/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>532747

It's stupid and wrong

Breaks down at the "does God want to prevent evil" part

>could God have created a world with free will but without evil?

not really

if men use their free will to get away from God, they turn to evil

if there's no other choice but God there is no free will

>>532777

also, book of jobs

>>532777

>not really

so god is not all-powerful

>>532782

i think it all comes down to the fact that he wants to prevent evil but not to the point of preventing free will

>>532788

listen, i am more expert than you

the only way to escape from the epicurean paradox is to say that god, indeed being all-powerful, can break logic so epicure is using something that god made to defile his purpose

there is nothing else to say without committing a fail

http://newadvent.com/summa/1022.htm#article2

Evil exists -> Yes

Can God prevent evil? -> Yes

Does God know about all the evil? -> Yes

Does God want to prevent evil? -> Yes

Then why is there evil? -> Satan

An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could and would destroy Satan -> Satan is already condemned, and will suffer the penality of his evil at the final judgement, alongside those he attached to himself.

Back on the main track:

Could God have created a universe without the cause of evil? -> Yes

Then why didn't he? -> Free will

Could God have created a universe with free will but without evil? -> No, because then it would not be free will

Then God is not all-powerful -> God is all-powerful. But God is also love. We are given free will because He loves us and wants us to choose to love Him, without forcing us to. The kenosis of God is why evil exists and yet God remains all-powerful - He condescends to our weaknesses, because He loves us.

>>532819

>Satan is already condemned, and will suffer the penality of his evil at the final judgement

when a judge reads a sentence, it is executive, is god a less efficient judge than human judges? or maybe he did not judge yet

>>532828

Satan's sentence is delayed so that we may still have time to separate ourselves from him, but the Cross already defeated him.

>>532834

doesn't make any sense since more and more humans are going closer to him, so if that is god purpose that's a fail

i believe god still love his creature(the devil) and awaits his redemption as maybe he knows it will happen

>>532846

>Plantinga countered by claiming that even an all-powerful God could not create free creatures who always choose good

he just denies the almighty power of god, you can't say that god cannot do something

>>532839

>doesn't make any sense since more and more humans are going closer to him, so if that is god purpose that's a fail

What I mean is, most individuals are given by God the time to live and die, so that they may repent before they die, and furthermore, so that we may pray for those living today and those who died before. If the judgement came at Christ's first advent, indeed no one in history would be saved.

I said "most individuals" because some will be alive by the time the Lord returns to judge.

>>532853

>most individuals are given by God the time to live and die, so that they may repent before they die

repent of being born? also i don't believe this world and life were at all what god intended to have, but you would call me gnostic for that even if it is the very scripture you are claiming(1 John 5:19)

also the idea of second coming is very weird when god is also in every place at all moments, if you mean the return of jesus christ he never promised to achieve justice on earth and we know that his judgement is just(it's not your lmfao)

>>532747

>free-will without evil

That right there is a logical paradox. "Free-will" implies I can do whatever I want, but if I can't be evil, I don't have free-will.

>>532863

could adam and eve be evil before knowing about it?

>>532866

No. They were the perfect beings, and given a paradise created by God. He is perfect; perfectly good, just, wise, merciful, etc. You could make a case that God knew they would betray him; He did. He allowed it to happen because he does not want servants, and He hoped that they would make the right choice.

>>532870

so if adam and eve weren't able to do bad and they also had free will…

>>532747

if God wants us to love Him truly, He must give us the choice of sin. God gives us free will so we can choose Him. it's literally impossible to both have the choice of sin and not have it at the same time.

this argument just suggests that God can do anything. can God make truth false? no, that's not logical. God is not illogical. He can't make things that aren't true or self-contradictory because He is Truth.

this basically suggests that if something is impossible, then God does not exist.

>>532747

if God wants us to love Him truly, He must give us the choice of sin. God gives us free will so we can choose Him. it's literally impossible to both have the choice of sin and not have it at the same time.

this argument just suggests that God can do anything. can God make truth false? no, that's not logical. God is not illogical. He can't make things that aren't true or self-contradictory because He is Truth.

this basically suggests that if something is impossible, then God does not exist.

1. If free will exists, the potential to do evil must also exist.

2. God can be good and still allow evil to take place. Your man-made idea of goodness might mean never allowing evil to occur, but it is not God's definition. An all-powerful being has the ultimate right to decide what is good and bad.

>>532747

My take on it

Evil exists → no. Q.E.D.

Because evil in this life is literally nothing compared to the eternal not evil of the next. The ratio of evil to not evil is something:infinity, and because anything divided by infinity is zero, there is effectively zero evil.

>>532965

This

Why noone reads Augustine anymore?

>>532901

That's not a very Molinistic answer

>>532747

Once again:

It was about GREEK GODS, that were SUBJECTS of FATE and DESTINY. Applying it on Christianity is retarded, because there is a thing that exist according to Christianity, its called free will…

>>533061

Though as this charts shows that its not an epicurean paradox but expanded fedora chart, I would add also this: No, alloving being wouldn't destroy Lucifer, because He loves everyone, including Satan, despite his degeneracy.

>>532871

the fact that they disobeyed means that they could do evil. Infact they already knew what evil was, since God warned them not to break the testament.

I’ve been scoping out this thread for a while, and it seems like the only argument against the epicurean paradox is human free will. There are several reasons why this argument is an absolute joke, and should not be considered worthy of respect by any rational person:

1) It’s completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. Free will is important insofar as it is the basis for holding beings accountable for their ill actions. Without free will, there would be no concept of justice because people would be punished for crimes that they had no control over. However, that is NOT the point of the epicurean paradox. The point of the paradox is to question how an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God is not capable of creating a world where individuals are free to make choices, as well as incapable of committing evil actions. If mankind was incapable of evil actions, justice would serve no purpose. In fact, the only value that justice seems to have in Gods eyes is to gratify his own personal desires to reward and punish people. Infinite knowledge and wisdom implies infinite innovation, and it is incredible to think that god would pick such a primitive form of governing human behaviors such as “justice”.

2) It is an obvious attempt at shifting the blame. Have you people ever stopped to consider what your arguments actually imply? Your argument is stating that evil arises from a defect of the will. But that cannot be so since the will is not a self governing principle. The will is merely an executive function of the mind, and it is governed by our natures, dispositions, desires, and so forth. But where do these desires come from? The will?! If that were so, the will could generate a number of desires that contradict your natural tendencies. For instance, the will could spontaneously make a hard working, overly organized person into a disorganized sloth. While there are cases where an organized man will act out of character, this is due to external forces acting on his life. Perhaps he is getting drained at work, so he is too tired to fold his clothes or wash the dishes. But he is not going to become disorganized via a spontaneous generation of the will. Therefore, it is the essence of an entity that determines his desires, not his will.

With that being said, the genesis account makes it clear that Adam and Eve had the ability to sin because they were intentionally created with defects in their souls. Do you find it strange how Jesus Christ, who you would indoubtedly say possessed free will, never sinned a day in his life? Was it because his will was perfect, or his nature was perfect? I’d say the latter for the same reasons that were discussed in the previous paragraph. The fact that man needed a savior to begin with implies the inherent defects in our soul, which bubbles up to the will.

The bad tendency to distrust god was already in their souls, but the will is to blame!?

3) The argument is self-defeating. It appears that you guys find any perceived violation of free will as being the greatest evil to ever occur on the planet. How else could I explain some of the responses that I’ve seen? You guys are so concerned with mans free will, that you think that it was an appropriate trade off for a world where everyone’s lives were filled with happiness and comfort. But your argument would also bring a charge against god because he forces us to do and possess plenty of things against our will. For instance, no one was able to choose their date of birth, nationality, sex, race, height, level of intelligence, genetics, food preferences, etc. But why is it that none of you oppose these things? Is it perhaps that most of these attributes are harmless, and possess little to no occasion against the Christian religion? There is no sin against being tall, so it really doesn’t matter if someone is tall or short.

You see, traits are only as bad as they affect our lives in a negative fashion. So how would the inability to commit evil be harmful to my life or anyone else’s? In fact, not being able to commit evil would make the world a better place for SO many obvious reasons. I wish I did live in a world where people didn’t have the freedom to molest and rape children. If you think that removing the freedom to rape and molest is the greater evil than the act itself, I’d worry about your level of sanity.

4) The permission of evil ironically hinders the freedom or others, thus making it a violation of free will in its own right. This really needs no explanation. If you can’t see how evil actions can affect others in an infringing manner, I don’t know what to tell you. I’d bet if someone stole your car, that would violate your freedom to a heightened degree.

I won’t even bother making a throughout response to some of the comments in this thread. There was one guy who said that god wouldn’t destroy the devil because it wouldn’t be an act of love. Wow, that is insane. So destroying a being is not an act of love, but torturing him in a lake of fire for all eternity is NOT unloving????!!! People, listen to how crazy some of you sound! How is any skeptic suppose to take this inane, imbecilic drivel seriously? If any sane person has the option of either being destroyed, or being burned alive for all eternity, which option do you think they will pick? Hell is a fate that is worse than death, so how the fuck is that loving? This thread made my head spin because of the unimaginable stupidity.

>>532839

>i believe god still love his creature(the devil) and awaits his redemption

Literally what basis do you have for this belief?

>>533419

>If any sane person has the option of either being destroyed, or being burned alive for all eternity, which option do you think they will pick?

Since you claim to be sane but choose Hell over Heaven eternal torment must be surprisingly popular.

>>533423

Ah yes. The hallmark of the vanished. You can’t actually refute the points that I made, so you have to resort to sarcasm and dismissals. Cute, but it’s nothing special.

what if God has ordained that Evil exists so as to glorify Himself in the display of His infinite Wrath against Sin?

would God be wrong to do so?

>>532819

>>532834

That's some sweet logic to avoid the "If God is all-knowing he would know what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us" and "Why did he create a world with evil" parts.

Epicuro wins, anyways.

>>532901

>To glorify himself by showing his wrath over the freely commited sin of mankind

>God does not want to prevent evil

>Then God is not Good/ God is not loving

Epicuro wins.

This swerving on the fact that its a fallible flowchart that stops asking a previously asked question is quite painful.

also, just so no one forgets it…

>but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

>>533443

>Then God is not Good/ God is not loving

That is false. You are trying to assume that God is good if he enables your hedonism. God is the very definition of God, so if you oppose what he does, then YOU are evil. God does not want to somehow ""prevent"" evil by nuking you. And you are in no position to say that is evil. Saying that God is evil is a pure contradiction.

Instead of caring about some retarded fedora graph made out of theological illiteracy, I recommend you read this:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm

>>533418

> The point of the paradox is to question how an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God is not capable of creating a world where individuals are free to make choices, as well as incapable of committing evil actions

How exactly can someone be said to have free will if they are incapable of choosing between good and evil? Of course, atheists can simply suggest that free will is unimportant/doesn't exist, and they'd much rather live in a world where evil didn't exist. Ultimately, we must accept that God is all powerful and the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong. Therefore, if God decides that he wants to allow sin to exist, then it is his prerogative to do so.

>>532747

>if God is good than why does evil exist meme

This is a really old meme that completely ignores a bunch of clear entry level reasons why evil exist and why God didn't just make us into meat robots to stop freewill/evil.

>>533438

No. Trinity is not allah that needs created beings to feel special. He is self sustained

>>532747

If there wouldn't be evil, there wouldn't be time/free will. If things have to be allowed to change at all, they can very well change freely, away from God as well as towards him.

(things that aren't God + possibility of change/time/choice) => possibility of Evil to exist.

At least imho. Dunno, really.

>>533515

>How exactly can someone be said to have free will if they are incapable of choosing between good and evil?

I already explained this later on in my post. Try reading the whole post if you’re going to respond. The will is not a self governing principle; it’s simply a function that allows us to choose between different options. But what we want to choose is dependent on our nature. One very simple way of allowing free will and prohibiting evil is to allow humans to commit varying levels of good, with neutral acts being the worse that a human can do. I know a lot of you love to use Augustine’s theory of privation to explain away evil, but that’s horseshit. Giving is good, but a lack of giving doesn’t imply theft! Not giving is the privation of theft; stealing is the opposite of theft. See how easy it is to decimate Augustine’s theory?

According to your logic, God doesn’t have free will because he doesn’t have the ability to commit evil. And like I said in my post, if you think that the inability to commit an evil act is worse than the act itself, you are fucked in the head. I would personally want to steer clear of someone who is glad that we can commit evil acts. I’m not glad that we have the ability to commit wars, genocide, rape, enslavement, torture, etc. I’m glad that you accept all of the horrible shit in this world for the sake of false freedom. You dick.

>>533541

>If there wouldn't be evil, there wouldn't be time

😳 Okay, now I’m confused.

>Ah least imho. Dunno really

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about; you’re just parroting the free will cop out like so many apologists do. But I will give ou this: at least you admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

>>533515

>Ultimately, we must accept that God is all powerful and the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong. Therefore, if God decides that he wants to allow sin to exist, then it is his prerogative to do so.

In other words, God allows evil to exist because he wants man to commit evil. Thanks for proving my point. He may not want evil to exist for its own sake, but it seems like he gets a kick out of judging and controlling people through fear and intimidation. Can’t really do that if humans couldn’t commit evil. A God who loves to control and judge people would be pretty bored if there was nothing to judge. An all loving being would care more about securing the well being of all of his creation, as opposed to satisfying his own lust for judging and dominion.

Man, the rebuttals against the epicurean paradox practically refute themselves!

>>533554

>God doesn’t have free will because he doesn’t have the ability to commit evil

God does have the 'ability', he just doesn't have the will to evil. Because He's atemporal Good, by nature.

If you have something that's temporal changeable, and not God, you give that something the ability to be Evil. And being a will distinct from God's, the rest follows.

But it's so easy to tip a fedora without offering anything constructive. Pray tell, what's your solution to the problem of evil?

Would you prefer non-existence as a changing distinct individual in this world of choice of good and evil, to existence in this world? How would you do shit, were you God? Cause as far as I can tell, these were the only possibles given.

>>533551

>God doesn’t have free will because he doesn’t have the ability to commit evil.

This is a fallacy, because God IS Goodness. So if God WOULD commit evil (though he is by nature unchangeable), that evil would become good.

>>533551

Not even going to try to defend my arguments in favor of free will, because I have little faith in them, and as I acknowledged earlier I know that the concept of free will doesn't satisfy the atheist who would prefer no evil over the freedom to do evil.

>>533559

You're judging God with your own personal standard of morality. Why should that matter at all, when God has all the power and authority in the universe? You can go ahead and call God evil, but it's pretty irrelevant.

>>532782

He still is if it's logically impossible to create such a World. God can also not draw a square circle, because such a thing is meaningless.

>>533728

If God was all-powerful why doesn't he commit suicide???

xtians btfo

>>533728

I do not think you understand, "logic" is something god created himself, along with everything else. Are you to SERIOUSLY SUGGEST that he could not make a apple fall up if he wanted it so?

>>533728

>>533730

>>533733

Can God create a rock so heavy its impossible for him to lift it?

Checkmate.

>>533736

Okay wait a minute, creating a world without evil is in the same tier as creating a rock so heavy its impossible for him to lift?

>>533739

Its impossible to allow free will but simultaneously disallow evil.

>>533733

I would say that God didn't create logic in the same sense that He created the Universe. I would say that "logic" is inherent to (attribute of?) God in the same way that goodness is.

>he could not make a apple fall up if he wanted it so

He could, probably by manipulating the rules of nature. There is no logical contradiction here.

>>533733

God is not something you create among several possibilities. Logic is just lack of contradictions. It is not "another system". God can't make an apple fall up. Omnipotence is not what you think it is, because you are theologically illiterate

>>532747

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, mankind gained knowledge of good and evil(AKA lack of good, AKA distorted good, AKA imperfection.) This caused evil to enter into the world. Christ's crucifixion spared us from the divine punishment of gaining this knowledge(or rather, having no excuse to commit evil acts, since we now commit them knowing that what we are doing is wrong because of said knowledge), but we still have to live with the ramifications of having this knowledge, i.e. there being evil in the world. The whole argument comes from a very incorrect and distorted perspective.

>>533756

On the contrary your argument does not matter in first place. That we let evil in is completely unrelated to the matter of God allowing us and our sons to suffer evil, and thus the rest of the post isn't.

>Christ's crucifixion spared us from the divine punishment of gaining this knowledge

Cool but unrelated

>But we still have to live with the ramifications of having this knowledge

Okay so tl;dr "Does god want to prevent evil? > No > Then god is not good/god is not loving".

>>533771

>Cool but unrelated

Proof that you don't understand the conversation.

>Okay so tl;dr "Does god want to prevent evil? > No > Then god is not good/god is not loving".

Wew lad. That's a childishly simplistic point of view. God is indeed loving, but he's not going to essentially lobotomize humans so that they are no longer aware of iniquities, because humanity would gain nothing from such an act, just. On the other hand, now that we have this knowledge, and now that Christ has paid our debt, we can understand the true value of good by juxtaposing it against evil, thus placing us on a level closer to God. And being placed on a level closer to God is, in the end, a greater act of love than absolving mankind from hardships. Also, living through hardships make us stronger and help us grow spiritually.

Idiots. This whole "paradox" is based on the assumption evil exists. "Evil" is an opinion, opinions are based on arguments. Arguments can be put in perspective to support a opposing opinion. "Evil" is an equal empty statement as saying "free will" exists (or not) or god is an asshole or Jesus is my saviour. The definition of "evil" and "free will" will always be relative and open to interpretation as well.

>>533803

hello heretic

>>533843

Interesting, you changed your ID.

it's ok, i'm sure this time the Church of Christ will die. just like the jews thought, or the romans, or julian the apostate or or or…

hmm

>>532778

>read book of Job

>still unemployed

wtf

>>533843

>dying cult

>40 million chinks are risking life and limb to convert and hold services in their shitstain communist nation.

>in the last 5 years alone.

Look at this loser.

>>532850

The keyword is free. He could have made us slaves to Him, but He didn't.

>>533771

You don't get to objectively define what counts as good or loving. If God didn't exist, then there wouldn't be any grounds on which to objectively define what is morally good or bad. One person may define x as good, another may define y as good, but they would be subjective opinions. But if God does exist, he is the ultimate judge on what counts as good, what counts as love. If he says he loves us, then I will trust him when he says so.

>>533751

>God can resurrect the dead and multiply physical objects but he can't make an apple fall up

How conceited can you be?

>>533844

>Interesting, you changed your ID.

I didn't, that wasn't me.

But thanks for the interesting discussion you started by calling out names instead replying to how I think this "paradox" is devalued.

>>533803

>Jesus is my saviour.

Not an empty statement, Jesus being a someone's savior is an objective claim that will be confirmed or denied one way or another.

>>532750

Cool argument

A young kid does nothing wrong, he goes to church, has faith and is good.

One day he dies in a car crash, is God present here? If so, why did the crash happen?

A young kid does nothing wrong, he goes to church, has faith and is good.

One day he dies in a car crash, is God present here? If so, why did the crash happen?

>>533736

>God creates purely infinite object

>Infinite Object has all qualities

>The object is omnipotent

>God is omnipotent

>God and the object share all properties

God and the object are therefore the same object and if he creates an object that he can't lift, the object is just absorbed by God.

>>535116

>A young kid does nothing wrong

<Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

<Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.

I do remember when I was a child I lied about having done my homework, when I in fact haven't, and lying is still a sin, as is not honoring ones parents.

>One day he dies in a car crash, is God present here? If so, why did the crash happen?

Yes, He is present there.

> If so, why did the crash happen?

We can't know, because the case is fictional and the context hasn't been filled out. Remember this;

<And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

If I died tomorrow from a car hitting me or right now from a heart attack, I would still glorify God for having saved my eternal soul, and I would be in a better place.

>>532747

It's pretty easy to explain - God not being omniscient is a perfectly reasonable conclusion and isn't a "checkmate" for Christians. The Bible includes several situations in which God was unaware of things, such as with Sodom & Gomorrah and was forced to use angels to scout it out on his behalf.

Also if God was omniscient the entire exercise of creating a world in which people have 'free will' would be pointless - the result of doing so would already be known to Him.

Good Christians should not be afraid to accept that God almighty is not omniscient. No such omniscience is ever mentioned in Biblical canon and there is much evidence that contradicts the notion. But that doesn't mean that God is not the most wise/powerful entity in the universe, because He created the universe with *self-imposed rules* all in order to give us free will.

>>535126

>heresy

>in my /christian

<4 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.

< for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

<then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),

< Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.

<And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen

< O Lord, you have searched me and known me! 2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. 3 You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.

<My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

<remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

>>535125

>If I died tomorrow from a car hitting me or right now from a heart attack,

But why would God allow those things to occur to a good man?

>We can't know, because the case is fictional

It's not fictional

>>535129

>But why would God allow those things to occur to a good man?

Because if he's truly a good man he would die and go to heaven and not feel mad at God for letting a car hit him

>>535129

>But why would God allow those things to occur to a good man?

There are no good men, except for Christ whose murder was and will be the greatest sin in all history.

>It's not fictional

We know nothing about the driver of the car or the kid, their parents or society at large because it's not a real case you're describing. It is fictional, and we can't speculate because there's no details anywhere. All we know is that all parties involved are sinners, and deserve God's just wrath. Every second they live is undue grace from God.

>>535138

>We know nothing about the driver of the car or the kid, their parents or society at large because it's not a real case you're describing. It is fictional, and we can't speculate because there's no details anywhere. All we know is that all parties involved are sinners, and deserve God's just wrath. Every second they live is undue grace from God.

Answer me this, for if the case was true that the victims of the crash were god fearing, why would He see these deaths occur?

You desperately claim them to be sinners yet know nothing of my case nor theirs. If you can't answer just say that you don't know.

>>535116

>why did the crash happen?

Because it was his time to return home. It's as simple as that.

>>535147

>Answer me this, for if the case was true that the victims of the crash were god fearing, why would He see these deaths occur?

<And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

>You desperately claim them to be sinners yet know nothing of my case nor theirs.

<What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

>If you can't answer just say that you don't know.

I do and did answer according to what God has revealed of Himself and of the world in the God-breathed Scriptures. It is you who are not accepting what you are hearing. I have surely answered.

>>535147

>Answer me this, for if the case was true that the victims of the crash were god fearing, why would He see these deaths occur?

Lazarus was god fearing, and Lazarus suffered much and he suffered much more because the rich man was so close, and Lazarus was the one rewarded in the end.

>>532777

And if men were created perfect, they would not turn to evil despite having free will. Free will neither explains nor justifies the existence of evil.