(October 12, 2026 at 8:22 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 7:23 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

An omnipotent and perfectly good god could do without, per defintion.

You argue that because God is all-powerful and perfectly good, He must prevent evil.

What makes preventing evil an obligation for God, rather than a choice He has the power to make?

Explain why He must, not merely why He can.

(October 12, 2026 at 9:55 am)Ravenshire Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 6:46 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Absolutely. I intend to dominate this platform through sound reasoning and arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not here to seek approval or win popularity contests. I'm here to challenge claims, expose flawed reasoning, and defend my position.

If you have an argument, bring it. If you're more interested in reading the room, take a seat and remain a spectator.

Mark these words, Im the last one to the race and will be the last one standing. My opponents are gonna KNOW MY NAME!

Good luck with that, chew toy. 

I challenged you to bring an argument, and your best response was “chew toy.”

You're doing a remarkable job of demonstrating why you belong in the audience rather than the debate. 

(October 12, 2026 at 12:32 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 7:04 am)Silas Vane Wrote: 1) This is a very bad and weak argument, but I get it, You dont have the brain power to come up with an argument that you can create so you try and stand on the shoulders of someone who lived a long time ago but had no real understanding of cause and effect.

2) If this was your one shot at stardom, bruh you need Jesus more than youre willing to admit. Here is my reply.

3) Epicurus' argument rests on an assumption you've yet to establish: that God who is both willing and able to prevent evil must therefore prevent all evil.


4) Why?
Being able to prevent something doesn't automatically establish an obligation to prevent it.

5) Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

6) Now demonstrate why God's failure to prevent evil necessarily makes Him either powerless or malevolent.

7) Until you establish that connection, quoting Epicurus is a brain-dead move. You're borrowing someone else's conclusion without establishing the reasoning that makes it true.

1) It's pretty hilarious that you don't address the argument at all, label it weak with handwaving, then save the real comedy gold until last by using an ad hominem fallacy, FWIW that is the very definition of a weak argument. 

2) More ad hominem, and a bare claim, tell me again about weak arguments. 

3) Priceless, but if you read it slowly and carefully, you might find that he made no such assumption, and used qualifying statements, and I never claimed everyone's concept of deity was the same. 

4) No indeed, as Epicurus points out in that very quote, a deity could conceivably just be malevolent. for example, the deity depicted in the bible certainly fits that idea. 

5) This weak argument fails to actually address the deity depicted in the bible, and of course fails to understand and therefore address Epicurus's argument, so it also fails as a logical extrapolation of that argument. 

6) I don't believe any deity exists, and Epicurus's argument doesn't address all concept of deities of course. Since you brought your belief here, why don't you properly define the deity you imagine exists first, and then I can address it. In the meantime it is a pretty obvious contradiction to claim a deity is moral, let alone perfectly moral, and is both omniscient and omnipotent, and yet allows, and even causes suffering, to me anyway, but then it without unnecessary suffering as a metric, the word moral pretty much loses all meaning to me.  

7) Epicurus's argument seems to have really triggered you, and it is you who has failed to understand that his conclusions are not absolutes, they are qualified by and follow logically from the preceding concepts of deity. 

Maybe take a deep breath, ease up on the ad hominem, and try understanding what is and more importantly is not being said, before you let your emotions lead your reasoning.

You've written seven points, but your central argument still rests on an assumption you haven't established.

You claim that a perfectly good, all-powerful God permitting suffering is a contradiction.

Yet you've introduced unnecessary suffering as your standard for judging morality.

So how have you established that the suffering God permits is unnecessary?

God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others. The existence of suffering doesn't automatically establish that God has no good reason to permit it.

You cannot treat what you need to prove as something you've already proven.

Quoting Epicurus doesn't establish your missing premise. Defend it.

(October 12, 2026 at 12:52 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 7:23 am)Silas Vane Wrote: 1) Epicurus' argument rests on an assumption you've yet to establish: that a God who is both willing and able to prevent evil must therefore prevent all evil.


2) Why?
Being able to prevent something doesn't automatically establish an obligation to prevent it.

3) Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

4) Now demonstrate why God's failure to prevent evil necessarily makes Him either powerless or malevolent.

5) Until you establish that connection, quoting Epicurus is a brain-dead move. You're borrowing someone else's conclusion without establishing the reasoning that makes it true.

1) No it doesn't, read it again more carefully, he qualifies his conclusions, basking "is god...." then draws logical extrapolations that highlight contradictions with other concepts some people hold about deities. 

2) That is one moral viewpoint, it's not one I share of course, but my moral worldview attempts to empathise, if I was malevolent, or barbarically cruel, like the deity depicted in the bible for example, then I might think my own decisions and actions were more important than the suffering and death of humans, again as the deity depicted in the bible clearly does, but it would then be nonsensical to assert that such a deity were perfectly moral or merciful. In fact a deity wishing and causing harm or intense ill will towards others is the very definition of malevolent, as Epicurus points out.  

3) If you mean hypothetically, then yes, but it would still be malevolent to allow suffering one could easily prevent, let alone directly cause it and encourage others to do the same, as the deity depicted in the bible does.  

4) It doesn't necessarily, but then you have misrepresented Epicurus's argument by omitting part of it, characteristics like omniscience and omnipotence for example. Now I don't believe any deity exists, but if it did, and deliberately caused suffering it could easily avoid, or even allowed unnecessary suffering it could easily prevent, then it would be malevolent by definition, and cruelly indifferent to suffering, as of course the deity depicted in the bible is, murdering indiscriminately, even genocidally, endorsing slavery, torturing a newborn baby to death over 7 days, etc etc, to name just a few. 

5) That ad hominem is a bit rich, given you clearly have failed to understand what Epicurus is saying.

You also failed to address my question:

Do you believe anything happens without your god's will? 

If the deity you imagine is real differs to the concepts of deity in Epicurus's argument, then fine, but try explaining how it differs and evidencing your claims, instead of using childish insults.

You're still confusing God's permission of evil with God's approval of evil.

To answer your question: Nothing happens outside God's sovereign knowledge and permission. That doesn't mean everything that happens is something God morally approves of.

God can permit evil actions and accomplish His purposes through them without endorsing those actions. Genesis 50:20 establishes that distinction.

You repeatedly describe suffering as unnecessary, then conclude that God is malevolent for permitting it.

How have you established that God has no morally sufficient reason to permit that suffering?

Calling God malevolent doesn't establish your conclusion. Demonstrate the reasoning behind it.

You previously called me a clown, yet now you're complaining about insults?

You introduced that standard of discourse. Don't suddenly pretend to be offended when it's applied to you.

More importantly, neither your insults nor mine establish whether an argument is sound.

So dispense with the personal commentary and defend your claims.

Step up and let's argue!

(October 14, 2026 at 8:06 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You argue that because God is all-powerful and perfectly good, He must prevent evil.

What makes preventing evil an obligation for God, rather than a choice He has the power to make?

Explain why He must, not merely why He can.

If you claim that god is good, then it is expected that he will do good things.

If you say for some guy standing on a street that he is a good guy, but later on you see kids passing through this street and getting killed without this guy doing anything, although he could have easily saved those kids, then you wouldn't claim that this is a good guy. Same with god.

(October 14, 2026 at 8:06 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 8:22 am)Deesse23 Wrote: An omnipotent and perfectly good god could do without, per defintion.

You argue that because God is all-powerful and perfectly good, He must prevent evil.

What makes preventing evil an obligation for God, rather than a choice He has the power to make?

Explain why He must, not merely why He can.

If a god does not prevent evil, a "more perfectly good" one can be envisioned who would. Feel free to (pro)claim that your god wont/cant prevent evil, but then hes either not all powerful or not perfectly good. Which quality is your god missing? 

Which part of "perfectly good and all poweerful vs existence of evil" do you have problems processing?

Ill give you another problem of your "theology" if we may: If your god has to "choose", as you say, he cant be all knowing. all knowing being dont have to choose, they already know..... 

Your god, according to your "theology" is either not all powrful or not perfectly good and he certainly is not all knowing.

(October 12, 2026 at 1:30 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 7:51 am)Silas Vane Wrote: I agree that knowledge and moral authority are different things.
You claim moral authority comes from facts about existence.
So what facts establish that your moral judgment has the same authority as God's?

It's not the same, since humans are objectively real, so unless someone can demonstrate that any deity is real then the question is nonsensical. However even as a hypothetical, claiming a deity has moral authority over humans, and can do whatever it wants with them, would effectively be arguing that we are slaves, even if such a deity existed, I'd have no moral obligation to recognise the authority of a slave owner, let alone a barbarically cruel and indifferent slave owner like the one imagined in the bible.

You've equated divine authority with slave ownership, but you've yet to establish why one necessarily entails the other.

Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. The Creator entered His own creation, took on human nature, experienced suffering, and willingly gave His life for humanity.

How does a God who willingly subjects Himself to suffering and sacrifice for those under His authority fit your definition of a cruel and indifferent slave owner?

And before dismissing that question, remember that we're examining your hypothetical characterisation of the biblical God. 

You speak as though you know the God of the Bible, yet your arguments consist largely of accusations.

What actual knowledge of Scripture are you basing these judgments on?

Are these conclusions you've reached through studying the biblical accounts yourself, or have you simply borrowed accusations and ad hominem attacks from other critics without examining the evidence or context?

You were quick to accuse me of ad hominem reasoning. Now demonstrate that your own accusations are supported by something more substantial than inflammatory language.

Show me the biblical foundation for your claims, and demonstrate that you understand what you're condemning.

(October 14, 2026 at 8:29 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You're still confusing God's permission of evil with God's approval of evil.

To answer your question: Nothing happens outside God's sovereign knowledge and permission. That doesn't mean everything that happens is something God morally approves of.

God can permit evil actions and accomplish His purposes through them without endorsing those actions. Genesis 50:20 establishes that distinction.

You repeatedly describe suffering as unnecessary, then conclude that God is malevolent for permitting it.You clearly havent been much around non believers, have you? Your kindergarden theology can be easily shown to be utter nonsense, even by a passer by. Your word games are so boring and transparent....do you actually believe in the shit yo

God's permission of evil with God's approval of evil:
Who created everything, including evil? Who even bragged about it in the bible (i quoted the passage).
Who is imperfect if he doesnt prevent evil?

You are one of those lazy thinkes who think that free will is a get out of jail for free card for your god
it isnt
He crated evil. He didnt have to. Ergo, he is responsible for all evil that happens. He also created all the evil doers. He didnt have to. He could created a world without evil, with people unable to do evil. He is responsible.

You repeatedly describe suffering as unnecessary, then conclude that God is malevolent for permitting it.
Permitting suffering is just another hallmark of someone not perfectly good.

(October 14, 2026 at 8:29 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Step up and let's argue!

You clearly lack the self awareness that you are completely out of your depth here.

Silas Vane Wrote:How does a God who willingly subjects Himself to suffering and sacrifice for those under His authority fit your definition of a cruel and indifferent slave owner?

It's called sadomasochism.

He didn't sacrifice for those under himself; he sacrificed himself so that he himself can forgive himself for his own mistake of making people who will do how he made them.

If God wanted to forgive our sins, he could have just forgiven them without having himself tortured and executed in payment—thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as 'Christ-killers.'

(October 14, 2026 at 8:41 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 1:30 pm)Sheldon Wrote: It's not the same, since humans are objectively real, so unless someone can demonstrate that any deity is real then the question is nonsensical. However even as a hypothetical, claiming a deity has moral authority over humans, and can do whatever it wants with them, would effectively be arguing that we are slaves, even if such a deity existed, I'd have no moral obligation to recognise the authority of a slave owner, let alone a barbarically cruel and indifferent slave owner like the one imagined in the bible.

You've equated divine authority with slave ownership, but you've yet to establish why one necessarily entails the other.

 You don’t consider yourself a slave to your young virgin rapist god?

Romans 6:22 states that "you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God;