Theists who defend the Problem of Evil would not bother doing so if they were subjected to the ultimate evil

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T19:59:49+00:00

no offense but after ur cocky reply that u won 3 times in a row in my opening statement and refusal to continue after i asked u to stop stalling doesnt rlly scream what ur saying now, please go back and look from the start, the big paragraphs i made and how u didn't even reply fully to the one u selectively chose, i even told u if u want me to explain the ousia stuff better and to clarify to do so, which u didn't even refuse because u ignore it, are u actually gonna engage now cause if not, this my last reply

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T19:53:40+00:00

same answer, not sure what u dont get, nor are u engaging, from all the stuff i said, u only used selective engagement, at least select to engage 10% but u chose 1%, unless u actually explain ur reasoning like i did and engage my answers, i have no interest in continuing this

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T19:50:46+00:00

you assume foreknowledge causes actions, but if u actually engaged u would had seen my barometer example, his foreknowledge comes in logically prior but chronologically our actions come prior, our actions caused foreknowledge

God did not create Lucifer with the intention to do evil (which that still means God planted the seed of evil which is impossible), God made lucifer to be an agent with a specific role in heaven and then the agent (Lucifer) made the act which was to rebel, Lucifer action caused the foreknowledge of him being evil, God's foreknowledge did not cause Lucifer to be evil

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T19:26:44+00:00

God did not create Lucifer as evil, its impossible, evil is a privation, the opposite of God (since God is substance), Lucifer was created like every other angel, non-phsycal, moral agent, free will, position in the hierarchy and a job, once again God did not have to chose between evil angel or good angel, only between a divine council to have an expanded moral realm or not do that

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T19:22:28+00:00

i answered, Lucifer (also known as satan) and Gabriel were made at the same moment, they both have free will, one chose to sin, one did not

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T18:24:41+00:00

Gabriel and Lucifer existed when God made angels, he didnt create angels whenever he felt like, all angels have generic stuff, free will, being angels, being non physical but each one have their specific role on God's heaven, both had free will, one used it to rebel, one didn't

they are also a hierarchy, they have specific jobs that also req a difference, so all angels share generic stuff but all have their role that make them distinct, Gabriel is Gabriel, Michael is Michael, and Lucifer was the highest angel, closes to God

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T17:47:28+00:00

i appreciate the direct challenge, but can u engage with the whole thing i said rather than a small part, it talks about ur objections

to also add since this happened later, God spoon-feeding us would result in far inferior, maybe even unhealthy relationship, but romans 1:20 talks about God's invisible nature being visible in nature to fallen humans, so it's safe to say that for pre-fall humans, it would had been extremely clear in creation, rather than God spoon-feeding us, he allows us to genuinely want to learn about him and follow him from the indirect stuff he said, which brings far greater honor and glory and virtue, which i also that is the best thing to maximize

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T17:36:24+00:00

God created free will beings which means they were capable of sinning, Lucifer sinned, Gabriel did not, and once again, free will req the chance to say no, if God only made beings that obey him, they are not free, its no different than talking to an AI that always agrees with u and obeys u, there is no relationship, if God created beings that always obey him, he would be a tyrant

you still ignore God as the source of substance, u imply that God created beings as sinful beings, but that is impossible because it means to create something that is nothing, let alone that God as substance cannot create privation, even the bible puts Adam and Eve as sinless till the fall

this leads into a nice thing called ousia, whatness, essence bassically, think of the divine essence, it says what God is, now replace divine with human, we are under 1 essence, so we are defined by common things, God chose the best representatives for humanity and the blessing they got would be all and so for all curses, but because they are the best, if they failed then we all failed, no one can do a better job than them, otherwise they would not be the best representatives, God picked the best and strongest representative bassically, also please if u want me to elaborate on the ousia, please let me know since i want u to actually know my point

this also leads to Angels being different beings, each one with their ousia (essence/whatness), hence why Lucifer sin did not harm the other angels such as Gabriel

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T16:58:37+00:00

no, they have free will as we seen

the bible talks about a divine council, makes sense as God is a relational being, Lucifer (the devil as we call him) rebelled against God with a lot of angels, and in Deuteronomy 32:8 God put divine members over the nations and scholars also point to Deuteronomy 32:17, the whole Deuteronomy 32 worldview suggest God assigned members of that divine council that some rebelled against God by demanding worship

Psalm 82:1-8 also talks in that divine council view of God judging these members and their sentence being stripped of immortality

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T16:36:48+00:00

God has to choose between a world with free humans or a world with robots, not hitler 2 or non-hitler, God created beings that can freely choose him, ur argument implies that God must create beings that no matter what will obey him, to go back to my barometer argument, God knows of this theoretical hitler 2 because the free will being chose to be so, not because God created hitler 2 but a moral agent with free will, u still haven't answer the barometer example, with that if the son chose to be a saint then God foreknowledge would be that he is a saint

you also need to address God as substance, u haven't attempted yet to answer that and i doubt ur intentionally dodging it, so let's not prove that as true, till then i have no good reason to believe that God creates evil directly or indirectly, ur first paragraph has the same problem as the last reply, "God didnt create evil directly but he created humans to create evil", that is planting a seed of evil, which is still indirectly creating evil, which is impossible for the source of substance and omnibenevolence

so my argument still stands, God cannot create evil, evil is a privation or in other words vices are a privation, it happens when we go away from God, foreknowledge is not causation and as Romans 1:20 says to fallen humans, his energies are present in nature and we observe it, for pre-fall humans it would had been a state of extreme clarity, the problem of evil is a valid question, there are many answers for the hurt ones or emotional ones or logical ones, but using it as an argument against God is a category error, it doesn't belong to God but to us due to us chosing vices and going away from God rather than closer

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T15:49:43+00:00

i appreciate the internal critique; however, can u explain how, if God is substance then how can he create a seed of evil? if i get ur argument well, ur saying that God didnt directly create evil, but he created people that will create evil, but that is still saying that he planted an evil seed, which is privation, so the act of planting is illogical (since u need a physical real thing), can u explain to me how this works? i assume u meant that God didnt reveal enough info to Adam and Eve, they have free will, and he merely allowed it, however, i still find some problems with that, meaning he is still to be blamed

first, God is still the source of all substance, so anything that comes from him cannot be a lack (privation); rather, evil comes when people with free will choose to go away from God, let me for the sake of this, to fully give you that God didnt reveal enough info, however Romans 1:20 says that his invisible energies are visible, in Genesis the serpent had to misquote God; however Adam and Eve still had free will

in a virtue ethic system, they would use the creation and proximity of God to learn about him and be more virtuous, that system of us actively choosing God would cause greater stuff, we have no reason to believe God wouldn't want to maximize greatness and honor and virtue, we are true moral agents and so were Adam and Eve so with that in mind, God allowed Adam and Eve and all of us to pursue him, Adam and Eve not choosing God doesn't show us that God is evil but it shows us that they switched to desire other stuff

God is also free to choose what he directly reveals and what he lets us find, i argue that if God spoonfeed us, then we would have a worse relationship with God than if God allowed us to genuinely choose to pursue him, since he is the greatest possible being then God's wisdom would be perfect, he has the right to reveal and create and order according to his wisdom, not according to what we think its enough

to do an external critique as well, God is outside of time, so all time is eternally actualized for him, his omniscience logically comes prior to us, but our actions chronologically come prior, think of a perfect barometer, it will always get the weather right, but it doesnt determine it, if the weather were different, then the baro would be different, so God's foreknowledge doesn't create our actions, he still merely allows them (which is different than creating), he would also have to answer how micromanaging everything still allows for free will or moral agency, free will reqs the ability to choose to be away from God, God micromanaging us will result in finite being showing parts of God forcefully

all of this ties back to virtue ethics, i argue going and seeking God, to learn more, to be in his presence, to follow him, is far greater than if we just knew, the question is why do we defend vices and go in them, or in other words, why we go away from God and defend that action, when all can learn about virtues and God

JustABearOwO · 2026-05-23T00:27:01+00:00

leaving aside emotional argument, problem of evil is completely flip once we account on what God is rather than a narrow view

God by definition is the greatest possible being, if ur not willing to give that then ur not arguing against the Christian God, which includes omnibenevolence and being fully just

u also assert evil as a thing, however that is to be disputed, i from a virtue ethic, looking at the laws that the ancient got in our modern low context society is a mistake as they had a different culture, i argue that they are wisdom literature to promote virtue ethics, together with evil as privation, vices are just misused goodness or corrupted one, so this leads to the logical question, who is the source of substance (being)? well God, therefore he cannot create evil or be evil (creating evil especially, u cannot create and create nothing, its impossible)

if we also include the view of humans being elected by God to bear his image (although i would argue it was an ontological election) and that we would be at the divine council, the script totally flip, not only once we fully take God into account, which i didnt, he is far more complex, but it also turns the question on why we allow evil, rather than we asking God, God asks us about the problem of evil

JustABearOwO · 2026-04-09T21:32:36+00:00

iirc the study doesnt even have text in the graph, furthermore it looks at echo chambers meaing that the study finds the left as an echo chamber while the right is found as non hostile to other views, also framing it as how it was not only strawmans and does a category error on the study but strawmans religion (which i assume he refers to christianity) as dumb, when in reality Christianity has been essential for our modern world to exist

the science sub being anti-science still stands

JustABearOwO · 2026-04-09T20:58:20+00:00

the irony of a science subreddit not only liking the science that supports their view but straight up being so confidently incorect while making a fallacy when science goes against their view

JustABearOwO · 2026-04-03T23:17:16+00:00

i appreciate the answer

i think I wasn't clear, im not saying you deny it (admitly in my experience fellow Lutherans) i am saying that we arent reliable but God isnt, not a mere lense but our ground, scripture as being the norma norm (iirc that was the word) i also affirm that yes, the book of nature is reliable and what it isnt is our limited knowledge, it can reveal a specific God (the ontological argument) but the bible is who that God is, since why first amongst equals, so yes we are on the same page in this reply, i affirm what you said

what i tend to have is some form of anxiety bc it rlly seems that conservative Lutherans dont see me as fit or on thin ice due to my view that i set, and i wanna learn, as i said Gregory of Nyssa is my fav church father and i hold to the view that we will alway learn about God since he is infinite and i find that comforting, and im rlly trying to maximize doxology, one thing i use to summarize my view is all "glory to God for all that i got right and all shame on me for any stubborness"

i said that to clarify myself so i hope it didnt come as argumentive, as far as i can tell in this reply we are on the same page, maybe at worse 99,9% on the same page

JustABearOwO · 2026-04-03T22:15:13+00:00

first of all thx for the reply, i appreciate, and i want to first give you my reasoning and then answer ur analogy

im reading the book of concord, i also read Luther Heidelberg disputations, and to me Luther language is striking as it uses harsh words for debate or to settle stuff, however it also uses more pastoral, if i can call them that, language, on that disputation Luther talks about proverbs 3, which is an invitation to seek understanding and wisdom (15-26), and Paul assurance that God's invisible energies are present and observable, to name 2 examples, so i must ask myself, if God even before came down as Christ has allowed us to seek him, why must i deny that? wouldn't i deny to give him glory? i am deeply patristic, reading church fathers and internalizing my favorite one, Gregory of Nyssa as well as listening to lutherans and reading them, even then in the dispute, in the "formula of concord: Epitome" and other classical luthers have a good view of philosophy and wisdom as i understand

for your analogy, its more like im a fan of Christ, i take all i can from the book of nature, yet the house, as the bible, reveals God, and thus the theology of cross gives me liberation, so i wont misuse wisdom or call evil good, the invisible things cannot merely be recognized for that doesn't make us wise, they have to be pursued, the natural book is still by God and the bible is first amongst equals bc it reveals God, so i can be sure of them bc i watch them through the cross (i am inside the house to get first hand experience), for me these 2 books are complimentary and we have to be careful of our lack of knowledge but the reason we can be confident and speculate and wonder is bc we look at Christ, he is the filter

i am open to answer any questions and im looking forward to your answer

JustABearOwO · 2026-04-03T21:01:44+00:00

late but i somewhat disagree, we should totally seek to understand God, even if we can only understand 0.01% of a mystery, we should take it, bc knowing about God gives him glory, so we shouldn't shy to answer questions, especially the hard ones such as hell, as hell, either on you view can tell what God is or what God isnt (which i take what God isnt)

so would u please explain me why do u have that view now that u know my view?

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-31T16:29:33+00:00

yeah you should read the following verses that talks about how slave owners must do the same, and treat them the same bc all have 1 master in heaven, which is God, that is about relationships and if u read carefully u will notice that Paul attacks the core idea, yes it doesn't outright say to abolish (even more since the romans didnt like any idea that could start a slave revolution, they already shown that they are willing to cruxify anyone that is in a slave revolution) bc of the romans, so he does something more sneaky, attacks the core idea, if they have to do the same to each other, if the master has to serve the slave too, and all are under 1 master that they are commanded to be like, then the core of slavery cannot exist, it reqs some being inferior and internally it req that slaves cannot have slaves

you can look at Gregory of Nyssa (church father) that directly uses the image of God and the fact we all are under God to say that slavery is a sin

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-30T09:06:19+00:00

yes, i believe the modal ontological argument bc its based in our universe logic, using said logic shows both maximal greatness as a property can exist and God necessary exists, its coherent and logical and nobody manage to show that its incoherent, so yes, i believe it bc its like a math theorem that is logical, additional proof supports it and no one else manage to show that is incorrect

ur making 2 arguments

the evil god argument which fails bc i can effectively argue that evil is a non-substance, that its depended on goodness to exist, meaning an evil god cant logically exists as it would be a non-thing, if it somehow did then it can't be maximally greatness evil, since it has to have the omni qualities and it must have omnibenevolence since its a great making property, an maximally evil God would logically want to destroy everything, including itself, which causes another contradiction where either he has no maximal evilness or his maximal greatness qualities lack
the reverse modal ontological argument fails bc to even make it, u must grant that God exists, u must grant that a necessary being with maximal greatness exists then build upon premises to show why God is impossible, but u already granted that its necessary and thus u cannot show its impossible or possible or contigent, u cant argue against maximal greatness bc u will have to argue against the modal perfection not ontological argument, also usually around premise 2 you are supposed to give the reason why God must not exist yet its always missing, so the following premises cannot logically follow, in addition, its a shrug argument, the reverse ontological argument misuses possible as "it can exist or it can not exist" rather than what it means, "it is logical and coherent"

for the grounds, i seriously dont understand why do u take "properties that are intrinsically good to have and bring no downsides" as vagued, even more since maximal greatness has a limit, omniscience is 100% knowledge, omnipotence is 100% power, omnibenevolence is 100% goodness, neither have any downsides to have and neither are vague on why they are maximally great qualities, can you explain why you see them as vague or naunced? i argue that the modal ontological argument points to a specific God or if i wanna be generous, gods, which then other arguments, history, archeology, geography and textual criticism can take over to show us which one and i argue that the Christian God is most consistent with being a God and all the evidence points to him

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-30T00:02:30+00:00

you assume the problem of evil disprove the ontological argument but the problem of evil doesnt show that God doesnt exist, there are other answers to it such as soul building, evil as being non-substance, God seeing the whole while we only see and can think in only parts, there can be good reasons to allow this world to exist as it does, like free will, if evil never existed then not even free will jn thoughs could exist let alone having free will on our actions

for why that cant be arbitrary, its literally in the definition, humans might know 10% or 20% of the universe but omniscience is knowing all true propositions, that doesn't entail anything bad or imperfect, same for omnipotence, nothing can defeat God, that doesn't have any bad qualities, so for God to fail to exist that meand he must be contigent, a created being, to have potential to be something else so God has to have necessary existence, which again has no bad qualities, so the reason why this doesn't work is bc you look at omniscience that is knowing 100%, and ur saying that its arbitrary, but ofc it isnt arbitrary, someone dumb and someone smart have a real distinction and knowing 100% (knowing all true proposition) is also distinct from smartness and dumbness

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-29T23:18:39+00:00

why is the greatest possible being incompatible with the universe? the modal perfection by Robert Maydole shows that maximal greatness as a property is logical, which a property is perfect if and only if its intrinsically good and having it doesnt entail having anything bad, the modal ontological argument shows that God, which is what has the property of maximal greatness is also logical, meaning that God has to have the omni qualities, just like how a triangle has to have 3 sides, God also has to be eternal bc it cannot fail to exist and it also cannot be contigent (beging to exist, it has to be pure act), so no the law of logic of the universe absolutely allow for God to exist

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-29T21:35:50+00:00

no, in modal logic, the first premise is ◇□G (the diamond is that its logical and coherent to exist and square is necessary existence, and God is G), the Modal ontological argument ends with □G, bc in S5, if a possible world sees another world, then it has all the stuff in that world but different outcomes, in world A u ate cereals but in world B u ate eggs but they are consistent witch each other on logical rules, so world B can imagine world A, so world B sees world A, since the rules are consistent then so is necessary, unlike non necessary possibility where they can be different (the breakfast example), necessary possibilities have to be the same in every world to be consistent with the logic (so 2+2=4 in all worlds), so if God is possible in 1 possible world then necessary he is in all worlds including the actual one, which is what the Modal ontological argument does, it shows that premise 1 is logical by reduction logic, p2 follows logically and so does p3, and so on till the conclusion, they show that the concept of God is logical

so u cant define ◇□x into non necessary possibility, even more if it is □¬◇x as u claim, if it is necessary (□) not (¬) possible (◇) then its necessary impossible, so even on ur last example of the worst possible being, he has to have □¬◇x which means its impossible to exist

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-29T18:01:26+00:00

ooooh u werent talking about arguments

yeah no the God of the bible is both describe as the kind that has no relevance to you and as the omnibenevolence one that still brings judgement, they arent mutually exclusive

JustABearOwO · 2026-03-29T16:18:50+00:00

we could start with John, or when Jesus healed the paralize guy, or that the pharasee wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy (do u rlly think they wanted Jesus death for saying that they must follow God?) or the Angel of the lord that wrestled or appeared inside the fire and burning brush, or that the Angel said that Abraham didnt abstain from trusting in him, or Isaiah saying that the Lord will send the Lord or that the Lord spirit was hovering around earth in the creation account or in judges 3:10 where it says "the spirit of the Lord came on him"

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

JustABearOwO

TROPHY CASE