Debate @gay porn is the best porn on Free Will, God's moral responsibility, and the Epicurean Paradox

[Ravioli Chandler]

God is all knowing and all powerful, therefore, when He made me, He knew that I wouldn't believe in Him and I would go to hell for that. Who is at fault? It's His because, being all knowing, He knew exactly what He was doing creating me which makes my life and where I will go predetermined by him. If He didn't bother to consider what I would do by making me in this way then He is still at fault for being negligent.
If you make a robot that stabs Jews and shouts "Hitler did nothing wrong" the person at fault is you for making it to do that.

An all knowing and all powerful God can create a world that has no sin but still has free will. It doesn't matter if it having no sin removes said free will, He would be all powerful so He can still do it. The only explanation I've ever been provided is that Gods logic is different than ours and that you need to have blind faith in that and in him. The fact remains, you can make up anything and then say you need blind faith; even Bible scholars with PHDs know they can't prove the existence of God or the supposed truth of the Bible beyond reasonable doubt. The Bible itself implicates that with the very concept of blind faith.

I will put the blame on Him because if He exists in the way the Bible has described then everything that has ever happened is His fault.

Fair point, now, what do you think of the Epicurean paradox?

I have a clear cut understanding of Christianity, the interpretation Null has of it regarding the soul is just one I've never heard before or had forgotten about after a few years.

The only aspect of my posts that I will fall back on is the part null handled which was in relation to the soul being divine.
CTR look at the above.

What do you think of the Epicurean paradox.

The Epicurean paradox is as follows: if God is willing to prevent evil but unable, then how is He omnipotent? If He is able but not willing, then how is He benevolent? And if He is both willing and able, then why does evil exist?

The first quote is @gay porn is the best porn stating their solution to the paradox in negative terms.

 

[Mound Dweller]

It's only a paradox if make the assumption that "evil" is not by design in the first place; or even evil in the first place.
"The evil that does good" can also be "the good that does evil", it's trying to apply sense to the infinite, which is folly.

 

[gay porn is the best porn]

It's only a paradox if make the assumption that "evil" is not by design in the first place; or even evil in the first place.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Mound Dweller]

Can you elaborate?

"evil" as defined by humans is always a moral thing, stuff like murder or the economy or a lightning strike killing your dog might be described as evil, my point is that there's no objective standard for what it actually is. This is the argument most organized belief system go for; that what you think is evil isn't actually truly "evil" in the sense that it's against what the supreme being or whatever wants/allows.
I prefer the ones that have the world be less of an anthill and more of a stew-pot personally.

 

[AMHOLIO]

"Debate user Gay Porn is the Best Porn on something that isn't gay porn"

I don't think I will. He's got a selective area of expertise, and it would be like asking to debate a Russian heart doctor on Samoan Island Oceanography and weather. I mean, you COULD but he has other things he is specifically catered to, like Russian speakers with questions about their heart health. Or in Gay Porn is the Best Porn's case, gay porn.

 

[Hweeks]

Romans 8:28 - And we know that ALL things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

All things, not just good things...

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Good evening, Mr. @gay porn is the best porn

I don't believe that the Epicurean paradox is a riddle that believers are supposed to solve
I see it more as a demonstration of the framework being self-contradictory
The point isn't blaming God, but rather demonstrating that the concept of "God" that's being analyzed cannot exist because its attributes are incoherent

If a being is omniscient, it follows that every action (including your thoughts, your disbelief, and your damnation) was known to that being in advance. If that being is omnipotent, then it could have chosen otherwise. If that being is benevolent, it wouldn't have chosen this. Those three properties cannot coexist unless you redefine one of them to the point it becomes unintelligible

Attempts to salvage like this, like "evil is necessary" or "God's logic is unknowable" admit that there is a contradiction, but treat it as permissible. That's not a resolution, that's basically copium

And saying "God could have created free will without evil because he's all-powerful" just makes the incoherence hole deeper. If a square circle is metaphysically impossible, it remains impossible regardless of how much "power" you assign to the agent. Power doesn't override contradiction. "All-powerful" does not mean "able to do the logically impossible". If it did, then no sentence about God could mean anything at all

Evil is not some mysterious thing, evil exists because some beings have volition, and some of these volitional beings choose to violate the boundaries of others instead of respecting them. You don't need theology to identify or conclude this. You just need to understand what agency is, what boundaries are, and why consent matters.

 

[gay porn is the best porn]

If a square circle is metaphysically impossible, it remains impossible regardless of how much "power" you assign to the agent.

This is dependent upon how you define "all powerful" and what the origin of basically everything is; in the Christian interpretation, everything was made by God and therefore he can bypass all of those things due to him being "set above" it all. A better way of phrasing it is that God can do anything.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This is dependent upon how you define "all powerful" and what the origin of basically everything is; in the Christian interpretation, everything was made by God and therefore he can bypass all of those things due to him being "set above" it all. A better way of phrasing it is that God can do anything.

That's not a better phrasing, that's taking intelligibility and throwing it in the woodchipper

If "God can do anything" includes the logically impossible (like square circles, married bachelors, or something to both exist and not exist) then the concept of "God" no longer means anything, you're no longer describing a coherent being.
Definitions are constraints. That is what makes them meaningful. "All-powerful" must still refer to actions that are possible, i.e. actions that can be conceptually described without contradiction. If you define unlimited power as "ability to do the impossible", then the very notion of agency is destroyed. It's not giving God a higher status, it's removing him from the category of "existing things that we can know about"
And once you allow that kind of epistemic freefall, then any claim becomes unfalsifiable. "God can do anything" becomes indistinguishable from "God is a fiction that can be molded to fit any contradiction you want"

 

[Skitarii]

An all knowing and all powerful God can create a world that has no sin but still has free will

It's called the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[gay porn is the best porn]

It's called the Kingdom of Heaven.

I've heard this before, then why not just put us all directly into heaven? Why waste our time and put us through life here?

If "God can do anything" includes the logically impossible (like square circles, married bachelors, or something to both exist and not exist) then the concept of "God" no longer means anything, you're no longer describing a coherent being.

That's what has to happen if you have a God like is described in Christianity; it's why Biblical scholars fall back on Gods logic and what he operates under being something that we will never be able to understand and therefore we need to have blind faith in that (I know I'm repeating myself). This is why I think it's a bunch of bullshit; you can make up anything and just say that you need to have blind faith.

 

[Tablet County]

Fuck no.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

That's what has to happen if you have a God like is described in Christianity; it's why Biblical scholars fall back on Gods logic and what he operates under being something that we will never be able to understand and therefore we need to have blind faith in that (I know I'm repeating myself). This is why I think it's a bunch of bullshit; you can make up anything and just say that you need to have blind faith.

Just to clarify
Are you aiming to solve the Epicurean paradox from within the Christian framework (assuming the God that is being described exists) or are you using the paradox to demonstrate that the framework itself is incoherent?
I ask because you describe God as at fault, which could imply internal critique, but then you also call the whole thing "bullshit" and invoke blind faith as a cop-out, which sounds like you're rejecting the model entirely
Like, no pressure to repeat yourself if you've already moved on, I just want to make sure I'm not misreading or misunderstanding your point

 

[Skitarii]

I've heard this before, then why not just put us all directly into heaven? Why waste our time and put us through life here?

Ask Satan, he was with God in heaven and still rebelled. His free will lead him away from God and no amount of forcing him to remain in heaven will ever satisfy him. You can either use your free will to draw closer to God or to push Him away. Heaven is without sin (αμαρτία) because no one who falls away from God remains there.

 

[gay porn is the best porn]

Are you aiming to solve the Epicurean paradox from within the Christian framework (assuming the God that is being described exists) or are you using the paradox to demonstrate that the framework itself is incoherent?

I'm using it to demonstrate that the framework itself is incoherent.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'm using it to demonstrate that the framework itself is incoherent.

Appreciate the clarification, it means we both see the paradox as a demonstration that the Christian framework is incoherent

Ask Satan, he was with God in heaven and still rebelled. His free will lead him away from God and no amount of forcing him to remain in heaven will ever satisfy him. You can either use your free will to draw closer to God or to push Him away. Heaven is without sin (αμαρτία) because no one who falls away from God remains there.

You're invoking the Satan myth as if it were evidence, but you're essentially treating a fable as a metaphysical argument. Even within the story, it just kicks the problem back a step.
If heaven is perfect and God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why was Satan - a being capable of sin - there in the first place? Why create and design a heaven so it can be broken? Why permit rebellion in a realm supposedly defined by sinlessness?
If sinless free will exists in heaven, then God could just have started humanity there. If it *can't* exist (if even angels commit sin) then the concept of "heaven without sin" collapses

So either
A: Heaven isn't sinless -> the claim fails
B: Heaven is sinless because God excludes sinners -> free will is not preserved
C: Free will is preserved but sin never occurs -> sinless free will is possible and Earth was unnecessary

All routes lead to contradiction or admission that evil was a deliberate inclusion

 

[Skitarii]

Appreciate the clarification, it means we both see the paradox as a demonstration that the Christian framework is incoherent


You're invoking the Satan myth as if it were evidence, but you're essentially treating a fable as a metaphysical argument. Even within the story, it just kicks the problem back a step.
If heaven is perfect and God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why was Satan - a being capable of sin - there in the first place? Why create and design a heaven so it can be broken? Why permit rebellion in a realm supposedly defined by sinlessness?
If sinless free will exists in heaven, then God could just have started humanity there. If it *can't* exist (if even angels commit sin) then the concept of "heaven without sin" collapses

So either
A: Heaven isn't sinless -> the claim fails
B: Heaven is sinless because God excludes sinners -> free will is not preserved
C: Free will is preserved but sin never occurs -> sinless free will is possible and Earth was unnecessary

All routes lead to contradiction or admission that evil was a deliberate inclusion

What is your understanding of "sin"?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What is your understanding of "sin"?

That depends on whether we're using "sin"as a theological term (a violation of God's will) or a moral term (a violation of someone's rights or consent)
If you mean it theologically, then you're assuming the very framework that's being questioned, that would just make the whole discussion circular
So before I answer, how are you defining it here?

 

[Skitarii]

If you mean it theologically, then you're assuming the very framework that's being questioned, that would just make the whole discussion circular

Αμαρτία means to fall short or turn away. You claim that God is not innate but make a pressupposition that sin can be defined in respect to natural rights and consent. Do you believe that natural rights are inherent in and of themselves or do you believe that they are defined by social consensus?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Αμαρτία means to fall short or turn away. You claim that God is not innate but make a pressupposition that sin can be defined in respect to natural rights and consent. Do you believe that natural rights are inherent in and of themselves or do you believe that they are defined by social consensus?

Thanks for clarifying

Αμαρτία (falling short) is not a meaningful moral category unless you specify what the standard is. Or, like, if you translate it as "missing the mark", it needs to be specified what the mark is.
If the mark is "obedience to God's will", then you've smuggled theology back in under the guise of linguistics. And if the mark is undefined or subjective, it dissolves into vagueness. So, again, the concept of "sin" only functions inside a theistic framework, and that framework is precisely what's under scrutiny.

As for your pivot, I reject your proposed dichotomy
Natural rights are not "inherent in and of themselves" nor socially constructed. They are objective facts that follow from the nature of agency and the possibility of physical conflict over scarce resources. They are discovered, not invented, just like the laws of geometry or logic. You don't need consensus to recognize that trying to have sex with someone without their consent violates their boundaries. All you need is an understanding of what a boundary is and what it means to have volition.