Why does god put people into existence under any circumstances only so they can suffer for no logical reason...

Why does god put people into existence under any circumstances only so they can suffer for no logical reason? Does he just sit back and watch this shit go down while eating fucking popcorn and laughing?

there is no god

Let's say you are a teacher, you teach your students a subject, not entirely sure if they understood it you throw at them a hard test, if they pass it means they understood the lesson, if not, well, they need to study more.

You're an idiot
This. It's like asking "Why does Santa not give everyone all the shit they want/need all the time? Why once a year?"

The answer is OP is a fucking moron.

Wouldn't you?

/thread

So many (You)s in this thread. Man OP (you)s sad!

god a shit

They probably didn't tell you this in feel-good Christian themed Summer camp, or your inclusive sensitivity training, but God's grace only extends to those that accept His son Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. All those heathen Africans, apostate Muslims, those that accept by word without heart, when they suffer and die it is no more than twigs being burned, or beasts that meet their end in a Winter snowstorm. And frankly, that's how you should look at them, too.

Funny, I had a devote Christian friend who spoke the same ya.

He hung himself. So much for your god. Lol

God is either apathetic or absent. Christianity is a defenseless position.
>Evolution has been well documented
>There are many species of hominid going back millions of year
>Oldest records of the Abrahamic religions are about 5000 yo roughly
>Do all the people who died before Judaism was established pay for their ignorance with eternal torture?
>At what point does god consider a hominid human?
>Are Neanderthals subject to judgement by god?
>Are denisovans, homo habilis, erectus, ect subject to judgement by god?
>What about non African people with 1-4% Neanderthal or denisovan genes?
>Are they what the Bible calls amalgamations? Hybrids with subhuman animals and inferior to pure Homo sapiens from Africa?
>If that’s not the case, do only hominids have a soul?
>Or all the way back to primates?
>Do animals with higher brain function like mammals with the capacity to love have a soul?
>Why Do Homo sapiens then remain the only species with a culture dominated by religion, where only Neanderthal were shown to have hurried their dead?
>Christianity isn’t the newest, or oldest, and I doubt would be so prevalent if not for emperor Constantine
>Don’t you ever wonder how lucky it is that the one true religion is almost always the one you were born into?

Again, probably surprising to you, but God explicitly frowns upon suicide. He probably didn't even think anything about your friend hanging himself. Another damned soul for Lucifer, ho hum.

Literally none of these questions alter how likely the claim of Jesus' resurrection is. They are difficult questions, but they are inside baseball questions about how to understand Christian theology, not about whether Christianity is true.

Because either the dude doesn't exist, or he doesn't give a flying fuck.

>God explicitly frowns upon suicide

he shouldn't make life suck so much ass then maybe

>le into existence under any circumstances only so they can suffer for no logical reason? D
It's a sin to use the computer. It's the devil's tool. The internet is his playground.

Go back to church where it's safe my brother and molest some choir boys.

hurr durr I still think the logical problem of evil is a good argument even after Plantinga's free will defense

You misunderstand the purpose of religion. It's dirty, it's offensive, but it does its job. It's obviously not designed for you though.

How quick it is to find someone to blame, easy to blame God for wverything when the evils of himanity have brought us to this dark point.
How can you expect to bask in hos glory when you just shin him when its convenient.
Seldom does anyone compliment a job well done but the masses tramole each other to point out the faults.

I hate the world for what it is tofay but at the end of the day its iur own fault, wether indirectly or by proxy.

> GOD didn't care about him
> a DEVOTE CHRISTIAN

So... god isn't WORTH worshipping then? That's all I got out of it. He wouldn't have killed himself if GOD hadn't taken his wife, one of his kids, and gave him testicular cancer.

Or if we DID want to do all that, again... God sucks.


If god was a teacher, he'd be fired so fucking quick.

So it's a very good thing he made the universe, cause if ANYONE else was in charge his ass would be grass for negligence. Plain and simple.

There is no God.

So what you're saying is that he put Africans who might never even hear of Christianity in a place where they're likely to die young and he punishes them for not knowing what he set up for them to not know.

Not sure if you're aware that only makes the argument worse.

I...you....

*sigh* Don't feed the trolls... don't feed the trolls..
> continues to feed the trolls.

Why did I reply?

Nice grammar, friend!

gods the ultimate troll oldfag

Maybe you shouldn't assume shit about an all powerful being. You think you know what goes through your mom's head when she's making tendies, too?

there is no god

He does that. Get over it.

Not to play (Gods) advocate here, but he wasn't assuming shit about God. The bloke they were replying to was.

You're spessul huh? Wanna hold my hand while you cross the street?

Kek

This isn't hard. The historicity of Jesus' resurrection is based upon the historical evidence of the empty tomb, the numerous eyewitness accounts, and the sudden change in the lives of the disciples and apostles.

None of those questions impugn that evidence. It only points to the fact that theologians need to consider these facts when developing their theory of the soul and their theory of salvation. Christian theologians wrestle with all of the question you point out here.

Figger out why you are suffering and fix it. Faggit

There is no god.

> Historicity
*ahem* "Authenticity" or "Historical Auccracy" may have fit better.
> EMPTY tomb (so compelling!)
> Eyewitnesses (from HOW many centuries ago? Hahahhaahah! You're fucking dumb)
> Change in lives of the-
Yes, so NO ONE EVER has lied to support their ideals/beliefs? Even say, religious zealots?
> La la la you can't prove it's NOT real so it MUST be.

This everyone, is why we are already Terraforming Mars and have discovered FTL travel and Anagenics? (Spelling?)

You're a great bloke. I love talking to trolls. Feeding them is especially fun. It's like going to the petting zoo but I don't have to leave my house! :DDDD

I think you meant analgenics, right faggot?

Btw same guy. I'm not trying to say Historicty isn't a word (sadly it is), but in the same realm of "Guesstimating" and similar trigger words I don't acknowledge it's existence.

I stand by my point. You're an uneducated nerfootball in human clothes.

Keep in mind that 'eyewitness' accounts don't mean anything even when they're directly from said eyewitness. People get facts wrong and are prone to pressure from their peers. This even translates to some memories being made up to fit with the normal perception of what happened..

Add in the fact that not only are these only 'eyewitness' accounts, but they're also 2000 years ago and heavily influenced by hearsay? Not really reliable.

Free will dawg

There is good historical evidence for the empty tomb.

You can deny the eyewitness accounts because they are ancient, but we have more written eyewitness accounts of Jesus than many other historical figures like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. So, if you want to reject the evidence of Jesus because it is old, you have to be skeptical about effectively all of ancient and medieval history, which I assume you would not want to do.

And, it is possible that all the disciples and apostles lied about it, but why would they? The question is: what is the *best* explanation. Sure, the resurrection of Christ is not the only explanation, but it seems to be the best one. All the disciples had abandoned and rejected Jesus when he was crucified. Why would they decide to get together and lie about him resurrecting just so they could all be individually hunted down and executed by the Romans? Every single disciple was executed for saying that Jesus had rose from the dead. Why would they go to their death over a completely made up story? Their lie gained them absolutely nothing.

I've appreciated out conversation, as well.

You can have free will without having no limitations. For instance, I physically can't fly, but nothing stops me from trying. The trying is my will in action, even if my result actually doesn't create what I wanted. I'm still able to WILL an attempt. That is an example of a limitation that is not hindering my free will.

God could easily make it so that we can't die to bullets, knives, arrows, or anything else harmful to us and also not suffer any pain from it. It wouldn't stop the murderer from trying, therefore not impacting his free will, but it just wouldn't create the suffering he's trying to create.

...

...

>what is the *best* explanation.
I'd dare say it's not that one person was resurrected days later out of 108 billion other cases that have not shown the ability to resurrect themselves.

Assuming makes an Ass out of you and me.

Seriously, how can you prove to me our ENTIRE HISTORY isn't fake?

Whos to say we should stop at Jesus?

What PROOF do we have Julius Ceaser existed? Or Cleopatra? Or Jim Henson?

You're right. I was so ignorant. I apologize for not blindly following what a book from thousands of years ago tells me to do.

I want you to prove to me RIGHT NOW that my apartment complex exists. Or that Africa exists.

Basically, History is REQUIRED to believe anything.

God has a dark sense of humor, thats why,

> it is possible the (snip) lied about it...

Right, so God's given up on YOU too blasphemer?

Cause by your logic God gave up on a DEVOTE CHRISTIAN just because he TOOK HIS OWN LIFE because, again GOD MADE HIS LIFE SHIT AND KEPT TAKING FROM HIM

So since you even humored the idea that god MIGHT be a lie, that the apostles MIGHT have lied, is a far FAR distance from 100% absolute faith.

By your OWN words, god is totally cool sending you to hell now.

Enjoy it Christfag! I'm Audi! bitch.

We choose to suffer, to keep us busy to work for a certain purpose. world full of happy people would lead to chaos because the existential panic will set in.
wrong. God is what we want It to be and It certainly exists in form of infinite energy.

Nigga there's no end to what Jews will do to propagate their subversive narratives.

hello plebbit
>implying we even know like 1% of our history

there is no god

That was my point.

The level of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection is on a par with the evidence for other important historical events. So, if you deny the evidence for Jesus, then you deny the evidence for Caesar and Cleopatra and others. That is a problem for your view, not mine.

I agree that history is required to believe anything. I am saying the the historical facts are on the Christian's side. I'm not saying its obvious or not worthy of debate, but I think it is true.

Faith does not mean being 100% certain about every facet of the religious teaching. The Bible is littered with stories of people doubting God, but God still loves and reaches out to them. The Psalms are a great example. David often expresses doubt or even anger at God, but God calls him a man after His own heart.

He's bi-polar. Sometimes he wants to watch suffering, other times its to see some happiness

You seem to be invoking the 'extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence' idea. But, that idea is false.

The intrinsic improbability of an event can be outweighed by the improbability of the evidence provided given that the event did not happen.

For example, that the lottery numbers tonight are what they are (e.g. 5 10 14 27 34) is EXTREMELY improbable. But, that intrinsic improbability is outweighed by the improbability that the news would report those numbers given that those were not the actual numbers. That is why one can still be rational in believing the news when they report the lottery numbers.

> stories full of people doubting god
> But god still loves em

But.. again, I mentioned an instance where someone doubted God, took his life becaue of it, and by YOUR logic is instantly relegated to eternal fire and damnation, with no chance to explain things or reason with God or express themselves emotionally.


ALL I got out of our discussion is the following.

1. You have 0 idea who or what god is/would do
1a. NONE of us would know, unless he gets off his fucking Bespin-style cloud city throne and shows his fucking invisible face he can not, in ANY logical or reasonable sense, blame people for NOT believing in his existence.
Therefore
2. God is either a complete asshole
2a. Not as powerful as you think
2b. Doesn't exist/give a shit/apathetic/unable

All of this ties into the same argument.

Annnnd I'm done. I'm all out of Troll food. Sorry man.

Thanks man!

>I'm Audi
You should read Robert Audi. He writes on some of the stuff we are talking about and I think he does a good job of it.

I just said who I was!

I'm not reading works I'm already familiar with. That's like the exact opposite of a Catch-22, why the FUCK would I want to be involved in an exercise of fruition?

Oh. Sorry. I think communication ties goes crossed. I am different guy than the one who was talking about the suicide case.

I am not sure what to say about suicide cases. I think it is possible that God lays out one's life completely before them in the moment after death and that serves as one's last chance to accept salvation. This is the reported experience of those who have had near-death experiences. But, really I am not sure.

On the problem of evil as a whole, I hold something like Eleonore Stump's view, which she expounds in her book "Wandering in Darkness." All suffering is ultimately defeated by providing more good for the one who suffers. Suffering serves to humble us and to recognize our own limits, which brings us closer to union with God, which is the ultimate good for all human beings.

That's a super brief explanation of a 700 page book.

when some desert fags started to write some concepts about their invented god (abrahamic fags) they stolen lots of contents from greek philosophers, specially Plato and the theory of the "Demiurge".

The Demiurge theory have sense: a magic dude is watching the ideas and he his creating things from the ideas. Thats why this world is great and shit at the same time. Is cool because come from the ideas but is shit cuz is a copy.

Gnostics created a division between a "creator god" and the "almighty god".

When the abrahamic fags created their god they only wanted the "almighty god". FAIL. you can't explain shit with that god. Tons of contradictions.

>B... but the wrong things are because demons!! and because you fap!!

That doesn't follow at all as an analogy, however.

We know with the lottery that there is at least ONE winner. There can be a near infinite number of contestants, but at least one number is being drawn. For this reason having a low probability doesn't change the fact that something is still being picked.

However, when it comes to resurrection we don't have proof that this ever happens. We, instead, have proof that it -does not- happen.

A better analogy would be that there is a lottery system which -never- draws ANY numbers and people just throw their money in for the sake of it without ever being reimbursed. However, after ten thousand days of no pulls, on one day one man claims he won a million billion dollars from the lottery on the third day and he has since spent all of that money.

That is an example of us having a track record of this NOT happening, and then suddenly someone claims it happens. In this case the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, as we have evidence to the contrary of this ever occurring.

Well, if you start with a prior probability of resurrections of 0%, then you are just starting with the assumption that naturalism is true and that God does not exist. You are saying that there is a 0% chance that God does not exist.

At that point, the discussion becomes just about whether naturalism is true or whether it is at least possible that God exists, but that's a separate question.

Thank you! A sensible person who came here to spit some logic!

Except that's one of those fallacy things. Changing goalposts or whatever.

The example he gave still clearly illustrate his points. Where as you have NOT done so.

Also if I offend anyone by assuming your gender, shut the fuck up, internet is for men and weirdos only!

Saying "we have proof that resurrections do not happen" is just to assume what is in dispute. The Christian says that we have evidence that resurrections do in fact happen.

I don't think I am changing the goalposts. Here is how I am understanding the dialogue. You can let me know if I have made a mistake.

Me: The best explanation for the historical evidence (empty tomb, eyewitness accounts, changed lives) is that Jesus rose from the dead.

There are a few things you can say: (1) you can deny the evidence exists or is good evidence. That was our discussion about whether to accept ancient testimony or if it is more likely that they lied. Or, you can (2) deny that, even if that evidence is good, that resurrection is the best explanation, because resurrections are not possible.

My argument is that response (2) is moving too quick. The question is whether we have evidence for a resurrection, so just asserting that we have no evidence for a resurrection seems to be to be an assertion that naturalism is true, so people cannot be raised from the dead. But, that seems to me to be a bigger question than the more specific question about whether Jesus rose from the dead.

I hope that made sense. That is how I am trying to think through it.

Except I can kill 10,000,000 people RIGHT NOW with a nuclear warhead
(all hypothetical, so if the NSA is reading this, I don't actually own any Nukes, that I know how to operate)

And guess how many of those Millions would come back to life? My estimation just based on my high school education in Biology, leads me to suspect exactly between -1 - +1 would come back to life.

And that's just assuming for human error. Say if one guy wasn't actually dead his heart just slowed or stopped. Or if someone saved a life just to lose it later, etc.

Give me ONE example, hypothetical or real, that doesn't rely on magic or science fiction to support Ressurection, at that point I will concede in defeat.

I am not disputing their claim - I am instead stating that their claim requires an extraordinary amount of evidence for how extraordinary the claim is.

You can't prove a negative factually and simply. The goalposts can just keep changing as it gets redefined each time out of said negative that is set.

My original response was towards the statement that Jesus rising from the tomb was 'the *best* explanation' as seen In this case, my argument is that the best explanation is not towards the one that requires ignoring all evidence towards the contrary. This is the explanation that requires the most assumptions, and, through Occam's Razor it's relatively safe to take a far simpler approach.

The simpler approach is that these men lied, as we know humans do. That some of these stories were fabricated, as humans are known to at times do. And that Jesus likely was more of a mixture of several stories all based upon one-man who had a following that achieved a much larger cult-status, again, as we know humans do. In this case, we take all things we know humans do in our current day and age without assumption against the evidence. Assuming someone resurrected themselves -does- go against the evidence and therefore requires a much stronger assumption.

I have given you an example: Jesus Christ.

Denying that it serves as an example or claiming that this example is science fiction is just to deny what we are disputing without a reason.

Another way to think about it is this way. I am saying that the natural laws can be violated; that is the nature of miracles. Saying that natural laws cannot be violated is just an expression of your belief in naturalism, but that is what I am denying. So, we are sort of talking past each other in a way. Your response does not get to the crux of my point.

No we are certainly not. I understand the conversation well.

You my friend, seem to be lacking basic reasoning skills.

I am done. If anyone wants to take up the Mantel of trolling this stupid prick go for it.

I'm gett'n me a pint!

Okay. Good. I think that is the crux of our debate. I think it is over these two points:
(1) Whether extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. You say 'yes'; I say 'no.'
(2) Whether the resurrection is the best explanation for the evidence. I say 'yes'; you say 'no.'

On (1), I think probability theory is actually pretty clear on this. If you provide a non-zero prior probability for an event, then its small intrinsic improbability can be outweighed by the improbability of the evidence given that the event did not happen. But that depends on not starting with a prior of 0%, or assuming naturalism is true.

On (2), I don't see the lying explanation as a simpler one. What did the disciples have to gain from lying? They could have easily denied Christ, gone home, and lived out a peaceful life. Instead, they loudly proclaimed Christ and were hunted down and executed for it. Why would they all do that for a lie? And, not a single one gave up the lie. I think the simpler explanation is that they truly believed what they were saying.

>LOGical

Thank you for the discussion. I think it helped me to understand the dispute a little better. I appreciate your input. Enjoy your pint!

>(1) Whether extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. You say 'yes'; I say 'no.'

That is not a position that can be taken with any level of rationality through the inherent contradictions that inevitably arise. For instance, if extraordinary events do not require extraordinary evidence, then I present to you: Megatron.

Megatron is a giant robot hell-bent on acquiring for himself the All Spark. However, the All Spark, as was stated in the Bibletron verses 8:28 through 8:34 cannot exist in a world where the Abrahamic god from the Bible exists. For this simple reason, Megatron came into existence before the god from the Bible created the universe, promptly killed said god, and secured the creation of the All Spark so that years he could eventually get his hands on it.

In this case, this claim, despite being extraordinary, does not require extraordinary evidence. For this I only need marginal evidence, of which I myself can attest as the eyewitness towards. A direct eyewitness to our lord and savior, Megatron. You also can't say that the improbability of this being the case discredits it in any way, due to the fact that it does not have a null possibility. Only an assumption otherwise can disprove it.

This is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we can't agree with that then we simply will not have any common ground between the both of us as I can be eyewitness to 18 different versions of Megatron if I need and each would be as valid as Jesus's resurrection without the extraordinary claim needed to boost Jesus's resurrection higher.

The entire need for a savior is based on creation, which we now can show isn’t how humanity came about. No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for a savior. Also, there are different accounts of Christ and the resurrection within the canon itself, and more in the many books cut from the Bible. The accounts were written decades, even a century after the alleged crucifixion. There are people alive today trying to say they’re Christ. Is it so hard to believe then, that superstitious Bronze Age sheep herders were exaggerating?

if i live in a shithole. it would be my own fault for not leaving for someplace better. niggers and jews make everything worse. niggers in africa suffer due to other niggers. if they had any brains they would find a way into a better county. look at the shitskin tier wetback Mexicans who rape,kill, and drug smuggle their way into the USA. for having such pride in their Mexican culture Mexicans sure as hell don't want to stay in Mexico but be in the US and complain about how they used to own land here when they never did. soo in a lot of ways Mexicans are like niggers but atleast they are somewhat smart enough to leave a shithole for something better

This happens. Now Europe is going on a one way trip to the third world if they don’t get their shit together. Also, it’s really not like you can just pack up and leave. Many wouldn’t survive the journey. Plus, border patrol.

>Does he just sit back and watch this shit go down while eating fucking popcorn and laughing?
I know I would