This is basically a checkmate for every semitic religion

Now we're headed into deep unknowables. It's true, God could have created a universe without evil, but we have no conception of such a universe and what it would be like that we might as well argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

He can, but he didn't. God was doing something else. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Then why didn't he?

Then why didn't he?

So now god is almighty but not omnibenevolent, you switched the problem

God can't create square circles either, because that's not a thing. Something which is created is limited and contingent hence imperfect. Only God is noncontigent and uncreated.

Why not?

define evil, because for Epicurus, whose argument you are parroting good = pleasure, evil = pain. Whereas from the Christian point of view painful things can be good and pleasurable ones bad.

Because it's not a thing. The expression "square circle" is not a meaningful expression. When one says "square circle" one is in effect not even saying anything, only making noises with one's mouth.

I don't know, you are now going into divine unknowables and latching human values onto it.

Also this, a perfect thing is uncreated, so God can only beget perfect things from the beginning of time. For instance: the Father did not "create" Jesus, but he did beget Jesus (so Jesus has existed for all eternity as a perfect being). God did not beget the universe, he created it, therefore the universe is different.

Because we're now playing with language. God invented the shapes, and terms like "square" and "circle" are just terms used for two contradicting types of shapes. If it's square, it's not a circle, if it's a circle, it's not a square. Creating refers to a certain act of God, and it is altogether different from "begetting" which is just another term for something God has done since the beginning of time.

The problem is that we should have begun this discussion by defining good and evil, because we are obviously working with very different definitions than OP. This discussion can't go anywhere because we are speaking past each other

Find a least common denominator, for example children with cancer. Was God unable to create a universe without cancer?
For your limited mind.

Why didn't he reveal it to you?
Was this act benevolent? If not, why say God is good?

It's not the cancer cells in themselves which are bad it is the harm they cause, and harm is a lack, an absence of well being and not a thing in itself. Again, though, you are supposing that pain and suffering = evil in every case, which is a presupposition that Christians do not accept. We have different a understanding of good and evil.
No, that's dumb.

It's written in your own book

If he revealed it, it wouldn't be a divine unknowable now would it smart guy?
Yes, it is better to exist than not to exist. Let's compare:
Existence gives us:
And many more!
Non existence gives us

No, this discussion cant move forward because OP already has an idea of what God should have done instead of accepting what exists. He presumes to know better when in fact he knows nothing.

God is the eternal totality of all that is good and he created a world that was good. He gave us freedom so that we can choose and lots of things chose to exclude God and thus they furned away from the very source of goodness, thus living in a state of evil which is a lack of God.

The retarded idea that he could've created a world where only good exists with free will is contradictory. There is no freedom in a world where you are forced to be good.

Well actually God is absolute immutable truth so he is the source of all knowledge. That means that he would never create a contradictory state of existence because those are by definition, false.

And God doesn't sin because he is perfect.

God's definition of evil simply isn't the same as yours.

Muslims can have "divine unknowables" too, what makes your deity true and their god false? Having "hidden knowledge" is just another way of saying you are a gnostic.
The point is not about not existing, but about God. Everyone would like to exist in a universe without evil. If he is able to make one(with free-will), why didn't he then?

the usual Christian interpretation of that verse is "create calamity" (e.g. famine, natura disasters), which are not evil in themselves but only for the harm they cause, and harm is a lack of well being and hence not a thing in itself.

It's from the KJV bible, it's not calamity but evil.

I've copied and pasted it.

Not true. Just ask people if they would like to live in a universe without porn.

good, thanks for this; I am fine being a Christian, since no matter what we'll post, you won't be changed, nor it's going to happen the other way around; have a good one and take care.

Evil in 1600s English doesn't mean "moral wrong," it refers to calamity. God creates mountains, and God creates avalanches
I feel like part of the problem is you view this world as the only thing that exists. Think of it like this: people are either moral or immoral. If they are moral, death is no great tragedy for them. It's a tragedy for us, but they will go to be with God now and get what they deserve. In the same way, immoral people will also get what they deserve in the hereafter. Now, God tells us we should seek out physicians, and nobody wants to be separated from their family members, so we should still try to cure such diseases. However, that doesn't mean is an act of cosmic evil that some people get cancer

You are both shifting the goal posts and deliberately misconstruing what I said. The reasons why Muslims are wrong and Christians are right are a completely separate issue, far removed from the problem of evil. We can shift gears and start talking about the historicity of the New Testament+the suspect claims of Muhammad and the Quran, however at that point we would be discussing a separate issue.
This is where you misconstrue what I said. "Hidden knowledge" refers to secret teachings only a small elite of humans know. You are correct that it is a Gnostic belief. However, divine unknowables =/= hidden knowledge. Divine unknowables refer to things so far removed from the human experience that we can just never know. I will never know, as long as I am on this Earth, God's motivation for all his acts. To do so, I'd need to be omnipotent. However, there is more than enough revealed scripture+pure philosophy for us to gain a good enough understanding of God on this Earth, so long as we are aware of our own limits and our lack of full understanding of the divine mind.
You asked if God's act of creating (i.e. bringing us into existence) was a good thing. I said it was.
I don't know, you are now going into divine unknowables and latching human values onto it.

Obviously, I meant to write "omniscient" here

KJV is a translation not followed by apostolic Christians.

I mean we shouldn't turn this into a translation catfight, as it's not even a mistranslation but merely a change in language. The Douay Rheims says the same thing in that verse, because English 400 years ago isn't identical to English today

Again was God able to make an universe with both free-will and without evil? If yes, why didn't he then?

If we work with secret divine knowledge, muslims have the same validity, since we are still talking about an invisible god.
Jesus came as a human, are you saying he didn't know? If he was able to know then why not you? This is gnosticism.
No why, you just need to know, nothing to do with power to do.
But you didn't prove it, you rationalized the evil things.

Here we go again ok, so which sect is right?

fair enough.

didn't say that.

Welp, Evil from the Christian perspective isn't just. A materialist/Atheist ethics where That pain and death are the worst things in the world. And have to be avoided at all cost. In Orthodoxy they'd say. That it's not necessary to cause Unnecessary suffering. But their can be good sufferings to in the world. But ultimately what happens for Evil in the world, God ends up using it for his own good. Father Seraphim Rose used this comparison about communist Russia. In Communist Russia They Martyred many Christians but from that evil. God Used it to further and strengthen his faith, unlike father rose said potentially like in Greece where no such action took place. Or had the Russian Revolution, not have happened. The faith would've entered into a more Lukewarm faith people proclaiming themselves *Christians* Only in a cultural sense. Like what we see, in protestant west. And parts of Roman Catholicism. One last point in your pic. It says an, all powerful, all knowing, all good god. Could and would destroy satan. Well… he did, did you read the bible? In genesis Before God Brought punishment upon adam and eve. He literally went to punish the serpent first. And In fact God, gave Adam and eve many chances to repent, and admit their wrong. Even the process of God destroying satan. And then bounding him up. In orthodoxy, the only power the devil has is that what humans give him. With the freewill they have. Vid related is where, Seraphim Rose, Actually answered those questions i had in this sense. Hope this helps.

Again was God able to make an universe with both free-will and without evil and absolute happiness for everyone? If yes, why didn't he then?

Even better

Prove your bible is the true one

...

No. That's completely off topic. The point is that even the posters who are pro-KJV agree that evil in that verse refers to calamity.

...

I don't know, you are now going into divine unknowables and latching human values onto it.
…no. That's not the way things work. "I can't know an extremely specific bit of knowledge only known in the mind of God" doesn't mean "I can't know anything about God all religions are valid." Muslims are wrong because Jesus historically proclaimed himself the Son of God, historically rose from the dead, Muhammad made up Islam for political purposes, and the Quran is not a divine book. Of course, this is all you shifting the goal posts because you're losing the argument from evil debate, so now you're trying to turn this into arguments about specific religions and denominations. That's also why you asked "which sect is right?" such a question is irrelevant to the topic of the argument from evil
Hmm, I probably should have clarified that obviously, I meant "omniscient" there. here you go!
What evil did I rationalize? Do you believe all existence to be evil? I merely listed off aspects of existence that I personally have a fondness for and believe other people do as well

That's not a metaphorical meaning. It's a literal one. It literally means calamity.

When English Bibles use the word "evil," they literally mean the word "evil," but using the definition from the 1600s meaning "calamity." In the same way, when it says "apple" it literally means "apple," but the definition is "a fruit" not "a computer store;" and when the Bible refers to Greeks, it literally means "Greeks" but the definition is "people from Greece" and not "college students involved in a fraternity or sorority."

Spooky mysterious god can't be known but we must take it seriously. And Jesus was both human and omniscient right, why not you?

That's not what I said, I said that we can't fully understand every single aspect of the divine mind. We still know quite a bit about God
We're not deists who believe in some unknowable God, we just don't know every single aspect of the divine mind
Jesus is God, I'm not.

Nice d&c attempt kike.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (300x169, 59.32K)

The flow chart is flawed. The test is to prove a point to US, and the existence of Satan (inevitable with a creation that can make a decision) is now a part of that test.

Question: Could God create a rock so big that even he can't lift it?
Yes: He is not all powerful
No: He is not all powerful
Checkmate, theists.

yes, the age-old answer is that he can make one that he can't lift, but he would still be able to lift it; study cs lewis more then come talk to us.

If you can accept the possibility of square circles then why can't you accept the possibility that God could be all-good and all powerful and evil still exists? It just isn't apparent to your (very) limited mind.

1. God's goodness, as used by Christians and other theists, is not predicated upon his agreeableness to fedoras but to his nature as self-subsistant being.

2. As goodness is simply some being and it's perfection, and God is necessarily the source of all being and as such he is necessarily perfect goodness.

3. Evil does not exist of itself, but is the privation of some existing good.

4. As such the presence of evil in creation is perfectly consistent with the existence and goodness of God as he does not create it, but merely permits it to come to pass.

Someone screencap this. Screw capping isn’t working for me and I’ve never seen a fedora so thoroughly BTWO

it took me a couple seconds to realize what the "W" stands for, and then i was like

Attached: image.gif (195x229, 1.29M)

So does good
Preventing evil is our duty
Yes, he defined what is good and ordered man to follow it
Of course
Because of our flaws

Epicurean needs to learn more about evil:

av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/evil.html
biblestudytools.com/dictionary/evil/

We live in the best possible universe. The best possible universe does have evil in it because it is logically necessary for it to be the best possible universe.

If God has created a world without evil so that it would be perfect, this would lead to a paradox, because evil is necessary for the best possible world which is logically the most perfect, and so without evil it actually would not be perfect, this paradox shows a world without evil simply cannot logically exist.

testan in slide thread

We have to keep in mind, when debating people who bring up Epicurus' argument, that Epicurus himself had a really puerile understanding of evil. For Epicurus evil is an upset stomach, or a stubbed toe, or a headache. Anything that baby no likey wah wah = evil

no, epicurus' argument was that satisfying our physical needs within reason was the sole moral good, the problem was that self-satisfaction is incredibly relative and subjective for each individual, esp. if this individual attempts to decide what is good for someone else

Epicurus adopted a negative definition of good/pleasure. It was just the absence of pain. Interestingly, this is exactly the opposite of the Christian approach which adopts a negative definition of evil!

amen

Evil=/=suffering