loving any form of suffering is wrong.
And even so, god set the world up to be free of suffering meaning humans must have been meant to get along fine without it, why does God allow it now?
>>768649372
And? I've never heard a satisfying answer to this, God created them knowing it would happen and got mad when it did, why?
>>768649507
So was Jesus spouting fundie crap when he treats Adam like a historical figure?
The only way out of the problem of eval for cristians is believing everything in the world is actually good. Child rape and torture is actually good, or god is not omnibenevolent, omnicient, and omnipotent.
wages of sin is death and non human dna, dna tampering etc is the reason why there are so many mental illnesses, imperfections etc.
>>768641493
There is no god, so there’s your answer.
>>768649759
Then god is a being who lies to humans, why should you trust anything he says?
>>768643352
Free will is a lie
>>768649639
>many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
>all which is governed by free will or probability is possible within its own limitations and all possibilities are true
That's your free will / divine plan argument too.
demons bind information in dna that passes on that's why it talks about breaking "chains" in the bible it is talking about the dna and the generational curses that can be passed in the bloodline.
>>768649886
Who tampered with the DNA? DNA itself is not a perfect system and can never be, mistakes will always happen
>>768649886
God made a world in which dna can be manipulated; and humans are both capable, and willing, to manipulate it.
>>768641493
Pretty sure He left us to help each other. So try that.
>>768641493
> How can god be all loving
How can YOU post a question that has already been chewed over, for centuries, by brilliant minds?
Why don't you find their answers?
What's the point of asking this here? Wanna post your new invention "the wheel" ?
>>768649937
God never told him that he would or even could find anyone else, only that he should try and I think that might have been after he was ready to just let the place burn except for him and his family
>>768649978
You always choosing every possible decision, is not free will. And if god is all powerful, god chose all the possible worlds.
>>768649986
Why didn't god stop that? Why is god's creation so easily tampered with? Also, fuck off with that "the Bible is actually scientific" shit, Jesus thought cleaning your hands were unnecessary and that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds even though it was common knowledge at the time that it wasn't the smallest. The Bible claims the earth is fucking flat too, no way is that talking about DNA
It makes perfect sense the moment you realize that Elohim was just the abrahamic version of the creator god El from Sumerian mythology. which is why Marcion of Sinope had the suspicion that Elohim was a different god than the more loving god that Jesus and his followers talked about. The church leaders of the time formed the new testament as a response to the dualistic god teachings of Marcion.
>>768650003
Fallen angels. There were no such imperfections like what we have now before the fall. Adam and Eve were genetically perfect and superior to what we are now and were living in a higher dimension.
>>768649986
>genes that unlock spiritual backdoors
I support this theory.
>>768649531
>That's not true
>we don't have faith that gravity or cells exist as we have evidence that they do
We have faith that they are what evidence suggests they are. In much the same way people believe God is what evidence they've experienced suggests he is.
>but you don't believe cells exist on faith
I believe that cells aren't conscious because science suggests that maybe consciousness is an artifact of neural connections, but there is no strong evidence. This is merely faith. I believe cells are living things because they conform to a set of parameters that other similar things exhibit and we consider living - yet those parameters are not set in stone and the debate will never end. I choose to accept the current evidence at face value on faith that it's better than ignoring the evidence.
>someone who has faith in a god or concepts will believe something with a lack of or even if the face of evidence
When a person feels the holy spirit enter their body, that is evidence. When a person sins and confesses and records the results, this is an experiment. When countless people have the same religious experience, this is reproduction of the experiment. And when people of faith are shown evidence to the contrary of their beliefs (like evolution or the age of the planet) they often adjust their beliefs.
>scientists make believes based on evidence taken from experimentation, people who have faith don't
They merely take their evidence from another source. One is trusted because it's easier to share - that is the world without. One is tentative because it is hidden, that is the world within.
>>768649531
before gravity was proven (very recently) we had faith it existed
>>768650217
https://youtu.be/pl3ByuKlVUA
>>768650122
But by saying "go and find some people" implies to Lot that he doesnt know if there are righteous people there but he knows perfectly well, a lie of omission is still a lie. It's like if a friend asks me if we have ketchup and I say "why don't you look?" Knowing full well we have none, I have lied to my friend
>>768650147
Nah bro your you chose your you the other yous chose theirs you dig?
>>768641493
Read book of adam and eve, OP.
>>768650115
In the centuries brilliant minds have chewed over this question, none have answered it without resorting to falacious arguments.
>>768650151
because we wanted it. When eve opened her eyes to knowledge of "good and evil" a change occurred that opened the door to these possibilities. A perfect creation can't be a perfect candyland every possibility must be available if we truly have free will. We could have lived in a perfect existence but again we chose to experience this. Curiosity killed the cat.
>>768650217
Is god not more powerful than fallen angels? Why didn't he stop them from tampering with his creation?
Also, "perfect" DNA does not exist
>>768650278
What?
>>768649795
>allowing your child to suffer is a form of being uncompassionate
My child loves his binky, but he's 5. Every time I take it he cries. He is in physical pain without it. He must get used to not using it though, because if he continues he will have permanent physical deformity. I take the binky, he suffers, I am compassionate.
>god set the world up to be free of suffering meaning humans must have been meant to get along fine without it, why does God allow it now?
He also gave mankind free will. He did not choose man's path, they chose it. The consequences that followed may mean suffering, but much like the binky they are for man's sake.
>>768650357
And god created a world in which your child could develop a permanent physical deformity. What a compassionate god.
>>768650270
Like I said Lot probably asked to find others and God gave him the numbers look it up
>>768650452
Man chose a world*
>>768648928
A free willing human. Either way you slice it. It's gods fault we ask these questions and turn our backs Or he isn't real. I feel pretty confident he isn't real, and if he is, with the free will he gave me, I'll curse his name right down to the pits of hell for being such a fucking piece of shit.
>>768641493
Mysterious ways.
>>768649886
And God is the reason there is sin. You forgot that part.
>>768650509
Pretty uneventful for God.
>>768650492
Man didn't create the world. God created the world and mankind, knowing what mankind would choose. At least according to christian dogma. Also there can't be free will if god is all knowing.
>>768650240
You don't prove anything in science, and if you're talking about gravitational waves, we didn't have faith that they exist, we predicted them as part of a model built on evidence, they turned out to be real and behaved as described, I don't have faith in them
This is perfection and no matter how many times you do it over it will always be the same this balance and cycle is all a part of what a perfect creation actually is.
>>768650595
Why not?
Omnipotence itself is contradictory. Can god create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?
>>768650619
>You don't prove anything in science
You jest. What is prediction without experimentation?
>>768650647
because he knows what you're going to do before you do it, thus making your life pre-planned by him. It's not free will if you're doing what you were created and planned to do.
God is a true creator and master of creation. This shit is beyond most human emotional understanding. God knew what would happen. This is the design of a true free and perfect creation no matter how fucked up you think it is.
Serious question. Free will and omnipotence can't exist at the same time, cause omnipotence takes priority over free will, which makes free will not possible, cause it can be altered, so it's not free.
Its a contradiction in thought. I'm interested in what Christians have to say about it.
>>768650595
>knowing what mankind would choose.
The bible never says this
>Also there can't be free will if god is all knowing.
There is a paradox, but a paradox is not the same as impossibility. Instead a paradox usually means that there are aspects of the situation that are not understood. Presumably God would understand such things.
>>768650647
If god knows the future, the future if predetermined. If not, god is not all knowing.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, god himself determines the future.
>>768650622
Lucifer in Heaven and Christ on Earth. Nice.
>>768650683
No, science can only disprove as you cannot make a claim of absolute certainty, you clearly must not have any form of higher scientific education if you didn't know that. Things fit with models that make incredibly accurate predictions, but we can't say for sure that X is correct as we simply can't know, can you say it's accurate to reality? Sure, but you can only "prove" something in the common sense
>>768650760
>free will
There are many definitions of free will and this is only true for some of them, and of those it's still only true for some definitions of omnipotence.
>>768650780
Why do you believe god exists? If contradictions are possible we might as well all become epistimological sceptics, because reasoning doesn't work.
>>768650850
>you cannot make a claim of absolute certainty
If that's the case, you can't absolutely claim the positive or negative of anything. I'm just wondering how we would have learned or known that gravitational waves were real, if all we did was predict and not experimentally prove them, as much as that can be done. Which I'm thinking is done with experimentation. The cornerstone of what is known as a scientific hypothesis- which revolves around reproducibility and testability of such a claim.
I think I have a higher form of scientific education, anon.
If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, everything in the universe has to be good, because god determines everything in the universe.
>>768650965
>If contradictions are possible
We encounter contradictions all the time. I remember not long ago we thought we'd found the logical foundation of all maths. We called it set theory. Then the barber's paradox tore it to shreds. The existence of this paradox didn't actually change anything about math though, just our understanding of it. I'm of the belief that not everything can be understood. Math and physics both suggest that unknowable are not only possibly but are commonly observed. Those things that are unknowable are probably only unknowable from our perspective though, I'd assume God to be beyond it.
As for why I believe in God? It's a choice. I was an atheist for years, but I find more utility in a belief in a higher power. It syncs with my beliefs about the nature of the universe and the simulation hypothesis too. I'm not really a believer in traditional Gods mind you, but I'm comfortable debating on their behalf as well.
It's called "Faith" for a reason
Obstacles, no matter how hard or horrible they may be, are there to test your faith. You have to have faith that there is a God who loves you, no matter how crazy or horrible the world might be. Sorry if I explained it bad, am kinda sleepy.
>>768649978
shameless self bump
>>768651248
>I'm of the belief that not everything can be understood
This means that you're an epistimological sceptic.
>>768651111
We know of a phenomenon that interacts with our apparatuses in a way that we'd expect gravitational waves to. Everything beyond that is speculation and thus considered theory. This is science.
,
>>768651111
>If that's the case, you can't absolutely claim the positive or negative of anything.
That's true, the only things we can claim to be true or false with certainty are self defined things like mathematics.
>I'm just wondering how we would have learned or known that gravitational waves were real, if all we did was predict and not experimentally prove them, as much as that can be done.
Einstein came up with his theories of general and special relativity based on observations, this model was found to be extremely good at predicting and explaining phenomena like the curving of light due to mass, him predicting the moon curving light because of its mass is what won him his Nobel prize. At the time there was no way to detect gravitational waves, but now we do and we have, and the line up (within error) to what Einstein predicted. In science we make models, we don't know for sure, for example, an early model of motion could have been "things get tired" and then through more and better observation we get to Newtonian mechanics which for hundreds of years we fine, they made strong predictions, but reletevistic dynamics are much better at making predictions, that's why we use it instead as it's more accurate
>I think I have a higher form of scientific education, anon.
I doubt you do considering you thought science proves things
>>768651320
How could faith determine which of these claims is true:
"I have faith that god exists."
"I have faith that god doesn't exist."
saying a prayer for all the atheist anons out there. no one should have to experience eternal damnation.
>>768651433
No, it really doesn't.
>What’s in a set of sets that don’t contain themselves?
>What is Graham’s Number?
>Will a computer program ever stop?
>There are an infinite number of numbers, which cannot be calculated?
>The mother fucking incompleteness theorem.
I could go on and on about things that are literally and definabley unknowable. This is scientific, logical, and mathematical fact. There is no skepticism.
>>768651583
>Believing in things for no valid reasons
>You're deluded
Sure man
>>768651248
>I choose to believe in god.
When I say I believe something, I mean that I'm confident it's true. How can someone choose to be confident that something is true?
You have a strange definition of "believe".
>>768650319
And you think a better answer will surface in /b/?
Here's the result of the theologians' work;
"Bad as this world may be, it's the best of all possible worlds"
What is fallacious about that?
>>768651764
>I'm confident it's true.
I'm not confident that truth is itself even exists. It's yet to be defined properly by anyone. You can only say something is true if you place it in some discernible construct. Our universe is not yet a discernible construct, thus I can not believe in truth confidently. Instead I choose to believe in truth because of its utility. I could be wrong, but if i am it doesn't matter anyway. Wrong wouldn't exist.
>>768651828
God created a world in which child rape exists. If this is the best possible world child rape is good. That or god isn't capable of preventing child rape.
>>768651434
Yes. Theory. Which is what I was attempting to get you to suggest prediction without experimentation was, not that science proves things absolutely.
In that there is a phenomenon that exists outside of theoretical models that can be experimentally picked up by instruments, analogous to a proposed phenomenon whose existence relies heavily upon said models, I would think that there are people out there attempting to reproduce incidents where more of the phenomenon can be, in other words, recorded. That is to say, certain instruments, even simple ones, tend to behave as if they are affected by this thing we believe to be gravity at what seems to be a regular frequency. And so, we don't much doubt gravity despite the remaining questions and uncertainty, especially not in light of our history attempting to discern its nature.
There's experimental evidence of a phenomenon analogous to theoretical gravitational waves, anon. And there's also the theoretical gravitational waves' depiction within a theoretical model. Yes, that's science. Science definitely isn't a body of thought.
>>768651491
My wondering of how we would have learned or known that gravitational waves were real was more of an allusion to the fact that they have allegedly been picked up by instruments than merely predicted by a model that was extremely good at predicting various phenomena. It's one thing to make an extremely educated guess.
>you thought science proves things
Earlier, wasn't it said that science doesn't provide absolute certainty, claim-wise, by the two parties in other words? Forgive me if this looks like you trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time.
>>768641493
Which god?
>>768652078
I'm not the person you were replying to, but you should reread his post. He was saying that theory is not absolute certainty. You seem to agree with this.
>>768651698
By epistimological skeptic I meant philosophical skeptic.
Denying or doubting the possibility of knowledge is the definition of a philosophical skeptic.
>>768652216
Not, that's only true if one is doubting all knowledge, like this: >>768652050. I doubt knowledge in things that we've proven we cannot have knowledge of. To do this required some knowledge. By believing in that knowledge I am not a philosophical skeptic.
>>768650845
You actually got that backwards s
>>768652211
Yes, which is why I would ask the question at the bottom of my reply. It would also be why I would scratch my head if I was told that I don't have a higher form of scientific education because I believed that science proved things absolutely. Or, now I guess, that theory is absolutely certain.
>>768652050
If you're not confident truth exists, why make the claim "god exists; and he's all powerfull, all knowing, and all good"?
>>768652078
Science builds upon old science, again, something like "a ball gets tired" eventually becomes reletevistic dynamics through observation, that's how we make better and better models, a model is just a descriptor of reality and sometimes you can make predictions of unforseen things, such as the bending of light or gravitational waves. Observation is they corner stone, it's how we check if our models are accurate or not, we might make a model to describe one thing, such as how bodies move at reletevistic speeds and then find that assuming the model is accurate, gravity is just the curvature of space time due to mass, we then make an experiment to determine if it actually is accurate, if it is, great we've got a more accurate model, if not we go back and alter the model to better reflect reality, this keeps happening over and over again. It's why for almost 100 years a scientific theory hasn't been overturned by a better one, that's not to say better ones dont exist, but out current models are really damn good at predicting and explaining phenomena
this is true red pill on on God
It's impossible for God to be a good guy and exist at the same time
>>768652388
I don't make the claim, I simply believe. I believe in it for the same reason I believe in truth, it offers me utility. I can accept that not everyone finds utility in the same things. I do not have knowledge of the inner workings of the lives of others.
>>768652442
Unless everything in the universe is good. Still a red pill either way.
>>768641493
From what people have told me in church, God apparently wants genuine friends. And by making people suffer he can truly see who cares about him the most, despite all the hardship a person may go through.
>>768652505
>God: I love everyone!
>Also God: But you're not my friend unless you suffer for me.
>>768644143
What are your referring to when you talk about bugs eating children's eyes?
>>768652505
Causing a child to be raped and tortured is a great way to find out if they're a genuine friend.
>>768645684
>your past life, that you had nothing to do with, tortured cats. Here's flies in your eyes
>>768652503
everything in the universe is good?
what if everything in the universe was green, or low or bright? How about everything in the universe is bad?
>>768652621
There are these types of bugs, I can't remember the name, but they've evolved to eat the eye matter in mammals, it's nutritious for them and it's a place to lay their eggs. So these bugs can eat the eyes of toddlers, and assuming that God is all powerful as he is often described, he allows this to happen
>>768652563
He loves you as much as a father would because he created you. However, your actions have some influence and can make him not want to spend eternity with you
>>768652708
Everything in the universe being good is the only way out of the problem of evil for a Christian, and plenty of Christians have come to this conclusion.
>>768652441
>Observation is they corner stone. You've said, right there, that observation is the "cornerstone of science", that it is how we check if our models are accurate or not. Do you just look at a candid boulder resting at the bottom of a valley, if you want to check for the accuracy of your prediction for what happens when a boulder begins to roll down a mountainside? I even think there's a name for that, frankly. I think I've used it a couple times.
>we then make an experiment to determine if it actually is accurate
>if it is
>great
>we've got a more accurate model
>if not we go back and alter the model to better reflect reality
Right there.
>>768652784
Pretty sure that if he could my Dad would grant me eternal life without making me suffer for it.
>>768652784
God is all knowing, he knew you before you were born, he knows exactly what you will do, so to him, he know what you would do, therefore he doesn't need you to actually suffer as he'd know if you would be a good friend or not. The suffering part is just god burning us with a microscope and not liking the ones that realises that's a horrible thing to do
>>768648928
Who are you to SPEAK for him?
The translators of the Bible KJV 1611 profusely apologized in their 3 letters one to king one to clergy and one to laity for the myriad misunderstandings and poor translations because they either did not always understand what was being written of in the original texts they were charged with translating or in some cases were utterly deceived by those who said they were the chosen of god. And who gave them BS that even Torah did not contain. Not until the 19th Century did we squire enough knowledge of language to do a passable job of translating what would come to be known as the Bible.
So you may want to take a look at The Companion Bible by EW Bullinger and Strong's Concordance. Those two books should be enough to help you get the real story out of those ancient texts.
>>768652813
But it's meaningless to say everything, literally everything is good
"good" doesn't exist unless there's some comparison
>>768652821
What's your point?
>>768652813
Not just Christians, look up Nietzsches concept of amor fati.
>>768652887
>Who are you to SPEAK for him?
his SON beotch
>>768652650
People who go through extreme hardship most likely will go to heaven without doing anything. Whereas the rich or blessed are constantly judged and have to prove themselves. Would you want eternity in hell for an easier life on Earth (which is very temporary)
>>768641493
> How can god be all loving if he allows pointless suffering,
The Bible is quite clear that God is not good. You obey him because his is the glory and the power. Starving children in Africa? Behold his glory. Children born without most of their brain? Glory of God. All things are for the glory of God, and the Bible is very clear about this. God can do anything to you. It is his right, for his is the power and the glory. Just read the book of Job. He will fuck over his best followers just to prove his glory.
>>768652893
It just means the good is synonymous with the universe. It isn't contradictory.
>>768641493
God can do anything, he doesn't have to live up to your standards or any standards at all. Just because God is omnipotent and perfect, doesn't mean he has to create a perfect world, or perfect people. God can do ANYTHING.
>>768652940
So you believe hardships and hell are good?
>>768652840
If you’re Christian you would know that God did this in the beginning but Adam and Eve disobeyed him, so they brought it upon themselves (and us sadly)
>>768641493
>youtube atheism 101
Read slowly:
>Consciousness is required to understand experience and concepts like good and evil.
>Free will is necessary for consciousness to exist.
>Degrees of consciousness largely distinguishs living things from one another. It is the basic unit of individuality
>Free will is necessary for life to be considered "living".
>Other words, in a hard determinist universe, life, sans free will, is indistinguishable from clockwork or a basic computer program.
>Without free will, "good" cannot exist as conscious life could not exist which can experience and understand "good".
>A computer program is not peeforming action A because it has deemed it to be "good" on its behalf of its own opinion. It does the "good" action according to the programmer's direct input.
>A necessary consequence of the existence of "good" is the existence of "evil/bad". If any action can be deemed objectively "good", its inaction or antithesis must be "evil".
>With the creation of consciousness and the concept of "good", "evil" must exist.
>If an individual is incapable of choosing between good and evil, it cannot be either conscious, genuinely alive or genuinely good.
>The greatest creation is the creation of something that can CHOOSE to be selfless and good, a truly living creation.
>With God being an abstraction of the concept of "good", God being that which created the concept of "good", divergence from godliness must be understand as "bad".
>Reforming the behavior of man to be consistent with the understanding of God is the entire purpose of the Bible and religion.
Tl;dr - Good and a living universe cannot exist without evil. It is a natural consequence of conscious being.
>>768652940
God knows the outcome in advance, why actually put a child into such a horrible situation just to see if they're a good friend, or in your case, to just go to heaven anyway? What's the actual point? What lesson do you learn from getting raped as a kid? Not to get raped again?
>>768653042
>God can do ANYTHING.
So I ask "can god make a rock that's too heavy for god to lift?"
And once AGAIN we are rehashing questions that brilliant minds already chewed over.
Would somebody just post links to the REAL answers and we can stop wasting our time.
>>768653025
but good is not synonymous with the universe
the universe is the collection of everything that exists
good is an adjective to describe something better than something else
>>768653091
It's not good, it's just how it is. God created us in his image, and he isn't a pussy
>>768652903
My point is that there's a lot of confusing replies if everyone agrees or seems to know what science is and isn't about.
>>768653094
Somehow, a long list of individually false assertions didn't culminate in a true conclusion. Imagine my surprise.
>>768653093
If god is all powerfull and all knowing, god created Adam and Eve knowing they would disobey him. You could say he made Adam and Eve TO desobey him.
>>768653094
If good cant exist without evil, and good justifies evil, is evil good?
>>768653099
He probably testing someone else’s faith, like how in the Bible people are literally killed to prove a point
>>768653167
There isn't, there are people who think through hypothesis and testing we can make more and more accurate models of reality, and then there are people that are laymen who are wrong
>>768653152
The logical conclusion of the Christian worldview is nihilism.
>>768653093
I am Christian, I do know, and you got that wrong too. You're just setting yourself up for paradoxes here. Plus, Jesus said all sins of the past are gone, that would include Adam and Eve. My point isn't that christian dogma is wrong, just that the shitty explanation you were given is.
>>768653275
Again, he already knows if the person will lose their faith or not before any of this would happen, you don't test someone on something if you know the answers they're going to give
>>768653254
Good doesn't justify evil. It is not meant to be. Such a question is inherently ridiculous. They are natural consequences of one another.
>>768653191
Not an argument
>>768653321
If all sins of the past are gone, then why do people need to be baptised in order to remove original sin?
>>768653194
Yes he made Adam and Eve so he could have friends who are made in his image that aren't a bunch of pussies and actually did something to earn his approval
>>768653254
According to capitalism:
Poverty can't exist without the rich
Being rich justifies poverty
Is poverty good?
Only if you're not poor.
>>768653367
God created evil you dipshit, he created the universe knowing evil would come into his creation
>>768653398
I said Christian, that's catholic, they still believe in original sin because they think Jesus was off his rocker or something.
>>768653303
I don't see the laymen. I just see a lot of people who think said
>testing
can help to make models of reality more accurate. Maybe even work to make more valid their claims or predictions. I did see some weird interpretations of how important that
>testing
was, though.
>>768653367
If god (an all powerfull, all good being) is justified in creating evil because by doing so he also creates good, good justifies evil.
>>768653398
Baptism is a ritual representing an individual's willingness to abandon the innate wicked nature of man, ungodly behavior, and to pursue Christ, the logos, godly behavior.
The nature of man is corrupt. Evil exists. This is recognized by Christian thought.
>>768653462
>Catholics aren't Christian
Sure they're not, but it's always convinet that they're counted in numbers, have fun being the 4th most popular religion on earth
>>768653460
Your ability to pay him evil is a direct consequence of your capacity for both life and consciousness. Life CANNOT EXIST without its natural consequences such as evil.
>>768653321
I actually probably was taught the wrong thing, because the “church” I was in said that most Christian teachings were incorrect and taken out of context. Like that just “believing in god” will get you to heaven, is a false teaching
>>768653468
What weird interpretations? The only thing testing has been used for here is to mean experiment and observation
>>768653516
Why can't you just claim that to god rather than going through the ceremony?
>>768653427
so capitalism is bad
>>768653516
If god (an all good, all powerfull being) created evil, evil must be good.
>>768653585
God created a perfect world with no evil and suffering, so according to Christians it IS possible for life to exist without evil
>>768653544
They're the same until they're different. Their differences only matter in certain contexts. When comparing to the world's religions those differences are minor. When discussing the hierarchy of the church or the specific nature of sin, they start to matter. Context is key.
>>768653651
evil can't be good
>>768653478
The creation of life is what allows for the concept of good and evil. Good and evil are inseparable units, two sides of the same coin, ying and yang. Without life and consciousness, we could not hold this conversation.
>>768653694
Then god is either not all powerfull, or not all good.
>>768653684
>They're not Christian when I say so
>But they are on a surface level
They either are Christians or they are not, make up your mind
>>768653732
Or god doesn't exist.
>>768653732
Then He's not God
>>768653610
It really depends on your denomination. Christian faith is more fractured than people like to think. Some say believing in God is enough, most follow John 3:16 though.
>>768653767
Exactly.
>>768653651
>the opposite of itself is also its equivalent
>>768653676
Life is not necessarily consciousness. Trees are not conscious. Animals are not conscious in the same respect/degree that humans are.
>>768653753
>I refuse to acknowledge context because minor details should always matter!
In that case, shall we talk about the different forms of Buddhism? Hinduism? Judaism? The same argument applies to all major religions. Don't cherry pick.
>>768653851
>Trees are not conscious. Animals are not conscious in the same respect/degree that humans are.
Not all scientists believe this. Panpsychism actually has as pretty big following.
>>768653786
Exactly, if good and evil are opposites, and evil exists, an all good, all powerfull god cannot exist.
>>768653785
so God isn't God
god is not "loving". this is not just a "simulation" but a complete recording. you happen to inhabit a position within the recording. god chooses where you end up and the ride you take. you can't actually change anything, and you will be forced to do everything you do and experience everything you experience.
i was shown the future once and that was probably because i am near "release". this could be my last life. i happen to have always been bored and too mature. i've never wanted much the way others do, and i've never been jealous in my life.
you can't believe the answer unless IT shows it to you. you will never fully believe me, but i suggest you try to reason it. i've taken nearly a dozen philosophy courses with all As and one B in "environmental ethics" because that chick was tough on grading. i know my shit. i know my "god doesn't exist" bullshit arguments--they're all wrong--and i know my "free will"/"determinism" arguments. technically, we never actually know what we're going to do until we do it; neuroscience actually believes in the fact that we have no conscious free will. it's official. it's called the "readiness potential". it's like "decision first, consciousness later" which means we never actually make our own decisions. it's FACT.
our lives are "rehabilitation". i would argue that there is an obvious urge to "find god" but the "god" of this simulation is just a warden/scientist running the recording. think of the god above THAT, outside our "matrix". there is argument about god out there but i would bet, if you could catch me outside, that outside, people also FAKE their "religions" the same way the big three do here, and pretend they have "free will" and maybe out there, we still don't. that's why god makes so many of us fake it and believe we have control and have to kiss its ass when, if you believe we're in a recording, it makes no fucking sense. it's just an example of stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmyjmrLO8fo
>>768653624
There was a moment where it's existence/utility was downplayed, then subsequently endorsed and affirmed. A moment where it seems like it was unscientific to believe in it's existence or its utility. Actually, there was a lot of interpreting positives as negatives.
That's weird, right?
>>768649477
Look at the world and those who are in power. Clearly power corrupts all, and to be god is to have the most absolute power.
>>768653624
You can I suppose but it represents commitment and rebirth. You could live in a desert. Representation is the function of rituals. It also provides a sort of tamgibility for followers as entirely philosophical discussion oftens falls of deaf ears. This is just speculation mind you
>>768653928
If you define god as an all good, all powerfull being, the existance of evil disproves the existance of god. Either evil exists or god exists, not both.
>>768653851
https://www.livescience.com/53791-what-is-consciousness.html
>>768641493
The simple explanation is that he has a plan. No matter how tragic or sad the circumstance is, things and then events are set in place for a reason. We won't know it at the time, nor would we be able to comprehend it. But we must know that it all happens for a reason. That's the simple reasoning. I suggest you read more if you want a more detailed explanation. God bless brother
>>768653866
I'm not cherry picking, it's the same thing with the "1.3BN MUSLIMS" stuff, if Catholics are not Christians you can't use them in your numbers, they're a separate religion, so for your there aren't 2.2 billion Christians, there are only 900 million
>>768652694
That actually sounds fair to me
>>768653926
Your concept of an ideal world is a world without evil. But a world without evil must be a "dead" or unconscious world as there cannot exist beings capable of choosing good over evil. In your ideal world, you cannot hold this conversation.
>>768641493
It is because there is no god other than you, but you forgot and now you think you are a physical body. But once you realise you are good, you will see why you made yourself suffer ˙(because you still thought there is something to suffer about)
>>768654067
>Children are battered, raped and murdered before they can even speak
>Part of god's plan
If this is the case god is a monster and condones all acts of evil and there is no difference between good and evil
>>768653974
There have been good people in power. However, because it only takes one bad person to fuck everything up, and there's no reliable way to sort good and bad people, a system that gives anyone absolute power is a flawed system.
>>768653933
Your definition of consciousness and free will themselves are suspect. Your conclusions could be changed if you accepted this possibility, but you won't because it offers you utility. I feel much the same about my perspective (which isn't much different from yours). I'd drop the "mature" and "ready to release" act if I were you though. If you need superiority, find it someplace where you aren't the one assigning the trophies. Either that, or don't wave them in front of people. Just some friendly advice, feel free to ignore me.
>>768654079
>4th largest
Are you suggested this is in a ranking that broke down all the faiths into their respective denominations? Please, do share.
>>768641493
>hey nons, look here, a nice glitch!!!
>>768654138
In my view good and evil are subjective in the same way pain is subjective, thier existances both depend on a subject to observe them. And like pain the subject cannot choose to not percieve good or evil.
>>768654300
No, I'm saying that because you claim that catholics aren't Christians, the rest would rank 4th on a chart of the generally accepted numbers, Catholicism is the biggest single sect of any religion ever with one type of Islam behind that, then another and then the rest of Christianity as one group
A good god would create a world without evil.
A good god who also wanted free will would create an infinite variety of goods to choose freely from.
A god who can't create a world with free will and without evil is not omnipotent.
>>768654444
Quad quads have spoken.
This issue is resolved.
>>768654477
Dub dubs have spoken.
God is either evil, not omnipotent, or not real.
>>768654384
>Catholicism is the largest
Hold one, you do know there are many types of Catholics right? And Christians have been splintered beyond repair? Definitely cherry picking.
>>768654601
It's not cherry picking, I'm saying that if you separate catholics out of Christianity, you're left with the rest being equivalent to the 4th biggest religion.
There are only Roman Catholics as to be a Catholic you have to follow the canon of the Vatican, if you don't you can't be a Catholic by definition
>>768654377
An the subjective perspective of good and evil is why atheism invariably leads to tyrannical "enlightened" despots (see communism).
According to Christianity and pretty much any other religion, there is an objective good, godliness. The concept of divinity is necessary for the proper functioning of an ethical society.
>>768654444
>a world without evil
aka a world without good - sounds terrible. What terrible God would make that? Actually, can you even define evil or just list examples of things you think are evil might might not actually be because we're all to ignorant to understand the full scope of any situation.
>A good god who also wanted free will would create an infinite variety of goods to choose freely from.
If I want chocolate I don't want an infinite number of types of chocolate. That's just fucking extreme and paralyzing. I'd rather like 2 or 3.
>A god who can't create a world with free will and without evil is not omnipotent.
And a God who would is not good. Do you have a point?
>How can god be all loving if he allows pointless suffering
because he is not satan; who wants to cuddle you into a spoiled babby that wants life served on a golden plate, minus the effort and all things negative.
>weaklings have always rejected god love
>>768654785
> aka a world without good - sounds terrible. What terrible God would make that?
Yours. Before the apple.
>>768654761
If morality is subjective, believing it's objective doesn't prevent people from becomming violent despots. See all the violent religious despots.
>>768654731
1.2 billion
>>768654079
If you go by the Bibles description of what a Christian is? There are far less than that.
By their fruits you shall know them.
Love (Greek: agape, Latin: caritas)
Joy (Greek: chara, Latin: gaudium)
Peace (Greek: eirene, Latin: pax)
Patience (Greek: makrothumia, Latin:longanimitas)
Kindness (Greek: chrestotes, Latin: benignitas)
Goodness (Greek: agathosune, Latin: bonitas)
Faithfulness (Greek: pistis, Latin: fides)
Gentleness (Greek: prautes, Latin: modestia)
Self-control (Greek: egkrateia, Latin: continentia)
>>768654731
>You're left with the rest being equivalent to the 4th biggest religion.
I dispute this because Christian denominations are surely much lower on the list.
>There are only Roman Catholics
And within there are particular churches, like Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. They follow Rome but their teachings are not all the same.
You say they are all Roman catholic because they all act with the Vatican? I can say Catholics are Christian because they follow Jesus Christ. Definitions depend on context.
>>768654869
Morality could be objective, and believing that it is objective still allows for people to act unethical. Your point is moot.
Religious despots reveal the nature of man to be inherently corrupt, not necessarily the religion, especially if the despotism conflicts with the teachings of the religion.
>>768654822
Pretty sure the serpent came before the temptation.
>>768655031
Morality probably isn't objective, and believing that your subjective morality is objective doesn't make it objective.
Religious despots believe their subjective morality is objective, this doesn't stop them from being despots.
Oh, lord.
>>768655214
thats your autism talking. some things are objectively either bad or good. relativism is just theological shield that cowards hide behind.
>>768655258
Won't you buy me, a Mercedes Benz.
>Sing it Janis
>>768655214
>Morality probably isn't objective, and believing that your subjective morality is objective doesn't make it objective.
Even if so, that's pointless. The adherence of the faithful subject to the perceived objective morality serves the purpose of uniformity and defeating subjectivist degeneracy
>>768655390
>Einstein: Time is relative
>You: Stop hiding behind your theological shield you coward!
Derp
>>768655504
we close to repeating digits
>>768655521
get em my dude
>>768654966
That's just the Roman Catholic Church
all other Christian denominations BTFO
pack it up
>>768655390
I'm not a moral reletavist, I'm a moral subjectivist. Also you haven't given any counter points. I don't believe in objective morality because I cant believe in objective morality; if you give good counter points I might change my mind.
>>768655535
aww yeah, them digits!
Jah is king
>>768641493
its either GOD OR ME GOY MAKE YOUR CHOICE
>>768655547
so close >>768655555
>>768655581
>implying Jews don't believe in the abrahamic god.
>>768655504
einstein was a dyscalculian jew that stole and copy-pasted his research. a complete fraud.
>>768655545
there's nothing to counter. you are wrong. plain and simple. 1+1=2 that's it
>>768655680
when they say they're "God's chosen people" the little twist is that their God is Lucifer.. that part they don't tell you so therefore they're not really lying... that's a kike for you.
>>768655545
No one should ask you to accept the premise of an objective morality on its own. One must find religion first.
>>768655776
>You're wrong because you're wrong, I aint gonna explain shit·
>>768655776
>there's one in every thread
I bet people laugh at you a lot
>>768655818
What if your god is lucifer and their god is the real god?
>>768655903
>>768655903
>>768656046
>He's mocking me, he must be Jewish!
You couldn't make me laugh harder if you tried, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>768655933
Your Babylonian Talmud confusion tactics don't work here
>>768655776
>Building on top of other peoples research is fraud.
Einstein brought together science and maths from many different people to solve a problem. That's not fraud that's how science is supposed to work.
>>768655933
christians believe in the lord jesus christ. jews reject him and the blood he shed in favor of yahweh.
>>768656163
Oy vey. The goyim know.
>>768656188
yes, if you give credit to those involved instead of hogging the glory for yourself, like a greedy jew
>>768656236
Maybe Christ was an agent of the devil. And the New Testemant was written by the devil to trick people.
>>768656313
He gave credit.
>>768656404
And now we all await the anti christ to save us from damnation?
Also maybe your penis is made of tofu? And you'd get more blowjobs if you dated vegetarians?
>>768656404
old testament documents the age before god allowed himself to be born into the world as jesus.
>>768656435
no he didn't. einstein's shady biz is pretty well-documented. he was just a moron, smart enough to fake his success
>>768656627
I'd need proof that god allowed himself to be born as Jesus. But not from the New Testament because that might be written by satan.
>>768656615
Maybe. I'll try dating more vegetarians. Thanks for the tip.
>>768656627
>takes the old testament at face value
>denies the authenticity of Einstein's work
>both the work of jews
I seriously can't stop laughing, you're too much
Religion is a jewish conspiracy.
>>768656852
>Religion is a Jewish conspiracy
But the Jews took their stories from Mesopotamia after they were enslaved by them. And their monotheism came from zoroastrianism - an offshoot of hinduism. Though hinduism was always monotheistic anyway, all gods are aspects of Brahman.
>>768656802
where did i say that?
>>768656743
pick your poison...
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm
>>768656312
The "Goyim" as you call them are the true HEBREW people.
You however?
(Revelation 2:9 and 3:9)
>>768656743
Jesus' coming was prophesied in the old testament several times, everything lined up, that's why it's part of the bible.
>>768641493
There is no good or bad. Rapes isnt bad.
Man who rapes feels good but women feels bad so how can you say its bad bouth get pleasure. Plus if girl has bf he can protect her and se can feel safe. And that is good. So quit your bs.
Same with murder. You dont know what meaning of life is. You dont know what is sould. You dont know what is this palce where we live. And you think you are inteligent because you repeated man made bs which only man can understand lol. So retardet people. Maybe go in nature and spend some time there not make fool of yourself here.
>>768641493
You are painting mankind as innocent, when that is far from the case. We have all sinned against God and deserve the suffering of this world as our punishment. None of us is innocent.
But God loved us and sent His Son Jesus to save us from sin and death. He saved us by dying for our sins, suffering the punishment which we deserved in our place, and rising again from the dead. If you believe in Him, if you accept Him as your Savior, God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life. This means that one day you will be freed from suffering, sickness, and death, and live forever with God in indescribable joy.
But first you must give up your self-righteousness and acknowledge that you have been evil in the sight of God, that you are a sinner, and that you deserve God's wrath. If you continue to fight against Him you will not only suffer in this world, but suffer eternally in hell.
God is loving- that is why He has not destroyed you immediately, when that is what you deserve. He has set before you a way of escape because of His love. All you must do is believe in His Son Jesus Christ, that He is the God-Man who died for your sins and rose again, and God will forgive you and begin to alleviate your suffering.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
If you want to know more, you should read the Gospel of John, the fourth book in the New Testament. Believe in Jesus; He is your only hope.
>>768641493
neither he sin nor his father , but suffering is so that the works of god may be thru him