if God is all-powerful, he cannot be all-good. And if he is all-good, then he cannot be all-powerful

>Why not ?
Leaps in logic and fallacies. Typical in religious thinking.

It's literally the argument though if God is all powerful then he isn't good if he is good then he isn't all powerful.

Why is everyone under the assumption that God just forgives you for anything 100% of the time and you have to put no effort in? I'm not even religious but I don't get this whiny shit atheists sound like they are mad at daddy for not being inherently cool with them being faggots. Would you describe your father as "malevolent" because he asked you to wash the dishes, you refused and shit on the floor so he sends you to your room?

If I were a god, why would I pay attention to humans on Earth? I'd be doing god shit.

ok, then he's not "all good" because he created struggles and free will, and given man has fallen and sins, that will lead to not good things
This doesn't debunk anything, it's literally their beliefs

>2022
>not taking the gnosticpill
it explains everything

Attached: 151283091209.png (1005x668, 249.08K)

I think he’s talking about like child death and cancer and shit

God isn't "all good" and only the most brainlet tier retards think that way. The Universe IS God in a sense, so the existence of evil, suffering, and pain, are just as much a part of God as love, beauty, and bliss.

The point is not to worship God because he's some benevolent sky daddy bestowing happy fun times, it's to Worship God because God is almighty, the Creator, the personification of all things.

The moral lessons inherent in religion aren't there because God is only those things, they are there because one should strive to achieve good morals IN SPITE of the evil that also exists in the world. Just like one should worship God in spite of the wrathful and dark parts of God's nature. If you need some motivational reward bullshit to be a good person than you were never really religious in the first place, just a larping faggot.

Theology is significantly more self-aware than Scientism. Cope.

Yea it's supposed to be if God exists objective morality exists by God being all knowing

Why should you worship god if he isn't good then?

Because they don't understand how Christianity meditates on sin as it relates to character and they're filtered by pride.

Thank God, it's basically a blueprint for a police state.

Sure thing mate, nobody talked about scientism or whatever the fuck

based
when existence is preferable to non-existence but we are biologically wired to cling to our lives that will end in a short time no matter what then why is a creator worth worshiping?

Isn't that the blueprint for stoicism ?

>Objective moral values do exist.
haahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahhhahahwahwhaahhHahwahwhahhhahahahshdjahdjashfjafgaijegkjahahhahahahahhahahaha
>GolemOS installed

Attached: .png (1024x1024, 765.12K)

Why are atheists so bad at basic logic?

Attached: b2c8967e2324fc0b439a9b808f0fef76.jpg (600x822, 69.9K)

I don't

but they existed. the statement doesnt say anything about morals changing

Tranny religion

If sin is an absolute and part of every human being I think a more accurate metaphor would be your conception of God breaking your spine and being mad at you for not being able to walk up a flight of stairs.

Thr answer is because God says it's good, so if you disagree with what is good or bad you're wrong since God is all knowing

ok good no one should

That's like saying that if God exists, there must be an objective best color because God is all knowing.
Things and concepts do not necessarily exist within a ranked order.
If you're saying that, because God's favorite color is red (for example), then red is the best color, well then you haven't actually found objectivity. You're just deferring to the guy with the biggest stick. What is it about omnipotence that makes God's opinion better than ours?

if they change then they’re not objective.

this

To suggest that being good means you have to excert your power to the extend of your capabilities? It's absurd, it doesn't leave room for the responsibility for others

If god is all knowing then that implies that everything that will happen is predetermined and therefore free will does not exist

>there must be an objective best color
There is.

Attached: god-damn-i-love-being-white.jpg (594x800, 194.87K)

Morals are basically just preference. It's preferable to be smart, wise, kind, disciplined but open minded, to not harm others if you don't need to. It's just more preferable in general for everyone than anything else so it's what's right. That's how I've always seen it and I've never heard a more coherent take when it comes to morals. It also supports a lot of stuff that is often wrongfully seen as just weakness or ignorance, like compassion.

If you have no idea what Scientism is then you have no business condescending to people orientating themselves according to their understanding of their relationship with God or religion in general.

>That's like saying that if God exists, there must be an objective best color because God is all knowing.
Yea, if God said blue is the best color then that would be the case.

>things and concepts do not necessarily exist within a ranked order

Except if an all knowing being says it does then it is correct by definition

> Objective moral values do exist.
[Citation needed]

The truth is that if you're a good person you shouldn't worry about God or anything that's outside your control.

That's not how agency works (and understanding it as such is an example of pride).

>like just chill out and smoke a doobie man
Gay.

Yes, the only alternative I could think of would be if God exists outside of time thrn might be able to allow for freewill and omniscience

>Quick google search
Sounds like a made up word by some schizo christcuck m8

Unironically yes

>With respect to the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[4][5] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[6] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[7] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[8] the later Hilary Putnam,[8][9] and Tzvetan Todorov[10] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methods and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.
gg atheism. You can accept Christ now.

It is exactly how it works because no man is sinless. The idea that its a choice and everyone whose ever existed just chose wrong when the reality is that living a sinless life is impossible and blaming them for that sin rather than the creator who unjustly brought them into this world without them asking, fully conscious of all the struggles they would face and what actions they would choose, and then condemning them to eternal suffering from that is nothing more than perverted cruelty.

Nah christians reduce all knowledge to what is measurable through the Bible. It's equally retarded and narrow-minded

The term came out of critiques of Logical Positivism and is a central concept in epistemology as well as the philosophy of science. You really should know more about it if you want to be an atheist who isn't just an NPC under the delusion they have a monopoly on rationality.

>and then condemning them to eternal suffering

Not actually part of catechism that anyone even goes to hell

bring back snyderverse now

Serve in Heaven, or Reign In Hell.
Which is to be, user?

>Nah christians reduce all knowledge to what is measurable through the Bible.
All of them? Seems a bit reductionist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

Attached: St-thomas-aquinas.jpg (1200x1798, 698K)