please try to beat my dialogue relating to the epicurean paradox
I know it’s unrelated, but there’s a lot of great thinkers here. Try to beat my final counter arguments if you’re able, Thanks!
can god prevent evil?
• christian argument: yes, god can prevent evil, but he allows it to exist temporarily because it serves a bigger purpose that we might not understand right now. god can bring good out of bad situations. • counter-argument: if god can stop evil but doesn’t, it makes you wonder why he allows suffering. if god is all-loving, why would he let people suffer if it’s not necessary? it seems like the end doesn’t always justify the means. • counter to the counter: god knows more than we do. what seems like pointless suffering to us might be important in a bigger plan that leads to the best outcome. the temporary pain now might be outweighed by eternal happiness that god promises in the future. • final counter-argument: saying there’s a “bigger plan” doesn’t take away god’s responsibility to prevent suffering. if god is all-powerful, he could achieve the same good results without causing suffering at all, so the suffering still feels unnecessary.
does god know about the evil?
• christian argument: yes, god knows about all the evil in the world. he allows it because it fits into his bigger plan that ultimately brings about good. god’s understanding is way beyond ours. • counter-argument: if god knows about evil and lets it happen, it feels like he’s okay with it, which doesn’t seem right for a loving god. couldn’t god achieve his plan without letting evil happen? this makes it seem like there could have been a better way. • counter to the counter: just because god knows about evil doesn’t mean he approves of it. god can use even bad situations to bring about good, like helping people grow stronger or closer to him. • final counter-argument: even if knowing about evil isn’t the same as endorsing it, allowing it when you could stop it still raises questions. if god can stop evil but chooses not to, he might still be responsible for the harm that evil causes.
does god want to prevent evil?
• christian argument: god wants to stop evil, but he also values human free will and our ability to choose between good and bad. without the option to do wrong, love and goodness wouldn’t mean as much. • counter-argument: if god really wants to stop evil, he could have made a world where people have free will but still don’t do bad things. why assume free will has to include the choice to do evil? couldn’t god have made it so people always choose good? • counter to the counter: real free will has to include the possibility of making bad choices. if we could only choose good, we wouldn’t actually be free. love and goodness are much more meaningful when we choose them ourselves. • final counter-argument: this idea assumes that free will and the possibility of evil are linked, but that might not be true. maybe god could have made a world where people are free and still never choose to do bad things. saying free will requires evil might just be a human way of thinking.
then why is there evil?
• christian argument: evil exists because of human free will and as a way to test us and help us grow. it also makes us appreciate goodness more because we can see the difference between good and bad. • counter-argument: saying evil is a test or contrast makes it sound like god uses suffering as a tool, which seems questionable. if god already knows everything, including the results of tests, why put people through suffering? also, if evil is necessary for the universe, it makes god seem less powerful. • counter to the counter: the tests aren’t for god’s benefit—they’re for ours. they show us who we really are and help us grow closer to god. even if god knows the outcome, we need to go through challenges to grow spiritually. • final counter-argument: even if tests help us grow, they don’t always justify the amount of suffering in the world. some people suffer in ways that don’t seem to offer any chance for growth, which challenges the idea that all suffering has a purpose. if god is all-loving, he could help us grow without so much pain.
could god have created a universe without these?
• christian argument: god could have made a universe without evil, but that world would miss out on the deep meaning that comes from making moral choices and developing virtues like love and bravery in tough times. • counter-argument: if god could make a world without evil but didn’t, why let suffering happen when it could have been avoided? saying evil is necessary for good virtues suggests god’s creativity is limited, which doesn’t seem to fit with him being all-powerful. • counter to the counter: creating a world where evil is possible might be the best way to get the highest good—like free beings who can truly love and grow. overcoming evil can lead to a deeper understanding of love, grace, and redemption, which are really important in christianity. • final counter-argument: this still assumes that evil is the only way to achieve these good things, but that might not be true. an all-powerful god could make a world where the best outcomes happen without needing evil or suffering. saying evil is necessary might just show a limit in our understanding, not in god’s power.
could god have created a universe with free will but without evil?
• christian argument: the possibility of evil is part of real free will. without the choice to do wrong, free will wouldn’t mean anything. god wants real love and goodness, which need the freedom to choose. • counter-argument: if god is all-powerful, he could have designed free will so that people always freely choose good. saying evil is necessary for free will seems to limit god’s power and creativity, which doesn’t fit with the idea of an all-powerful god. • counter to the counter: if free will always led to good, it wouldn’t be real free will. the freedom to choose means you have to be able to choose wrongly too. this freedom is crucial for real moral responsibility and building a genuine relationship with god. • final counter-argument: the idea that free will must include the option to choose evil can be questioned. maybe god could have created beings who are free but always choose good. saying free will requires the possibility of evil might be more about human ideas of freedom than an absolute truth.
I know it’s unrelated, but there’s a lot of great thinkers here. Try to beat my final counter arguments if you’re able, Thanks!
can god prevent evil?
• christian argument: yes, god can prevent evil, but he allows it to exist temporarily because it serves a bigger purpose that we might not understand right now. god can bring good out of bad situations. • counter-argument: if god can stop evil but doesn’t, it makes you wonder why he allows suffering. if god is all-loving, why would he let people suffer if it’s not necessary? it seems like the end doesn’t always justify the means. • counter to the counter: god knows more than we do. what seems like pointless suffering to us might be important in a bigger plan that leads to the best outcome. the temporary pain now might be outweighed by eternal happiness that god promises in the future. • final counter-argument: saying there’s a “bigger plan” doesn’t take away god’s responsibility to prevent suffering. if god is all-powerful, he could achieve the same good results without causing suffering at all, so the suffering still feels unnecessary.
does god know about the evil?
• christian argument: yes, god knows about all the evil in the world. he allows it because it fits into his bigger plan that ultimately brings about good. god’s understanding is way beyond ours. • counter-argument: if god knows about evil and lets it happen, it feels like he’s okay with it, which doesn’t seem right for a loving god. couldn’t god achieve his plan without letting evil happen? this makes it seem like there could have been a better way. • counter to the counter: just because god knows about evil doesn’t mean he approves of it. god can use even bad situations to bring about good, like helping people grow stronger or closer to him. • final counter-argument: even if knowing about evil isn’t the same as endorsing it, allowing it when you could stop it still raises questions. if god can stop evil but chooses not to, he might still be responsible for the harm that evil causes.
does god want to prevent evil?
• christian argument: god wants to stop evil, but he also values human free will and our ability to choose between good and bad. without the option to do wrong, love and goodness wouldn’t mean as much. • counter-argument: if god really wants to stop evil, he could have made a world where people have free will but still don’t do bad things. why assume free will has to include the choice to do evil? couldn’t god have made it so people always choose good? • counter to the counter: real free will has to include the possibility of making bad choices. if we could only choose good, we wouldn’t actually be free. love and goodness are much more meaningful when we choose them ourselves. • final counter-argument: this idea assumes that free will and the possibility of evil are linked, but that might not be true. maybe god could have made a world where people are free and still never choose to do bad things. saying free will requires evil might just be a human way of thinking.
then why is there evil?
• christian argument: evil exists because of human free will and as a way to test us and help us grow. it also makes us appreciate goodness more because we can see the difference between good and bad. • counter-argument: saying evil is a test or contrast makes it sound like god uses suffering as a tool, which seems questionable. if god already knows everything, including the results of tests, why put people through suffering? also, if evil is necessary for the universe, it makes god seem less powerful. • counter to the counter: the tests aren’t for god’s benefit—they’re for ours. they show us who we really are and help us grow closer to god. even if god knows the outcome, we need to go through challenges to grow spiritually. • final counter-argument: even if tests help us grow, they don’t always justify the amount of suffering in the world. some people suffer in ways that don’t seem to offer any chance for growth, which challenges the idea that all suffering has a purpose. if god is all-loving, he could help us grow without so much pain.
could god have created a universe without these?
• christian argument: god could have made a universe without evil, but that world would miss out on the deep meaning that comes from making moral choices and developing virtues like love and bravery in tough times. • counter-argument: if god could make a world without evil but didn’t, why let suffering happen when it could have been avoided? saying evil is necessary for good virtues suggests god’s creativity is limited, which doesn’t seem to fit with him being all-powerful. • counter to the counter: creating a world where evil is possible might be the best way to get the highest good—like free beings who can truly love and grow. overcoming evil can lead to a deeper understanding of love, grace, and redemption, which are really important in christianity. • final counter-argument: this still assumes that evil is the only way to achieve these good things, but that might not be true. an all-powerful god could make a world where the best outcomes happen without needing evil or suffering. saying evil is necessary might just show a limit in our understanding, not in god’s power.
could god have created a universe with free will but without evil?
• christian argument: the possibility of evil is part of real free will. without the choice to do wrong, free will wouldn’t mean anything. god wants real love and goodness, which need the freedom to choose. • counter-argument: if god is all-powerful, he could have designed free will so that people always freely choose good. saying evil is necessary for free will seems to limit god’s power and creativity, which doesn’t fit with the idea of an all-powerful god. • counter to the counter: if free will always led to good, it wouldn’t be real free will. the freedom to choose means you have to be able to choose wrongly too. this freedom is crucial for real moral responsibility and building a genuine relationship with god. • final counter-argument: the idea that free will must include the option to choose evil can be questioned. maybe god could have created beings who are free but always choose good. saying free will requires the possibility of evil might be more about human ideas of freedom than an absolute truth.