>

I'm saying they're each seperate premisise (idk how to spell plural premisis or whatever) and I'm simply saying they contradict eachother, so you can take one but not all three. And I'm working within the premesisisis to attempt to prove that by showing where it falls apart.
Not a Christian, but I don't think that's an accurate understanding of the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Most often the argument seems to be that evil is a consequence of God creating beings with free will. Your understanding would imply that Christians believe our reality is the best possible reality, which they obviously do not. >

How could they not? How could an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity not create the best of all possible worlds.  
If it could have created a better would and didn't, it's not omnibenevolent. 
If a better world exists, and it can't create it, it's not omnipotent. >

You're just restating the problem of evil here in different terms. I already explained what I think is the most common Christian answer to the problem of evil in the comment above. >

Yeah but that would imply that free will is somehow worth the suffering it brings, also there are studies to show most people have a lot less free will than they think just by changing environmental factors, so in my opinion it's possible free will is an illusion >

Christians do think free will is worth the suffering it brings. They think that a world where everyone was forced to be good and worship God would be less meaningful and therefore less worthwhile compared to a world where everyone willingly chose to be good and worship God despite having the ability not to.
I'm not sure it matters what science implies about free will. Your view specifically addressed Christians and you are thus presumably looking for the Christian perspective on this issue. Christians almost universally believe free will exists. If you want to argue that they're wrong about that, be my guest, but that's a separate conversation from the view of yours we're trying to change in this thread. >

But then the question is shifted, why doesn't god just make a world where everyone is good that's just as meaningful as this one? If he can, but doesn't, he's not omnibenevolent, if he can't, he's not omnipotent. >


make a world where everyone is good that's just as meaningful as this one

Are you proposing that an omnipotent being should be able to change the moral value of something? I guess that gets into the Euthyphro dilemma where we have to ask if what's valuable is determined by God or is valuable independently of him. But I think usually Christians would say that it's the latter. Just like God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3 because that just doesn't logically make sense, he also can't make it meaningful to have a world without free will. That's not inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence. >


Just like God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3 because that just doesn't logically make sense

Pretty sure he could. A lot of miracles straight up defy known laws of reality, and also doesn't Genesis imply that God also made the natural laws? If Jesus can turn water into wine just by touching it, or God could ignite a bush without a lighter, why couldn't he make it so that 1 + 1 = 3? The whole thing with Jesus multiplying fish and loaves of bread already messes with the laws of division. >

There’s a difference between physically impossible and logically impossible. Things like food magically replicating as it changes hands through a crowd, a bush igniting for no reason, water turning into wine, and so on are all physically impossible, but not logically impossible. Things like these cannot happen under ordinary circumstances, but they still make sense to talk about—they’re logically coherent ideas. Making it true that 1 + 1 = 3 is actually logically impossible, in the same vein as making water that isn’t wet, or making a boulder too heavy for an omnipotent entity to lift. >

You are a consequentialist, if you believe that any action can be good because the ultimate outcome it contributes to is good.
Christians, and by implication their God, are not consequentialists.  They believe that some things are Sins and everything else isn't.  
Sins are morally wrong in and of themselves, completely independently of any causes or consequences they may have.
There is no reason to think that a world run by an omnibenevolent being would contain no sins. It may be that without the opportunity to sin, being moral actually is meaningless, and everyone is better off if the system allows for sin.  It may be that all the sinless universes exist, but it is still good that this universe exist also.  Or it may be some other ineffable thing that human's can't guess or understand. >

Yes I was following a consequentialist line to it's logical conclusion because I've heard it used by christians and want to attempt to debunk it if I can or find out why I can't if I can't >

For God to prevent evil things to happen, it means he's intervening/controlling. If he's controlling, then that means we're not in control. If we're not in control, then that means we're robots.
Take Hitler for example. Suppose he wanted to start WW2, but God decided to tell him and not do it. But Hitler doesn't want to listen to God and tries to do it anw. So then God starts controlling Hitler to not do it. At what point should God let go of his control over Hitler for Hitler to not do anything evil.
Also. Your standard of evil is different from everyone. You may think abortion is right, but others think it's wrong (or vice versa).
For you to claim that there is good and evil, it means there's a moral standard. If there's an objective moral standard, then it means there's a creator/ruler/judge to made it. If there is no moral standard, it means it's subjective. So if it's subjective, don't claim that "God allows evil" when your definition of evil is different from others. >

And what is morally justifiable about giving us free will? Like isn't it more moral to create robots that follow morality than this world of suffering? Also god has free will and is said to be all good, so why couldn't we have been made to be the same, all good and with free will?
I feel the argument about objective/subjective morality is a seperate discussion, but I'm happy to have it if you want. Over here I'm simply saying god allows things that go against gods own system of morality, and we can infer principles in gods morality and apply the same principles to gods actions. >

God has free will and chooses to be good. He can still commit acts of evil, but chooses not to. Just in the same way that if you can commit an act of evil without anyone ever knowing or you ever getting caught, you wouldn't do it (I would hope you wouldn't).
Free will and being robots are not relatable. You either have free will or you don't. 
The beauty in free will is that it includes love. It means when we love someone, it's of our own choosing and we're not some preprogrammed robots that's forced to love someone. Restricting free will is the same thing as a robot IMO, cause if you restrict them it opens up whole issue like the Trolley Dilemma. >

Is knowing that your love is real worth the suffering in the world? Isn't moral robots not as bad? >

why would that be the only other option, also, there's a reason we file Brave New World with the dystopias or, for an ancient example (albeit one pre-Christianity) why those reading The Odyssey aren't supposed to envy the Lotus-Eaters >

The point of Christianity and otherr religions is to impact the way we behave on earth. Moral and good people will go to heaven and bad will not. 
You don’t have to believe >

So if I don't mind going to hell I can do whatever the hell I want? Morality is just a guide book to get to heaven? I thought christians believe however sinful you are if you believe and ask forgiveness you go to heaven, then what's the point of morality? >

If you don’t believe in hell and have no fear of it, then do whatever the fuck you want. I agree with you there. It is mainly just Catholics that can just confess their sins and be forgiven >

I grew up around various non denominational protestants and they all said if you believe and ask forgiveness you go to heaven >

I don’t know much about it so I believe you >

Before  answer, I am an atheist. In every religion, their God(s) have clearly underlined what humans can and can't do. If someone breaks those boundaries, then their action is not justified. They will then either have to make up for their sin or suffer. >

Also atheist, at least agnostic-atheist, and my understanding of modern christianity is that sins are forgiven not atoned for >

The sins are forgiven, but you have to ask for them to be. The atonement is the remorse you show about committing the sins. >

Even when I was christian growing up and pled forgiveness I felt no remorse... I fully understood my actions and their consequences but simply couldn't feel any guilt or anything. >

If you aren't sorry for what you did and you ask for forgiveness, wouldn't an omniscient god know this? Would your sins be forgiven if you don't mean it? That might be a topic for another CMV. >

I was sorry. I didn't feel bad because there was no emotional response and I don't know why. >

This assumes that this god would be bound by human ideas around morality. There is no reason to believe moral standards that humans have developed or are meant to follow, is the same as the standards an all powerful being should follow. >

The idea of goodness in a moral sense is quite clearly articulated in the christian theology, and they say god is all good, so I'm measuring by that standard, as far as I'm able >

God can be all good, but what does good look like for an all powerful god? What does love look like on a universal scale from an omnipotent standpoint? what’s good and bad for humans to do is articulated in the Bible. The same can not be said for lions or rats, right? Just as humans abide by different moral standards than animals, an all powerful, all knowing god could do the same. It’s possible that from an all knowing perspective, god is all good and all loving, even as its creations commit evil, and you just can’t tell from your human perspective. >

Well I don't think love looks like the meaningless suffering we find here on earth. Maybe I'm just a limited human being that can't comprehend gods grand plan of suffering and rape and killing and disease and natural disaster... >

We are talking about an all powerful being here. One that can rewrite reality at will and knows everything…there really is no way to understand the motivations of any being on that level. For all you know, this whole thing  could seem like a dream that lasted 1 second in the grand scheme of eternal life, or something like that. Idk. >

The two things would be unrelated.
The only way that "anything I do is morally justifiable" would be true is if there was a morally-absolute  god who was also predetermining every action. >

Is that not what christians believe? >

No, most variants of Christianity believe in an all knowing, all seeing god but one that hasn't predetermined every action.
Calvinism is the main branch of Christianity that believes in pre-destination but mostly even they believe it's an outline rather than a detailed plan...a bit like when a film director has a script but let's actors improv a few lines here and there.
In general, Christians believe in free will and personally responsibility. >


... all of the suffering and evil in the world must have some unseen good consequences, however obvious to us or not, because a loving god would not permit such things to happen without a good reason.

The reality is that a triple-omni God (good, knowing, powerful) is incompatible with our observed reality. "Unseen good consequences" isn't a viable explanation for the suffering we see in the world because any good end could be achieved without the suffering by an all-powerful God, an all-knowing God would also know what it is and how to do it, which means that any suffering which exists is gratuitous which is incompatible with said God being "good".
We know then that at least one of those omni features must be lacking so your conclusion is unjustifiable. >

Yeah I agree with you, I'm just getting at what I feel is another flaw in the modern christian line of logic >

I would suggest you study other religions as well. If you are American, chances are your exposure to religion is pretty minor. Knowledge of other religions could be tainted and limited to what the media potrays. 
Since we spend time shopping around for clothes,etc even do some research on what type of phone to buy, why not give God a chance. A little bit of research on faith before concluding anything. The truth may be out there for you to discover and probably then you may realise it just fits. Or conclude religion is not for you. ✌ >

Grew up in a european christian missionary family in a muslim country and did a few years of school in india. I'm young but I've been taking what I believe into my own hands and tried to be critical about a lot more things over the last few years. More recently I've been watching a lot of debates of atheists and agnostics with religious speakers and wanted to know if a certain idea I had made any sense.
Atm I believe philosophical discussion and principles, derived out of our experience of the world is extremely useful and important, spirituality is of some significant importance but can't really be empirical, and that religious dogma can keep peace and community but is often more counterproductive than it's worth. >

Glad to know someone so young already exploring the idea of God. You are in the right path.  
In that case, imho, My God put us into this world to be tested, to be kind to one another. We are each given a path and each given a guide to follow the path. However, we are also given intellect to choose which choices or intersection to take. And each choice will lead you to a different experience and consequences.
This leads to heaven and hell and karma on earth.  The path you are given is unique. Some are given illness, relationship challenges, etc. It does not mean God does not love you or cannot create a perfect world as we were promised of a perfect world in heaven.  
If all choices lead you to heaven, then there is no incentive to do good? >

Yeah I kinda like some of what I've heard about the concept of karma, and I'm learning more about it. I disagree with the idea of a tri-omni god though because I think it's contradictory and not reflected in our world. I also dislike the idea that we all have some special path or that the world is somehow fair, idk maybe that contradicts the notion of karma.
The incentive to do good is to make a better world because it's a world you live in, and we're all connected so indirectly, every living being is one, and you're part of that. Basically the meaning of life is this grand scale selfishness lol, but that is what love is, and like empathy is you feeling hurt when someone else is hurt so you care because of your hurt on their behalf. >

look up kifarah (Islamic) similar to karma (Buddist, Hindu).
And I disagree on your incentive to do good. Only the good people would have the self discipline to do that. What about bad people who dont give a damn, how do you coax them to come over to the good side 😊 >

Even a psychopath cares about themself so if they realise that everyone and everything is part of who they are then they might care. And this isn't a game of coaxing, that's just deception, this is a game of let's go find the truth and believe that and act accordingly. >

A Muslim here.
From my understanding, it isn't that everything bad will eventually lead to something good. Sometimes, somethings can't be controlled, like things with human influence. If those things turned bad, it's because the freedom of choice God gave that human.
In addition, I think a bad thing, decided by God to happen, would lead to eventually a bad thing, too, but it is humans understanding that it's bad and try to make it not happen again that might lead to a good ending of that bad event.
So if humans don't come to that realization, which is eventually their freedom of choice and understanding, that thing, decided by God to happen, will lead to just a bad thing, too. >

I like this approach, it's more consistent than the christians I talk to at least >

Glad you liked it. >

The abrahamic religions tend to define "goodness" as synonymous with God. If that's the case, rejecting God or God's teachings is rejecting goodness, which cannot be "good." And if it's not good, it's not morally justifiable.
God allowing you to do evil is not the same as God condoning evil.
The "everything happens for a reason" schtick is not a core religious teaching. And neither is the idea that "God doesn't give you challenges you can't overcome." They're a comforting reassurance that you'll be able to grow through it, not religious doctrine.
Unless you're a calvinist. But those people are weird. And if that's what you believe, you're already damned or saved. But if you're in the damned group, that doesn't mean your acts are morally justified. It just means you're expendable from God's POV, and your sacrifice and suffering is morally good. Because God. >

God can intervene, and in the bible, he does, so clearly when he doesn't, it's practically the same as allowing or causing it right? An omniscient god creating the universe can see all the consequences of doing so in the way he does so and yet still does, so that's like dropping a match in a wooden house, you didn't directly burn the roof, but you indirectly did. >

Can does not mean has to or always does. Allowing something to happen is not the same as encouraging it. 
And no, it's not like dropping a match in a wooden house. It's like building a wooden house and giving the new owners a box of matches. Their choice to burn it down for a tiktok video doesn't mean you indirectly burned it down.
You're looking at free will and saying "if god (exists and) has the power to restrict free will in order to prevent people from making bad choices, god's refusal to do so means those choices aren't actually bad." But you're assuming that restricting free will is a good thing. What if it's not? What if the opportunity to choose is itself a moral good? Then restricting it would be evil, regardless of the fact that it would prevent some other harms.
You're just constructing a messy trolley problem, and that you think diverting the trolley is the moral choice does not mean everyone necessarily agrees with you. >

But he created the world, including the suffering, and he knew what he was doing, so he was indirectly causing it not just allowing it. Also in the bible he intervenes sometimes, but not always, so since he can but doesn't, he's basically causing it
Why is he giving the new owners a box of matches? To 'glorify him' so he feels better while they burn alive?
What makes choosing a moral good?
I'm saying god made a trolley problem for himself and could've simply not made it basically >

Unless "the opportunity to choose is itself a moral good[.]"
What makes choosing a moral good? I don't know, man, but I like free will. Would you sign up for a microchip brain implant that interfered with your thought processes to prevent you from making bad choices?
And sure, religious people believe God set up the universe this way. But you're forgetting where we started in my first comment.

The abrahamic religions tend to define "goodness" as synonymous with God.

If free will is good, it's good. "But what if it isn't?" That's an interesting question, but it's not what most christians believe. To get to your view, you're rejecting the base premise of their belief and then saying that they ought to do so as well.
They do not. And since they do not, religion does not lead to your conclusion. You're operating in a hypothetical. >

So they believe since god did create it it must be worth it?
I feel you've at least highlighted how different my approach is from christians, for that !delta >

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Not-your-lawyer- changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Former Christian here. 
“Anything I do is morally justifiable” only makes sense if you believe the idea of morality belongs to God/religion. It does not.
Let’s just take God out of the picture for a minute. Human beings have survived the evolutionary process by means of communication and cooperation. Our ability to work together, and our willingness to not present a threat to each other allowed us to build communities, cities, and nations. Those basic ideas of decency (don’t kill, steal, etc) are non-godly moral concepts written into law that nearly everyone agrees is fair. You can’t simply undermine all of morality because you found a line of logic that undermines God. >

I agree with you, my argument is a challenge to the modern christian perspective >

So basically: "If [unknowable thing] is true then [literally anything] is true."
How do you argue with that? >

Welcome to religious debate >

Morally by what moral standard? Anything anyone does can be "morally justifiable" it just depends on what measures of morals you are applying. >

God's morals. He "inspired" a whole ass book on them, if you're Christian. >


world run by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being

God doesn't run the world.  If he did everyone would follow the same religion.  We have free will to either follow God(or whatever ideology you subscribe too) teachings or not.  Free will is shown all over religious texts with examples of people outright disobeying God(s) and facing the consequences. >

The Christian God, at least, is stated as being all-knowing, past, present, and future. So he knows what we are going to do before we do it. How is that free will. 
How about the Pharoah from the Old Testament where God hardens Pharaoh's heart so that he would not acquiesce to Mose's demands. Did the Pharoah have free will then? >

Rabbi Moses ben Nachmanides, also known as the Ramban, offered an explanation that is both counterintuitive and brilliantly insightful. The Ramban explains that by hardening his heart, God was actually granting free will to Pharaoh. Had God not done so, Pharaoh’s actions would not have been a true reflection of his will. Pharaoh would have been influenced by events, by the plagues, capitulating to the difficulties while wishing that he could act differently. Though Pharaoh may have truly wanted to defy God and retain the Jews as slaves, the hardships brought about by the plagues would have compelled the king to act differently >

Then what was the point of the plaques? Were they simply there to cause suffering? God, at one point, talks about being responsible for rain and good harvests for the cultures that did not worship him. Why commit horrors against them if the point was to get the Jews freed from the Egyptians. But then make it so that they are not going to acquiesce. It seems backward and cruel. So why do it that way in the first place? >

Don't know I was just talking about free will side of things. >

Yes, but you skipped my first point in my first response. 
Also, that still would not be free will. Pharoah was manipulated into his choice. Whether he would have refused without the plagues is irrelevant, they happened. Changing your mind or bending to pressure are a part of free will. So he was manipulated one way and then manipulated back that still is not free will. As he was manipulated both times. >

Ok well think of it this way what if God is all powerful and therefore he made Pharoah in the first place knowing the roll he will play in the future, why didn't he just make him born with a hard heart?  The fact that god hardened his heart in that one case means pharoah had free will up until that point.  God still needed these plagues for his plan to come to fruition.  And I don't pretend to understand what God wants there but he really wanted 10 plagues so he was gonna get them.  So free will exists or god never would have had to harden his heart at the 5th plague. >

Okay, so if free will exists, why did God not just let Pharoah free the slaves. He knows everything that will happen, so he knew Pharoah was going to release the Jews, but he just really wanted ten plagues, so even knowing the first 5 were going to be enough why bother doing all 10, once the Jews where freed. Why commit atrocities, needlessly.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus >

God could but doesn't because he does not meddle in free will (very often except if you are Pharaoh and Moses needs to flex on you 10 times to show off God's majesty or whatever) >

So he is able to stop all evil but is not willing too. That would make him a malevolent God.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
Marcus Aurelius >

I'd you posit those things and that God judges what is and isn't moral and gives you choice then you si.ply don't understand why that is God being good.
The circular aspect of good, omnipotent good isn't a problem if human understanding is shy of God's omniscience.  God would have you work on it, you just don't understand.
If you posit those aspects of God then you have to live with them. >

I'm sorry do you mind rephrasing this a bit? I don't quite follow >

You're treating the claims of god's existence, goodness and omnipotence as things that can be proven or disproven.  The are premises, not subject to observations, critique, etc.  If you see something that makes it impossible for them to be true it is because you don't understand.  
If you do something evil then evil exists in the world.  The classic argument is of course that therefore god must not be good, afterall he has the power to stop evil and does not.  However, the problem here is that god's goodness isn't up for debate - it's a premise.  Maybe he's not omnipotent - the other classic turn on this discussion.  Well...of course he is, that's a premise.  Maybe he doesn't exist!  Well...that's also a premise.  You're really only left with one possibility unless you reject the premises of the discussion which is that there is something you don't understand about "good" as it relates to your evil actions.  This must simply be beyond your (our) comprehension.
The point is that if you put out a framework with premises you can't then go on to disprove the premises when they aren't premises based on observation, measurement, etc.  
It's a bit like inventing the number 1 as we know it and then going on to argue that 1 = 2.  You have to unwind what the number 1 you invented is to do that.
Your alternative is to actually believe that god is knowable and we can create some empirical knowledge of god's power, knowledge and existance.  But...in my view this is not the idea of god at all - by the very nature of what god is we cannot know him directly so we must treat all his qualities as premises.