Show this to any religious person and watch them literally fall apart

Show this to any religious person and watch them literally fall apart.
pic related.

Other urls found in this thread:

newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm
egregores.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/the-mysterious-case-of-the-totally-bogus-epicurus-quote/
dictionary.com/browse/objectively
objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=8393519
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If a billionaire anti-theist could subject their child to a life inside a VR simulation with a constant morphine drip won't wouldn't he? The definition of "loving" in this case is poorly defined which casts doubt on the validity of the proof.

followed the path down to "Then why is there Evil" -> "To test us"

Its not to test so much as to shape and mold us.
As for an analogy:

If you know have a pound of flour and you know its going to end up becoming bread then why even go through the whole process of making it then?

Ans: Because flour doesn't become bread with out an outside force working on the process.

>bracing myself for the fedora tipping

Does God enact Evil or does Man? Does Man want free will or not? Man has free will, man has the potential for Evil. The question is, would God want Man to prevent as much evil as possible, to most limit the possible evil enactable by all men?

>but instead he would rather have the child suffer horribly and die from cancer or get raped by a nigger
blew my almonds to stratosphere

>If you know have a pound of flour and you know its going to end up becoming bread then why even go through the whole process of making it then?

because God is all powerful, silly.


forger man made evil for a second and ask yourself if that's the only suffering there is (cancer, diseases, natural disasters)

Religion is used to give children a strong moral background. It's not meant to be taken 100% literally.

What if god allows freedom because he wants his children to forge their own paths, our ancestors (Adam and eve) chose to follow the words of the serpent and know the knowledge of good and evil, they became impure and were ejected from paradise onto the sin of the earth, arguably giving them much greater freedom

So no parent capable preventing all suffering is loving? I far as I know no parent has tried the VR morphine plan as of yet.

*capable of preventing all suffering...

>having a child to begin with

(in this logic)

Aquinas answers this
newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

This entire argument bases itself on the objectivity of Evil. The Nazis saw themselves as the great empire, sent to fix the world of all its wrongs. Everybody else saw the Nazis as evil.

Evil is a direct result of free will. As soon as somebody has free will, no matter how singly cohesive and perfect a group God creates, free will inevitably leads to differences in opinion. Initially minor, but as it becomes more experimented, these differences will separate people into opposing camps.

Free will => Dichotomy of Good and Evil. Trying to separate them into different concepts just because there are different words for those aspects of a singular thing is the fallacy here.

Religion is just Aesop's Fables in a different form. Shit you teach kids so the not-so-bright know not to kill people and shit.

In Epicurean logic pleasure=good so having a child that lives a life of pleasure with no suffering would be the ultimate good even if that strategy defies the Epicurean lifestyle.

not not all loving but not all powerful.

Answering a questing with a question is rude. Answer mine first, and I'll hear your answer.

Pic related

>killing God's creations based on class and race is objectively good based on perspective

stopped reading there

Hmmm. In the diagram if your replace "God" with "The Force" it kinda still works.

Good luck trying to convince neckbeards though.

>God is not good for not wanting to prevent evil

This is childish.


Humanity is God's child, and he has to sit back and let them learn.

If Epicurus is using a definition of loving other than the commonly understood definition then the proof itself becomes invalid until all the terms are properly defined. A proof with poorly defined terms is just esoteric mental masturbation.

Basically this

Religion was always just a scam to force people together and to centralize power so that larger community projects and civilized societies could form, THE HORROR

>Implying that preventing evil is good

Evil creates struggle and suffering. Suffering and conflict leads to evolution, Evolution leads to strength.

Now, stop misquoting Epicurus, you humanist scum and be sure to start loaning your body and wealth to Somalian immigrants.

egregores.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/the-mysterious-case-of-the-totally-bogus-epicurus-quote/

>objectively good based on perspective
dictionary.com/browse/objectively
Point 5 if you missed it. Being intimately tied to free will, good and evil are strictly subjective.

>forger man made evil for a second and ask yourself if that's the only suffering there is (cancer, diseases, natural disasters)

Why would God create a world where the goalposts can be moved like this? WTF I'm a fedora now.

God can be all loving and all evil. This realm and everything in it is material and fleeting. Think bigger faggots.

A universe without evil would preclude free will. Free Will means man has the right to choose his actions. Eliminating options would be a denial of free will.

Can't have free will without the ability to choose "evil". Also can't have free will if you have true knowledge. You would always infallibly choose the best course of action under any circumstance. Minimizing our capacity to live, learn and grow which is why humans are born and die in ignorance. Our understanding of reality is illusive, we only gain knowledge about the universe by minimizing human error through the scientific method, and can only understand god through faith. These are the conditions where free will can exist. And these conditions are optimal for spiritual growth to occur.

There is also the assumption in the infograph that god hasn't created another universe where free will doesn't exist.

It's in the form of question and answer you dolt

>can God prevent evil
No
>then he is not all powerful
Ok

Wow, I still believe in God. Weird.

>suffering = evil
explain

You can't have freewill without evil then it wouldn't be freewill

>forger man made evil for a second and ask yourself if that's the only suffering there is (cancer, diseases, natural disasters)
Are we presuming there is an afterlife?
Natural disasters helped create man, and helped man learn more about himself and nature, now man can predict the weather, because of such challenge. Disease is something of an exception and not a rule, and also has pushed man to find cure and master the body and medicine, and certain actions taken by man more and less allow disease.

Your God sounds like a cuck desu famerino

Wtf I hate flowcharts now

You're flying a NS flag so I'm sure you understand the NS ideology of Nature above all.

"Evil" is not natural, it does not exist in Nature, for nature is good. Anything that goes against Nature is "evil". No man is evil, his nature is not evil, though he may do evil things--partially due to his own nature, and partially due to the unnatural circumstances he's placed in (i.e. civlization). The Epicurean paradox you cite only applies to an omnipotent, omnicient god, not one that is those things but also omnipresent in space-time--that is, one who is not burdened by the domain of the three spacial dimensions and the time dimension. This is because a god who exists at every point in time does not see it fit to intervene at specific points in time because it would interrupt the natural flow of time. This god--being good--wouldn't intervene because it would be unnatural--therefore evil--to interrupt the natural--therefore rightful and good--flow of time.

>If God is all-knowing, he would know what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us.

God does not "test" people in the conventional sense, in my opinion. Things that happen, bad or good, can be used to improve ourselves or not. This is in no way a singular test, rather, it is a test for all humanity. The jews are a good enough example. Did god send the jews to destroy western civilization, or did they do it on their own by their own psychotic nature? I posit that through their nature, they have cultivated themselves to be psycotic and paranoid in nature, inadvertently making them the great adversary for the Aryan race. This came about because a chain of events happened through the passage of time (not randomly, mind you, for something to happen randomly, there would have to be no reason for it to happen. Even if the reason is so simple as "this atom hit that atom a certain way" it is still a reason. Therefore, the enitre concept of randominity as a factor in the universe is entirely unscientific)

>wants to argue about theology
>unfamiliar with Aquinas

My point is, does this disprove God? No, but it means God must be conceptualized in a different way.

>Man thinking he can outwit God.

So-called paradox makes the presumption that this is all about God and fails to take into account giving man freewill. All choices affect one another. Try looking through the other end of the looking glass, Alice.

he doesnt like it, so it is evil.

Shit is not complicated.

You were asking if a parent not capable of preventing all suffering isn't all loving.
I replied that in such particular case he's not all powerful, since if he was he would have prevented the suffering.
We are still on the first (no) bubble. No definitions were misunderstood by either of us.

I was just expanding your thought.

not an argument.
You didn't counter anything. (ie: le hat joke)

Burn the bible if you don't believe that God is all powerful, it's kinda written there 1 trillion times. DESU FAMPAI

Can God prevent suffering?
>Yes
Why doesn't he? - (He isn't loving)
>No - (He isn't all powerful)

so OP is really asking, why did God not only just make Heaven only, why did God not only just make perfect eternal immortal matrix/internet world

I don't agree with the longest line

Could god create free will without evil?
No.
Not because he isn't all powerful, but without the ability to make bad decisions, we would not have free will.

>"Evil" is not natural, it does not exist in Nature, for nature is good.
>uses computer
>hides behind this vaguely-defined concept of Nature, something a computer isn't
>uses a highly abstraction-capable language, which is definitely not natural

Actually, I think I'm onto something. Let alone, niggers never developed any language capable of expressing abstract concepts. Even the idea of precision isn't in most of them, except where white translators put in certain phrasings as being related to it (but they really aren't, when spoken by native speakers).

Niggers are the ultimate redpill.

This guys got his fedora on so tight he thinks believing in God makes you a christian.

No wonder you are an atheist, you are a myopic retard.

>hurr durr I don't know what Objective means
>lol I was just pretending to be a retard, you know, expanding your thought.

This user gets it.

Once you realize that God and the universe are one in the same and that in order for the characteristic of omnipotence to hold true for God then both good and evil need to be present simultaneously, then you will realize that you're a fucking retard.

He's god. He doesn't have to sit back and let anyone do anything. Unless he isn't all powerful.
Isn't the bible full of stories where god bestowed wisdom on people? Why can't he endow everyone with all necessary wisdom from the moment of birth? Better question, why doesn't he when he knows full well it will cause suffering?

Why does god need evolution? If he's all powerful and all knowing, he could create the perfect beings without need for suffering.

your logic is Highly Flawed.

Signed, a PhD student in education

If he's all powerful, then why not create free will in an evil free world? That's like saying god is limiting free will because he doesn't allow humans to fly without machines.

Evil exists because off free will. You can have free will or you can have no evil. Don't forget evil is relative. What do the short term bumps we feel here matter in eternity. Both in the afterlife and your possible infinite progeny.

So why worship a god that isn't all powerful? Why not worship a more powerful deity?

because the source of evil is the human mind/thoughts which can act or not

For something to be evil, it has to go against nature. A computer does not go against nature. It doesn't hurt nature to build a computer. I should've expected that I'd have to explain that to some fuckwit.

nb4 "muh rare earth minerals", mining REMs out of mountains in Afghanistan or in space doesn't hurt anything.

Most important point that defeats this all is that God created the world with evil as a test for humans to prove and define themselves. It is what makes Muslims human trash and christians and peoplebofveuropean origin the most successful and superior culture and people.

Humans can't fly without machines. You don't have the freedom to choose to fly by taking a running leap. That's your logic.
If god was truly all powerful, then he could create a world without evil but with free will.

>Why doesn't he? - (He isn't loving)
Again you have yet to prove that suffering is evil in itself. Suffering contributes to growth of character and spirit. It would be unloving to prevent all suffering whatsoever. Have you seen what happens to kids with helicopter parents? They go out of their way to prevent all suffering and their children end up severely dysfunctional humans.

Everyone suffers. It is a natural phenomena, as much so as joy or happiness - phenomena which would not exist were it not for suffering as a counterpart.

>You were asking if a parent not capable of preventing all suffering isn't all loving.
>I replied that in such particular case he's not all powerful, since if he was he would have prevented the suffering.
>We are still on the first (no) bubble. No definitions were misunderstood by either of us.
You don't have to be all powerful to prevent all suffering in this case you simply need enough power which some people have. Is every parent in history unloving or not?

(Checked)
This. Also, remember that
ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN "EVIL" AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE!
(At least in an objective sense, from the ones I've talked to).

objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=8393519

I wouldn't use the word worship, though it could be appropriate.

Also I'm not just picking the sexiest daddy it of the God-bag; I know my creator.

God not giving man the ability to fly without machines means we don't have the free will to choose whether to live on the ground or not without inventions. That's your logic.
If god was truly all powerful, he could create a world without evil but with free will.

so god made a flawed system that causes suffering on his people.
There goes all knowing.

Addendum: I find it interesting that an atheist like you necessarily believes in an all-powerful being. Like you can't wrap your head around a God that isn't all-powerful because somewhere deep down you stil believe that rubbish.

Deism gets around all this. He planned the big bang knowing life would evolve on different planets, with these conveniently placed life-giving suns at the center of solar systems and that was good enough. Stop being a drama queen about some life forms hurting other life forms, it's the universe not Heaven.

>without evil but with free will

how do you fathom that that is possible? In that world, what is stopping someone from raising a hammer above their head and bringing it down on someone elses head? If he is restricted from doing that then he doesn't have free will.

Pretty sure most if not all of the evil in this world comes from man acting against the will of God. To create a world without evil is to create a world with men without will.

>Kid who dies from cancer "contributes" to the development of his character

>You don't have to be all powerful to prevent all suffering
But if you are but you still don't then you are not loving.

>Checked
arbitrary random numbers are meaningful.
Theists in a nutshell. Also why I didn't nor will respond to your future replies. Enjoy Japan.

>le hat joke

This is why deism is the correct answer. There is a god, and he/she is truly omniscient, but indifferent to the plight of humanity.

evil is the absence of God

God allows us to choose to be with him or not

the choice is ours

>inb4 muh determinism

>God allows us to choose to be with him or not
>the choice is ours

cancer, genetic disease, natural disasters etc...

>free will
>physics
Maybe you should hit the books

Nice dodge, rookie. Back on track, I don't believe the bible. Your move.

It wont work on a Zoroastrian OP. You're a Persian shill

That was some of the most awful use of language I've ever seen. Word it better.

I guess you're saying that people aren't a part of nature. This is entirely wrong. Our species is the result of a process billions of years old, same as any other species. Everything from language and toolmaking to architecture and art are a result of what nature saw fit to give to Man. It only goes against nature when resources are exploited and people irreversably destroy a natural ecosystem, as is seen with cattle herders in the Amazon or overpopulation of negroes in Africa.

We are all pieces of a something that willingly decided to exist in a state where it could be subjected to evil.

We have no way to know why, maybe knowing why is mutually exclusive with being conscious, but we chose this.

Be grateful for this day, for a wonderful thing it is to be anything at all.

Cancer does contribute to the development of character. It may be unpleasant but all involved are affected.

>But if you are but you still don't then you are not loving.
Under that definition of loving no extremely wealthy parent is loving which contradicts the commonly understood definition of loving which brings us back to the problem of defining our terms.

Evil isn't a fucking naturally occurring element on the Periodic table, it's a subjective abstract concept. If you limit a being's ability to form thoughts on an abstract concept and act on these thoughts, which is what a world without evil would be, how do they have free will?

This isn't a thread about values or morals. It's about creation.
On a side note: if you need organized religion to be moral, guess what, you are a nigger.

... Go to an english class. Let me simplify my last message for you:
First you say kill is not good.
Then you say good is nature.
I say die is nature.
I say fight is nature.
I conclude kill is nature.
I ask if you think kill is nature is good.
I also ask if you think human kill human is bad.

Well, those are certainly the perfect digits!
Perfection isn't something that is comprehensible, or even really desirable, for an imperfect and fallible being like myself.
Humility is the best path towards enlightenment.
Remember the words of Socrates:
"One thing I know, that I know nothing."

God enacts both good and evil, because the opposition of these two forces makes us capable of being conscious of them. Evil isn't actually "evil," just like losing a game doesn't mean it wasn't fun to play. We need it as an anchor point, a way to give our reality structure and meaning.

...it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

>Evil Exists

stopped right there

Oh my, those holy digits.

>wealthy parent
you went off topic there. We are talking about God or lack thereof.

C'mon, I didn't even have to try very hard to tear this one apart.

What is with these athecuck threads being spammed on Sup Forums lately?

A perfect being, that does not suffer, could probably not gain consciousness.

have my children

>if god was all powerful then we would know definitively that he is real

whoah dude i just proved that god is not all powerful!!!!11

>Fedora logic

Nice job user you did a good job taking off his fedora :^)

>First you say kill is not good.
never said killing is bad

the entire premise of this argument is dead then.

>I ask if you think kill is nature is good.
this makes no grammatical sense

>I also ask if you think human kill human is bad.
Depends on what context. Other species kill members of their own.

We're talking about a proof about god or gods or whatever people want to call it and in that proof there are terms which are either commonly understood or they need to be properly defined. I don't know what definition of "loving" Hume's strawman Epicurus is using here so it needs to be defined or commonly understood.

Harm is not only possible in a form of a physical harm to the body.
Evil is suffering and if you believe in heaven (no suffering) then God could have well created this world without suffering.

>could god have created a universe with free will but without evil
No, because then it wouldn't be free will you pillock.
Things that are logically contradictory do not fall within the purview of God's omnipotence.
t. St. Aquinas

how is suffering evil?

IF GOD EXISTS WHY DID I GET BULLIED IN SCHOOL?

CHECKMATE CHRISTFAGS