>>17449755
refuted.

>>17449763
>god judged it good that evil exists
>god judged it bad that evil not exist
Christcucks are both dumb and dishonest
There is a reason why everyone looks with admiration at pagan philosophy and spirituality, including the greatest scientists and the greatest Christian "thinkers." But no one will look with respect at Christian theology and apologetics except Abrahamic fundamentalists.

>>17449775
>>god judged it good that evil exists
Not what it says, retard. It says God judged it BETTER to BRING GOOD OUT OF EVIL, not that evil existing is good.

God why do atheists have such shit reading comprehension?

Why should an omnipotent being care for you? What reason does a being that can erase you with a thought or create infinite worlds give a single fuck about some guy on a rock?

>>17449794
Love.

>>17449789
I'm the OP actually and I understand what the jew worshipper in the image said

Still the good old pathetic excuse (YWHW is testing you and shiet), not even worth addressing

>>17449796
YHWH is fillen with hatred for goyim according to the desert jew book tho

>>17449794
OP is talking about the idea of an "all-loving god" you retard

>>17449798
>I'm the OP actually
Oh, so you're a faggot.
>and I understand what the jew worshipper in the image said
No you didn't, since you completely misread it.
>Still the good old pathetic excuse (YWHW is testing you and shiet
Who said anything about a test?

>>17449800
>YHWH is fillen with hatred for goyim according to the desert jew book tho
>So He made Man in God's image and unto His likeness, male and female He created them.
He hates them so much that He made them in His image?

>>17449804
>YHWH won't delete evil because he wants to see how good you can be and shiet

Do you really expect any rational being to take that seriously?

>>17449805
Only jews were created by YWHW (which is actually an reptilian hive mind)

The gentile races of the world were already here and YWHW (the reptilian collective) preached for their extermination as seen in deuteronomy

>>17449755
God removing evil would be taking away free-will.
Instead, he gives freedom to humans and judges at the end.
The verse which states that God creates evil is better translated as “bring calamity” which you would expect from a just God.

>>17449789
>shit reading comprehension?
Said the retard who doesn't understand the context of my post. Good out of evil as opposed to just good and no evil.
You're a retard and everyone knows apologists are dumb liars.
Evil is entirely unnecessary but God deemed it necessary because he is an evil retard like his dumb worshippers.

>>17449755
God is neither good nor evil, both good and evil are manmade, hence not of divine origin

>>17449829
>Good out of evil as opposed to just good and no evil.
And God has judged the former better than the latter. That doesn't mean that the latter is not good.
>Evil is entirely unnecessary
It's necessary for the good that God wants to see to exist. Like the soil that needs to be filled with cow excrement in order to be fertile and crops can grow.

>>17449817
Dumb normie jew slave. He is right. >>17449827
>God removing evil would be taking away free-will.
He literally wouldn't, dumb liar.

>>17449834
>And God has judged the former better than the latter.
Yes, God has judged that 2+2=5, that shit tastes better than cake, that good is evil and evil is good.
God is a retard.
>It's necessary for the good that God wants to see to exist.
It's necessary because God said so, not because of objective reason. Ergo it is not necessary. An all powerful god wouldn't need evil to do good.

>>17449840
Also a perfect analogy for your retarded theology is judging cancer good because thank to it we can get a cure for cancer. When we would be much better off without cancer in the first place.
You jew slaves are dishonest retards and your good is evil.

>>17449844
You literally admitted that God judged good out of evil better than only good and no evil, I just made analogies to show how retarded your statement is. So no you didn't say that, and I didn't claim you did.
You're making a strawman argument while proving you have no reading comprehension.

>>17449854
>You literally admitted that God judged good out of evil better than only good and no evil
Yes, which doesn't mean that only good and no evil is not good, just that bringing good out of evil is even better. Which I think any sensible person would agree is a greater feat than good just existing unchallenged.

>>17449835
>he literally wouldn’t
Yes he would you moronic retard. God makes plants humans use them to drug each other. God creates resources and gives humans a brain, humans use them to harm each other. Humans also voluntarily lie and steal each other.
If God were to stop this, he would take humans’ free will.

>>17449755
is he? I thought we made some progress in the last thread .

>>17449755
Refuted by Leibniz a long time ago.

>>17449763
>there's better and worse for omnipotent god
>he must choose ways and methods instead of willing into existence whatever end state he desires
desperate cope.
in before "god is not omnipotent but we'd rather redefine 'omnipotent' to mean the limited power of god, or else he's gonna get mad at us". this is called spirituality.

>>17450166
jesus himself says he was only sent to the jews.

>>17449801
Shit the fuck up you worthless subhuman.

>>17450147
>>there's better and worse for omnipotent god
Obviously there is. You think God can't see when something is good or bad?
>he must choose ways and methods instead of willing into existence whatever end state he desires
Simply willing into existence does not yield the results that God seeks.

>>17449755
define evil

Behold, a nugget of le wisdom from... Le bible.

"We (Christian larpers) have the mind of Christ".

You cant win, lads, these hypertrophied minds of supernatural faculties would instantly detect an argumental flaw and destroy it like a heavenly T-800.

Because Christians have a Supernal mind, right?

>>17450443
you think an omnipotent and omnicreatorbeing is limited by 'good' and 'bad'? he declared what is good and what is bad ffs.
>Simply willing into existence does not yield the results that God seeks.
so here's something he cannot do? some omnipotence.

>>17449755
Epi- who? Everyone knows the name of Jesus Christ and His mother Mary. This nerd is forgotten to history utterly btfo with his nerdy sayings

>>17450497
>you think an omnipotent and omnicreatorbeing is limited by 'good' and 'bad'? he declared what is good and what is bad ffs.
Away with you, Mohammedan.
>so here's something he cannot do?
No? Willing it into existence does not produce what God wants, so He goes about it a different way.

Christians literally can't stop taking L's

>>17449763
"Saint" Augustine bragged about his sex life but couldn't own up to not being able to speak Greek properly and blamed it on his teacher, no wonder only catholikeks and prosties are obsessed with him

>>17449827
Free will theology works wonders until it gets smashed against the rocks of original sin, let alone the NT understanding of Satan and demons.

>>17449763
Cope seethe and dialate. God exists and he is evil.

>>17449789
>why do atheists have such shit reading comprehension?
They can only see their own straw man ideas. They are not looking for truth. They are looking for self-affirmation. Their hubris leads them to nemesis, which is their downfall. This is why they use ad hominems so much. They project their own low self esteem onto others. They think that the egos of others are as fragile as their own.

>>17449755
Let’s tackle this “paradox of evil” nonsense, shall we? The idea that an all-powerful, all-good deity can’t exist because evil exists? Cringe.

First off, the universe isn’t a Disney movie. It’s full of chaos and randomness. Ever heard of free will? Yeah, that little thing where humans can choose to be idiots. The existence of evil doesn’t negate a benevolent deity. It just shows that He let us run the show.

And let's not forget the classic “greater good” argument. Sometimes, bad stuff happens to teach us lessons, grow character, or just because life is unfair and that’s how the cookie crumbles. Ever tried playing a video game on easy mode? Boring af fuck.

Plus, who’s to say what “evil” really is? God alone. What’s evil to you might be a Tuesday for someone else. So, unless you’re claiming to be the ultimate judge of morality (spoiler: you aren’t), take a seat and trust Jesus.

So yeah, the paradox of evil? Just another case of overthinking it. Time to move on and believ in God, atheists.

>>17451067
> universe full of chaos and randomness
>muh free will
>muh subjective evil
god made these things, did he not? If he were all powerful he would have created free will, and he also defined what is good and evil (eg thou shalt not kill). If he lets us run the show then he permits evil to happen.
Congrats, you have proved a malevolent god.

>>17449755
>unrefuted
Omnipotence refutes it though.

>>17450753
>No? Willing it into existence does not produce what God wants, so He goes about it a different way.
you are constrained by your mind, if he can create ANYTHING he can create the results

>>17449831
No.

God is good, by definition.

The etymology of the word "God" is that it came from the word "Good." God is a marriage of elohim, theos, and "good".

God is not the cosmos. That is a pegan idea. The water/chaos was there in the beginning. God creates through division. He seperates the wheat from the chaff. He is the gardener who prunes the vine.

He is a tecton, not a magician.

I solved it long ago...

>>17449814
Christliars change their minds about doctrine all the time. The only consistent thing is support for pedophilia and israel.

>>17450636
He is one of the sons of Heli.
The brother of Joseph.
The uncle of jesus.

>>17451099
>god made these things, did he not?
No.
God makes the good, by separating it from the bad. Like a sculptor.

The unwanted shavings are disposed of. When something good is defined, the opposite is also concieved, but only as a distinction from the desired creation.

This is why it is written:
If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

>>17451147
>Inherited from Middle English god, from Old English god, originally neuter, then changed to masculine to reflect the change in religion to Christianity, from Proto-West Germanic *god n, from Proto-Germanic *gudą; see there for further origin. NOT related to the word good or Persian خدا (xodâ, “god”).
Christcucks have to falsify etymologies to support their retarded fantasies.

>pegan idea
= paleodiet veganism, pagan is spelled with an a btw

>>17451179
You just proved that god is neither all powerful nor benevolent.
If the act of making good conceives bad, and god is intentionally creating good and thus also causing evil to exist, then he is intentionally creating evil.
And if he cannot stop the byproduct creation of evil then he is also not all powerful.

>>17451184
>from Proto-Germanic *gudą
And how do you say "good" in Proto-Germanic?

>>17451275
It's pretty clear that the word "God" and the word "good" are intertwined and come from the same root.

>>17451191
>all powerful
You have heard it asked.
Is it possible to move an immovable stone?

When God moves an immovable stone, you will see an empty tomb. Do not be alarmed, or afraid. You must make a choice.

>>17451309
low quality bait
I just provided the etymologies for both of these words. They are not related, and scholarly consensus agrees that they are not related. Even the vowels are completely different.
It is incredibly foolish to attempt to support your beliefs based off of how two words sound to you. You are only showing your detachment from reality and the completely un-scholarly nature of your convictions.

>>17451318
So you claim that god is all powerful. That means he intentionally allows evil to be created as a byproduct of making good.
God is malevolent.

>>17451191
>benevolent
"God" is good, so ofcourse he "means well".

>>17451327
You didn't prove anything. You posted som a.i. slop that clearly shows a bunch of old words that mean "good" and "God", and they all sound the same and share the same root.

>>17451347
if he allows evil to happen, that means he wills for it to happen, and thus he wills with bad intent as evil is evil

>>17451327
>un-scholarly
Tell me more Rabbi.

>>17451357
He does not will evil.

>>17451352
wiktionary is not ai slop, and sounding the same does not automatically mean that they come from the same root.
please, point out which root they both descend from, ill wait...

Define the good?

>>17451372
>point out which root they both descend from
El

>>17451363
if god is all powerful, then he has absolute control over everything that ever happens. if something happens, ie evil, and god does not stop if from happening, then he allows, wills even, for it to happen.

>>17451373
Shared morality.

>>17451359
send more money to Israel

>>17451379
that is not either of the germanic roots from which they descend...

>>17451380
>absolute control
You have heard it asked.
Is it possible to move an immovable stone?

When God moves an immovable stone, you will see an empty tomb. Do not be alarmed, or afraid. You must make a choice.

>>17451382
Define "morality". Because to me, morality is doing the good. So you have to define the good first.

>>17451393
Isreal is a people, not a place.

>>17451402
you are repeating yourself. stop hiding behind inane quotes and admit that you have no argument

>>17451400
>roots
I know that I hung on a wind battered tree.
Nine full nights,
pierced by a spear.
And given to Oden,
Myself to myself
On that tree.
That no one knows,
where it's roots run.

>>17451425
not an actual answer as you have no argument. you have lost.

>>17451404
Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them.
No one comes to the Father except through ME!

I am the Lord your God, who brought you, out of the land of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before ME!

But

I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to YOU; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

The good is a vine of choices. You know it, because it lives in you. But it must be shared with others, and it must be accepted, or it will wither, and die, and be thrown into the fire.

It is the annointed salvation of theos/elohim.

The chosen egregore.

>>17451429
I'm not arguing. I'm singing, and praising the Lord.

If righteousness came by the law, then Christ died in vain.

>>17449763
what good is derived from something like mass-rape or child slaying?

>>17451449
As you don't actually have any argument, OP is correct, Epicurus is still unrefuted.

>>17451455
Yes. Each branch can be valid, but will each branch be chosen? You must choose your path. Choose wisely.

You will know me by my fruit.

There are 5 brothers, all sons of Heli.
Diogenes the cynic
Zeno the stoic
Our dear Epicurus
Joseph, the father of Jesus
And Pyrrho, the father of the fedora wearers.

Is it possible to move an immovable stone?

When God moves an immovable stone, you will see an empty tomb. Do not be alarmed, or afraid. You must make a choice.

See here, someone has already given you a hint about where you are going>>17450636

>>17451455
You have chosen nomenclature that has led you to a paradox.

>>17449755
Only decoys here.
Shed your circumference.
Good luck.

>>17449755
>Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.
There's also the option that he is justifiably apathetic on the grounds that he knows with absolute surety that the events transpiring on Earth are of little importance, and the miscreants doing evil deeds will face justice eventually anyway.

Also, even if God were malevolent, that does not exclude him from being God. In fact, if God were malevolent, that would be all the more reason to worship him, since a malevolent God would surely be even more likely to fuck you over if you rejected him.

>>17451452
Forgiving rapists and murderers.

>>17451404
In this thread it would be a shared ataraxia and aponia.