>its literally obvious that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing god cant exist in the presence of natural evil

>it’s literally obvious that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing god can’t exist in the presence of natural evil
>people seethe and tell you you’ll roast in a pit of fire forever just for pointing this out
>this all-good god demands you slice of the tip of your penis and do symbolic blood sacrifice of the most holy archetype
Is Abrahamism a mind virus?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >it’s literally obvious that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing god can’t exist in the presence of natural evil
    it's literally obvious that natural evil and those things aren't mutually exclusive. You incorrectly assume an emergent property of free will is possible to remove. What do you propose? people are executed by divine might the moment they have an evil thought?
    what constitutes evil? killing? what about a home invader? stealing? what if you're starving and some homosexual israelite billionaire lives around the corner? cruelty? everyone has been cruel to someone at some point for any number of reasons.

    your first mistake is assuming evil exists at all
    your second mistake is assuming that because it exists, it must be able to not exist.
    your third mistake is assuming that the world would be a better place if evil didn't exist. every yin has it's yang, can't build a castle without digging a quarry. The worst people in the world create hard times that strengthen the best people that will ever live

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Natural disasters, childhood cancer, fatal familia insomnia, and all manner of diseases are all horrific things that happen to people without involving the free will of another person. Murder and tortures can pale in comparison to what happens to people out of the blue for no reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don't mistake for malice what can be more easily attributes to ambivalence. God probably doesn't love you, but he definitely doesn't hate you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >uses the fact we don’t live in a world free of tribulations as proof of God not existing
        >doesn’t know the first part of the Bible literally explains the reason for us no longer living in a perfect world

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          One woman eats an apple and this condemns all of humanity?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good god wouldn't allow for the existence of freewill if it meant evil would occur as a result. Its particularly hilarious if you factor in the talking snake story most theists believe in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Perhaps its a paradox. How can god allow anything other than itself to exist in the first place, if evil comes as a result of it? But perhaps god keeping all of existence to itself is selfish, and therefore evil, so maybe allowing existence to occur is more 'good' than not allowing it to. At least this way, those that choose good can consciously exist eternity with god.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Evil as an emergent property of free will.

      This is how to properly frame the problem of evil. This makes the most sense to me why God wouldn't just undo creation after original sin. Because the nature of original sin was the serpent exploiting free will. If God undid creation based on that, satan would have "won" conceptually because you have to view creation itself as a grand experiment with the "new" concept of free will. The flood was not an example of undoing creation due to free will, but restarting creation from a certain save point per-se. The problem of evil is the problem of God Redeeming creation without its destruction in order to not invalidate the invention and gift of free will.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Omniscient God didn't see it coming?Heck even a non-omnipotent God would have considered the possibility and not risked creating beings with freewill.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Evil as an emergent property of free will.
        It literally isn't. Plenty of animals do evil shit all of the time but it's not "evil" because they don't have free will to make decisions. Is it evil to eat your own children? Is it evil to enslave other races? Is it evil to kill for pleasure instead of hunger? Animals do all of this shit but it's just natural to them. They don't obsess with good and evil like humans do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You incorrectly assume that all evil stems from human decisions (Christian conditioning?) when the world itself is built for evil or at least for endless suffering. Organisms can not exist without killing other organisms and death is a certainty (except maybe for the observer itself).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >relating to a human
        >uses very few examples to support his rationalization
        >they are human examples which should be obvious to any human
        >half literate doesn't understand
        >keeps assooming
        I know you're just fricking around.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      evil does exist and intention is everything you dumb ass

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You use Abrahanism as a strawman to remain atheist. There is nothing genuine about you. You're a clown. Also you're poasesed by the atheism demon, that ego is a totally seperate entity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Kings constantly say they are God while worshipping Christianity
      >nothing bad ever happens to them
      >Pope claims he is the voice of God
      >nothing shuts down the Catholic Church
      >>YOU'RE A CLOWN FOR NOT BELIEVING A GOD DID EVERYTHING
      God built a sun but couldn't make a human being who didn't need to eat or sleep. He also didn't make it innate that humans know God and could communicate with him.
      Why is it more believable that a God created the universe than just the universe creating humans? Why does it need personhood or even a will?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nta, the desire to anthropomorphize abstract concepts we cannot understand is an ancient and understandable one that, while it may not lead you to The Truth, it can help to inform your establishment of a close enough facsimile. I doubt God/the universe or however you conceptualize it has either personhood or will in the way that we understand it, or are even capable of understanding it, but you cannot look at the patterns in nature, the magnificence of the moving machine of it all, the terrible chaos and the Supreme order that stems from that chaos, and not understand on some level that there is a definite intelligence behind it all.

        Or maybe you can and I'm just crazy, hard to tell. But while I might be crazy, I do not think I am wrong.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I notice you didn't answer the question. You did have a tantrum though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >mild criticism is now a tantrum
        Why are you anti-abrahamic asswipes so disingenuous and conceited?

        >Kings constantly say they are God while worshipping Christianity
        >nothing bad ever happens to them
        >Pope claims he is the voice of God
        >nothing shuts down the Catholic Church
        >>YOU'RE A CLOWN FOR NOT BELIEVING A GOD DID EVERYTHING
        God built a sun but couldn't make a human being who didn't need to eat or sleep. He also didn't make it innate that humans know God and could communicate with him.
        Why is it more believable that a God created the universe than just the universe creating humans? Why does it need personhood or even a will?

        >couldn't make a human being who didn't need to eat or sleep.
        >God apparently doesn't exist because he didn't make humans to the arbitrary optimizations of some random homosexual on the internet
        Christ alive, is this seriously the best and brightest /x/ has to offer? Is this where all the religious divide and conquer autism from /misc/ went off to?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i'm not even christian but
    there is no such thing as evil. ethics as we know it are made by man. if there is a god somewhere out there, it probably doesnt give a shit about we deem ethical.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There’s no problem with this, a supreme god could very well exist, he just can’t be all powerful and all good at the same time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'd argue that all-good is fundamentally defunct in its own right, as "good" is generally some sort of anthropocentric idea and when you remove it "good" loses any meaning

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hence the idea of an anthropomorphic "good" god that created us in his image is ludicrous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can't anthropomorphize the good. It's formless. But then goodness manifests itself in the forms which makes the good known to us. That's undeniable, as Iamblichus says. So really atheism is a non-position with no foundation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >God doesn't give a shit
      Fair enough, that is far more believable than the micro-manager described in the bible

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone has their own karma that they have to pay. Evil is not real, its not a thing. It's merely a matter of perspective, namely that of a perspective of a subjective consciousness falsely believing in its individuality and separateness from all other things.

    YHWH = the 4 elements, that's all i will say on that.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do Apologetics and debates really convince anyone? The atheist argument against God is that we don't live in a perfect utopia yet, aka heaven.

    Until you have supernatural experiences or have desperate sincere prayers answered then of course skepticism is understandable.

    When the breath of God revives your spirit within you, you are no longer just flesh and blood but a spiritual being that gains spiritual senses that you didn't have before.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hate the false "Jesus Christ" so much. Its a pure bastardization of the israelite Yeshua Ben Josef. They don't even worship the correct rabbi.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Le fedora tipping atheist discovers the problem of evil for the first time
    so you know that free will is a good thing and that otherwise we'd be mindless soulless automatons with no input or whim for God right? and that God would not be all-good of he didn't allow us to make mistakes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can you sin in heaven? If yes then it isn't heaven. If no then God takes away your freewill when you go to heaven.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And a *tips fedora* to you as well good sir.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        there's always a good reason not to sin. in heaven you know those reasons, on earth you do not. simple as

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You mistake the true nature of God. You don’t understand how free will has to be respected. You are not taking into account the law of duality.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the crux of whether or not you go to heaven or to hell is whether or not you believe other people about god
    Hmmm

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For all the Christcucks bringing up freewill. Is freewill stronger than Gods omnipotence? Freewill exists in such a way that God can't do something?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    stop thinking in black and white
    good and evil is the same

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wym?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No tree, it is said, can reach the heights of heaven unless it's roots sink to the depths of hell.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This entire thread can be summed up to that meme of gnostic autistically screeching "I did not consent to existing"

    Grow up

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the frick were you expecting, 99% of the crying about Christians is just a complete misunderstanding of catholic doctrine and the rest is just generic israelite hatred

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >generic israelite hatred
        To be fair, they make it very easy. Actually, they make it so easy and so obvious that I am finding it harder and harder to take them seriously. When it gets to the point where the public face, by and large, of an entire group of people is nothing more than a gaggle of comic book supervillians, you either play along with the script or realize you're probably watching a performance... I still think we should nuke Israel, but I guess that stands as a testament to how good their acting skills are. Or how susceptible I am to psyops. Or both.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    According to study God is not good. God is simply God.
    Evil in the language only means harm. Good means benefit.
    Benefit and Harm.
    Can God be harmed? No
    Can God be benefitted? No
    Good and Harm are for us not for God
    God is above it all and can do whatever he likes.
    It is an honor he cares for our good and has placed us highly in the chain of harm.
    God harms all benefits all.
    Each creature recieves a portion.
    God is not condemning people for causing whole species to go extinct over few decades but he condemns anyone that corrupts the members of his species and thier pets and cattle and it makes sense.
    May God lead us to ascend above this harm/benefit dynamics. In heaven we might get to benefit by harming no one and nothing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God has to abide to his own laws otherwise they have no power. But since hes God he can abide to its own laws and manifest at the same time

      Otherwisw it woulndt be a God

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He would be a tyrant if he enforced his laws without keeping to them himself

        GOD IS good. Not a tyrant

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He would be a tyrant if he enforced his laws without keeping to them himself

        GOD IS good. Not a tyrant

        >God has to abide to his own laws.

        You're right, the Gods do abide in the forms. As I said, goodness manifests itself in the forms. We witness that things like joy, love, purity and justice are all good things. Behind them we can infer this greater goodness. Beyond that the good alone, the one.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >evil exist therefore God cannot be all good
    >good exists, therefore God cannot be all good

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s literally obvious that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God exists.

    There is no greater thing for God to do than to grant free will for his creations.

    Spirits and powerful incarnates, or "lease-farmers" as they are referred in Bible misuse their free will and take control of this planet. Originally they were supposed to be our guardians in times of our spiritual immaturity. But they went rogue.

    Because they live in separation from God by their own choice, they instead feed on human souls to gain God's light from there. Humans deserve this as they unknowingly sin and accumulate impossible spiritual debt.

    Evil spirits think that God won't care because human beings are absolutely insignificant in grand scheme of things. They make their own Anti-Kingdom and revel.

    God does care and incarnates Earth to die for our sins. Evil spirits realize they are doomed to lose the cosmic fight and sperg about.

    They try desperately take as many souls they can to perdition to spite God before they are ousted.

    Search for Jesus Christ and you will be free of them.
    If you read the Bible you would realize that Old Testament depicts history of a barbarous people (everyone was barbarous) that God regardless had chosen as both implement and children to save human race.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >went rogue
      False dichotomy. How do you know that the heavy-handed measures you're seeing isn't their attempt to rid us of our spiritual immaturity? Alternatively, I could just be stockholmed and coping. Whose yo say?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >grr worship the everloving or he burns you

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Abrahamism a mind virus?
    It's clearly destroyed your ability to think.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The thing that pisses me off the most about christcucks is how they smugly insit with holier than though, self righteous authority that they know anything. homosexual you don't know shit. You're just regurgitating the same druvel that's been spewed for thousands of years with NOTHING to back it up. I ain't got nothing either, but I admit it.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you keep making these threads man

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Evil is just Good not realized as such

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    try to view god not as a person. then all will make sense. there are natural forces, which are exploited by hackers, so called prophets, sadly by an alien species who wears human clothes (sheep clothing, wolves), known as shapeshifters or the house of satan.

    it is their doctrine which constitutes 90% of the bible. yet the splendor of the true saints managed to bake the truth encoded into that filth.

    god is your impersonal, most base awareness. everything else you add on top of it is for the process of individuation. if you remove your body, your emotions, your thoughts, likes dislikes, all that you can point to and call "self", then that which remains and can not be pointed at, is the true, absolute self, ineffable. that is God.
    the circumcision process is done via celibacy (the meaning of the allegory of the crucifixion and circumcision).
    good luck

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is that Abrahamism which is an insanely moronic illogical belief that should've never been spread, spread anyways through violence and war and now has sort of established itself as the main definition of the actual creator of the universe aka God. Intelligent people look at this definition and see how it is clearly bullshit and then assume that the creator aka God does not exist because of what sandBlack folk theorized about it which is entirely justified. No one above 100 IQ legitimately, wholeheartedly believes in any sect of Abrahamism, be it Judaism,Christianity or Islam. There are simply too many contradictions, logical flaws, clear use of fear and intimidation, dark history, actual physical evidence of plagiarism and so on. There are many many flaws with these religions.

    As of the actual creator of the universe, the closest thing you can possibly get to experience it, see it and perhaps even understand it is through the use of DMT whereby if you're lucky enough, your trip is going to be oneness with it. That's the only legitimate way. Anything else is literal cope and bullshit.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "Free Will" doesn't exist in Abrahamic religion. Any "all-loving all-knowing creator god" would know what you're going to do before you do it, because he created you to do it. Therefore, he creates large numbers of people to torture forever. Therefore, he is not "all-loving", and there is no free will.

    There is NO argument around this paradox.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There is NO argument around this paradox.
      The arguement is from the perspective of a being outside of time, which knows the beginning and end state of every soul which goes through this universe, that they themselves will say when they reach the pinnacle of their existence and return to the creator that it was worth it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The arguement is from the perspective of a being outside of time
        This argument presumes an all-knowing being can hide knowledge from itself pertaining to why it creates people to torture. It also presumes the all-knowing all-loving being would continue torturing people, or is somehow oblivious that he is the one responsible for it, thus proving he is not all-knowing or all-loving, once more creating a paradox.

        All-loving, all-knowing, or the creator. Pick one. You can't have all three, and "free will" ceases to exist if you try.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If Good were the only option, then it wouldn't necessarily be good, as there was no decision to be made. Evil must exist in order for good to be the better choice.

          Not to mention, the world existed before humanity. It was full of chaos and suffering, with only animalistic survival. Food and shelter don't inherently exist, they must be created.
          The forces of good are to create a shelter of light in the darkness, order where there is none. The natural state of the universe is entropy, but it is willpower that creates order and reason.
          It is in the name of God that we tame the universe and create peace and prosperity.
          Evil is easy, it doesn't take much to knock down a sand castle, but to build one up takes time, effort, planning, skill, and diligence. Making the sand castle last forever takes even more.

          But evil is always defined by a lack of good. It's a privation so not really a thing in of itself. It's existence is strictly ephemeral tied to deficiency and therefore has no ontology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But evil is always defined by a lack of good.
            Evil is always defined by its subjective observer's opinions. Muslims throwing a gay guy off a roof is considered good by their devout onlookers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See

            >Evil is always defined by its subjective observer's opinions.
            But these opinions as you say are always formed in relation to the good. While on the other hand the good cannot be relative and is inscrutable. This is my point in case you didn't understand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Evil isn't the lack of good, animals eating each other isn't evil. Chaos is the lack of order, and through order we can define Good and Evil.

            Evil comes from either taking something good and corrupting it, or intentionally choosing against good. So it's not exactly the lack of good, but rather the conscious effort to subvert good that creates evil.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Evil comes from taking something good and corrupting it.
            >Or intentionally choosing against good.

            Yes, just as I said, evil is defined by a lack of good. You cannot even define it another way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not a LACK of good, but a CHOICE AGAINST good. It's a nuanced difference, but it matters.

            A lack of good is just apathy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not a LACK of good, but a CHOICE AGAINST good.

            But a choice against good and for evil creates a lack of good. It's that simple. So we arrive back at what I was saying.

            [...]
            This is just hiding behind definitions. Muslims throwing the gay guy off the roof and applauding is good to them, because it *feels* good. The evil there, if there ever was any, was them tolerating the gay guy up until that point. Westerners, raised in a different culture, will think the opposite. More often than not though, what becomes "morally good" is usually just what *feels* good to people, and it has no relation whatsoever to the concept of evil. Evil, conversely, is almost always defined as what is not utilitarian, or is detrimental, to someone on the receiving end.

            Someone giving me a lotto ticket because I'm poor seems good to me, even more so if I win, but me not winning is not the lotto being evil, and them not giving me the ticket also isn't evil, or even proof of evil. The desired "good" does not become "evil" just because the opposite happened. An asteroid smashing into the planet and nuking the dinosaurs isn't evil. It just is.

            There is no universal constant when it comes to good or evil, and one is not defined by the other, or the lack of the other. They're categories of the mind.

            >Evil, conversely, is almost always defined as what is not utilitarian, or is detrimental, to someone on the receiving end.

            There's flaws in your definition here though. Would you say a pedophile who gets executed for his crimes against innocent children was killed in an evil fashion because it was detrimental to him? Surely not. Also you must consider utility to be a good thing since you said evil is what isn't useful. So again, we are back at what I was saying before. Evil is always defined by a lack of good, in relation to it. Despite your gymnastics here you still cannot define it any other way.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Actually, "all-good" can't exist WITHOUT "all-evil".

    If you can't measure the other side of the spectrum, you never can realize the other either.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a "tree falling in the woods, does it make a sound?" argument. If you are presuming a thing such as good or evil can actually exist, you are necessarily admitting one can exist without the other since it is now a natural, measurable, phenomenon, just like light or gravity. Which we all know, it isn't. Good and evil are concepts that are entirely molded by the culture they're created in, with a few overlaps between cultures here and there. But it is entirely good and morale, for example, for israelites to cut off the tips of baby dicks and suck on them, to "transfer their sins" into chickens and smash their heads in, to swindle non-jews and ruin their soceities as part of "tikkun olam", whereas everything I just typed would be considered evil to 5th century Germanics. Yet modern israelites are doted upon by christians as having such fine ancient traditions. Good and evil are thus more subjective than we'd like to admit, with the exception that people don't like being stolen from or killed. Those seem to be the only two things we generally agree on, across cultures. Of course, when killing an "enemy", then murder suddenly becomes moral again as long as you're on the "good side". See how that works?

      Unironically, the "Golden Rule" is probably the best moral code humans could ever come up with.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If Good were the only option, then it wouldn't necessarily be good, as there was no decision to be made. Evil must exist in order for good to be the better choice.

    Not to mention, the world existed before humanity. It was full of chaos and suffering, with only animalistic survival. Food and shelter don't inherently exist, they must be created.
    The forces of good are to create a shelter of light in the darkness, order where there is none. The natural state of the universe is entropy, but it is willpower that creates order and reason.
    It is in the name of God that we tame the universe and create peace and prosperity.
    Evil is easy, it doesn't take much to knock down a sand castle, but to build one up takes time, effort, planning, skill, and diligence. Making the sand castle last forever takes even more.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Evil is always defined by its subjective observer's opinions.
    But these opinions as you say are always formed in relation to the good. While on the other hand the good cannot be relative and is inscrutable. This is my point in case you didn't understand.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See
      [...]

      This is just hiding behind definitions. Muslims throwing the gay guy off the roof and applauding is good to them, because it *feels* good. The evil there, if there ever was any, was them tolerating the gay guy up until that point. Westerners, raised in a different culture, will think the opposite. More often than not though, what becomes "morally good" is usually just what *feels* good to people, and it has no relation whatsoever to the concept of evil. Evil, conversely, is almost always defined as what is not utilitarian, or is detrimental, to someone on the receiving end.

      Someone giving me a lotto ticket because I'm poor seems good to me, even more so if I win, but me not winning is not the lotto being evil, and them not giving me the ticket also isn't evil, or even proof of evil. The desired "good" does not become "evil" just because the opposite happened. An asteroid smashing into the planet and nuking the dinosaurs isn't evil. It just is.

      There is no universal constant when it comes to good or evil, and one is not defined by the other, or the lack of the other. They're categories of the mind.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Furthermore you'd say what is detrimental lacks the good therefore it's evil. This is your logic. You cant think any other way. It's impossible. Evil is always a privation of good.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you have a sophomoric notion of concepts like “love” and “good”, maybe.

    Why are all atheists such midwits? Without exception. It’s like a disease.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Controlling another man is evil
    >to be good is to not attempt to control others

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *