Discussion Bible’s Historical Reliability

[holy]

WOAH , SUCH A POWERFUL ARGUMENT !!!! I TAKE BACK MY WORDS MR @holy

You didn't make a point for me to argue, r****d. Nonetheless, I appreciate the praise. It's well deserved.

 

[Nihilus]

"Traditional Satanic Neo-Nazi Group"
Please tell me more about this cult and whats to be gained from studying it

sinister philosophy , nature and traditional ( and widely misunderstood ) occult knowledge

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

sinister philosophy , nature and traditional ( and widely misunderstood )

Speak on it

 

[Nihilus]

You didn't make a point for me to argue, r****d. Nonetheless, I appreciate the praise. It's well deserved.

i am waiting for you to debunk the epicurusian paradox without coping with muh evil is man made

 

[holy]

i am waiting for you to debunk the epicurusian paradox without coping with muh evil is man made

I wanna edge you on a bit before I do. Is evil not man made?

 

[Nihilus]

Speak on it

"A Satanist revels in life because by living life in a joyful, ecstatic way, the acausal that exists within us all by virtue of our being, is strengthened. For Satanists, not only the manner of living is important, but also the manner of death. We must live well and die at the right time, proud and defiant to the end - not waiting sickly and weak. The scum of the Earth wail and tremble as they face Death: we stand laughing and spit with contempt. Thus do we learn how to live"

its a very deep topic , but this is my fav passage from the books i studied so far

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

"A Satanist revels in life because by living life in a joyful, ecstatic way, the acausal that exists within us all by virtue of our being, is strengthened. For Satanists, not only the manner of living is important, but also the manner of death. We must live well and die at the right time, proud and defiant to the end - not waiting sickly and weak. The scum of the Earth wail and tremble as they face Death: we stand laughing and spit with contempt. Thus do we learn how to live"

its a very deep topic , but this is my fav passage from the books i studied so far

Buddhism but written differently

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

i am waiting for you to debunk the epicurusian paradox without coping with muh evil is man made

When I searched it up the first time I couldnt find it

I could debunk this

 

[Nihilus]

I wanna edge you on a bit before I do. Is evil not man made?

according to judeo-nazarene morals it can not be , evil is suffering , existence is suffering and thus the existence of humans in itself is evil and finally this means that the creator when creating the universe have created evil . evil is not man made but it is perceived by humans
for me i dont believe in good or evil as a strict set of morals , there is no good or evil in nature ... there is what aids you and what defies you
but if i am going to argue with you and the idea of your god i will need use your set of morals as a moral reference which return us to the first point i stated

 

[Nihilus]

When I searched it up the first time I couldnt find it
View attachment 53778
I could debunk this

you cant

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

you cant

Whys that

 

[Slicer]

you cant

"Our God is in the heavens, he does whatsoever he pleases to do." - Psalm 115:3

 

[Nihilus]

"Our God is in the heavens, he does whatsoever he pleases to do." - Psalm 115:3

yup then he is evil and then he is not god

 

[Slicer]

yup then he is evil and then he is not god

Cope. You don't even have an objective definition for evil without God

 

[Nihilus]

Cope. You don't even have an objective definition for evil without God

according to your set of morals : god is evil
thats the contradiction to be made

 

[Pavel]

Doesn't really prove existing of god. There is a lot of archaeological, historical evidence confirming the authenticity of other religious books

 

[Nihilus]

Cope. You don't even have an objective definition for evil without God

because in reality evil does NOT exist

 

[Nihilus]

Doesn't really prove existing of god. There is a lot of archaeological, historical evidence confirming the authenticity of other religious books

yes especially the quran

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

Doesn't really prove existing of god. There is a lot of archaeological, historical evidence confirming the authenticity of other religious books

This was already said

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

yes especially the quran

The Quran is legit retardation on paper and you would reject it more than Christianity if you studied it

 

[Nihilus]

The Quran is legit retardation on paper and you would reject it more than Christianity if you studied it

i am originally a muslim and i have studied the quran since childhood ....
the quran contains fallacies but it does contain quite "scientific miracles" (but in reality they were already discovered by persians and indians)

 

[holy]

according to judeo-nazarene morals it can not be

wrong.

first of all, that’s not true. the judeo-christian framework is rife with counterarguments to the epicurean paradox, even if they don’t tie up neatly with a little bow. but the claim that it “cannot be debunked” smacks of intellectual absolutism. you're acting like the paradox is a mic drop when, in reality, it’s just one point in a very long debate.
theological scholars have taken this thing apart from every angle since epicurus first scribbled it down. it’s audacious to claim it’s untouchable when countless minds, from augustine to modern philosophers, have spent centuries poking holes in it.

evil is suffering , existence is suffering and thus the existence of humans in itself is evil

a leap the size of the grand canyon. fucking nonsensical as well. equating existence itself with evil just because it involves suffering is a wild oversimplification. suffering is a part of life, sure. but reducing existence to just suffering is like saying the ocean is only made of salt and forgetting there’s water in it.

existence is multifaceted: joy, growth, love, discovery, they're all these things co-exist with suffering. suffering happens, but to leap to “existence is therefore evil” is so melodramatic than profound. it’s like saying all movies are terrible because a few scenes are sad. this is such a shitty argument.

the creator when creating the universe have created evil

not so fast.

this is one of those “gotcha” statements that falls apart with even a hint of scrutiny.

sure, if god created everything, you could argue he created the conditions where evil could exist. but that's not the same as creating evil itself as an active entity.

it’s like building a forest: you create the trees, the ecosystem, the weather patterns, but you don’t create the fire that might one day sweep through it. does that make you morally responsible for every fire that breaks out? no, it means you created something with potential, both for growth and destruction.

and, the thing is: the very fact that humans can recognize evil, analyze it, and even moralize it means that there's a baseline understanding of ‘good’ to compare it to. if everything were suffering and evil, you wouldn’t even have the concept of ‘good’ to contrast with. that’s where the argument collapses in on itself. you can’t use moral categories without acknowledging that the existence of evil presupposes the existence of good. and guess what? in the abrahamic framework, god is seen as the origin of that ‘good.’

evil is not man made but it is perceived by humans

the nihilism card.
this is where you to dodge responsibility by acting like evil is just a human perception, a cosmic mirage. it’s cute in a nihilistic, “everything is meaningless” way, but it’s not a strong argument.
humans didn’t invent evil out of thin air. they engage in actions that result in suffering, chaos, and destruction. if evil were purely perception, then why do societies across time and culture consistently recognize acts of cruelty, malice, and suffering as negative? because these things are objectively harmful. perception isn’t just a human quirk but based on lived experiences that point to real, tangible suffering.

if you want to argue using the judeo-christian moral framework, you can’t pick and choose which pieces to keep and which to throw out. in that framework, God’s allowance of suffering isn’t the same as the active creation of evil. free will means humans act on their own volition, and those actions come with consequences. God creating a universe where humans can choose doesn’t mean he micromanages every disaster like a puppet master. evil is a deviation from the intended ‘good,’ not a programmed feature.

your whole take hinges on grand philosophical statements that sound deep but fall apart when poked. existence isn’t inherently evil just because suffering exists. the existence of suffering doesn’t negate the existence of good, nor does it make creation evil by default. the epicurean paradox isn’t the trump card you thinks it is. it’s one of many challenges that has been met with rebuttals strong enough to stand on their own, whether or not you find them convincing.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

i am originally a muslim and i have studied the quran since childhood ....
the quran contains fallacies but it does contain quite "scientific miracles" (but in reality they were already discovered by persians and indians)

Lots of fallacies

 

[holy]

scientific miracles

 

[Pavel]

Your response betrays such profound historical and methodological ignorance that I hardly know where to begin. But, don't worry, boyo, let's educate you

First, you're committing a false equivalence so basic it would make a first-year history student fucking cringe.
The historical attestation between these texts isn't remotely comparable:

1. The Quran was compiled centuries after Muhammad, with earlier variants destroyed under Uthman. We have ZERO contemporary historical attestation of its miraculous claims. Zero.
2. The Vedas? They're explicitly mythological texts that make no historical claims to verify. That's like comparing a history book to the Odyssey and saying 'well, they're both old books.'
3. The Talmud is a legal and interpretative text, not a historical document making empirically verifiable claims about public events.

The Bible, in contrast, makes specific, verifiable historical claims about public events, names actual locations and people, and - this is fucking crucial - does so in a timeframe where it could have been easily falsified by contemporary sources.
We have non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources confirming key elements.
We have archaeological evidence aligning with its claims.
We have manuscript evidence from within living memory of the events.

Let's take the resurrection as an example.

The New Testament accounts name specific people, places, and times. They claim over 500 witnesses, many still alive when the accounts were circulated.
They include embarrassing details about the disciples' cowardice and women as first witnesses - details you'd never include in an invented story in that culture.
The early church exploded in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims could have been immediately debunked.

Compare that to the claims of other religious texts.
Muhammad's night journey? No witnesses.
Krishna's miracles? No historical claims to verify.
The Vedic ages? Explicitly mythological timeframes.

The Bible doesn't just make claims but anchors them in verifiable history, names real people, describes real places, and does so in a way that opened itself to contemporary falsification. The fact that it survived that scrutiny, that we keep finding archaeological evidence confirming its accuracy, that we have early manuscript evidence and contemporary historical correlation - that's what makes it unique.

You're basically saying 'Well, Lord of the Rings and a World War II history book are both well-preserved texts.'
The preservation isn't the point.
It's the historical methodology, the evidence, the contemporary attestation, the archaeological verification.

Try understanding basic historical methodology before attempting comparative religious analysis. Seriously. It'll save you from making such embarrassingly superficial arguments in the future.

Omg so many words I can't read it I'm too dumb

 

[holy]

Omg so many words I can't read it I'm too dumb

 

[Slicer]

because in reality evil does NOT exist

So what Hitler did was not objectively wrong correct?

 

[Pavel]

wrong.

first of all, that’s not true. the judeo-christian framework is rife with counterarguments to the epicurean paradox, even if they don’t tie up neatly with a little bow. but the claim that it “cannot be debunked” smacks of intellectual absolutism. you're acting like the paradox is a mic drop when, in reality, it’s just one point in a very long debate.
theological scholars have taken this thing apart from every angle since epicurus first scribbled it down. it’s audacious to claim it’s untouchable when countless minds, from augustine to modern philosophers, have spent centuries poking holes in it.



a leap the size of the grand canyon. fucking nonsensical as well. equating existence itself with evil just because it involves suffering is a wild oversimplification. suffering is a part of life, sure. but reducing existence to just suffering is like saying the ocean is only made of salt and forgetting there’s water in it.

existence is multifaceted: joy, growth, love, discovery, they're all these things co-exist with suffering. suffering happens, but to leap to “existence is therefore evil” is so melodramatic than profound. it’s like saying all movies are terrible because a few scenes are sad. this is such a shitty argument.



not so fast.

this is one of those “gotcha” statements that falls apart with even a hint of scrutiny.

sure, if god created everything, you could argue he created the conditions where evil could exist. but that's not the same as creating evil itself as an active entity.

it’s like building a forest: you create the trees, the ecosystem, the weather patterns, but you don’t create the fire that might one day sweep through it. does that make you morally responsible for every fire that breaks out? no, it means you created something with potential, both for growth and destruction.

and, the thing is: the very fact that humans can recognize evil, analyze it, and even moralize it means that there's a baseline understanding of ‘good’ to compare it to. if everything were suffering and evil, you wouldn’t even have the concept of ‘good’ to contrast with. that’s where the argument collapses in on itself. you can’t use moral categories without acknowledging that the existence of evil presupposes the existence of good. and guess what? in the abrahamic framework, god is seen as the origin of that ‘good.’



the nihilism card.
this is where you to dodge responsibility by acting like evil is just a human perception, a cosmic mirage. it’s cute in a nihilistic, “everything is meaningless” way, but it’s not a strong argument.
humans didn’t invent evil out of thin air. they engage in actions that result in suffering, chaos, and destruction. if evil were purely perception, then why do societies across time and culture consistently recognize acts of cruelty, malice, and suffering as negative? because these things are objectively harmful. perception isn’t just a human quirk but based on lived experiences that point to real, tangible suffering.

if you want to argue using the judeo-christian moral framework, you can’t pick and choose which pieces to keep and which to throw out. in that framework, God’s allowance of suffering isn’t the same as the active creation of evil. free will means humans act on their own volition, and those actions come with consequences. God creating a universe where humans can choose doesn’t mean he micromanages every disaster like a puppet master. evil is a deviation from the intended ‘good,’ not a programmed feature.

your whole take hinges on grand philosophical statements that sound deep but fall apart when poked. existence isn’t inherently evil just because suffering exists. the existence of suffering doesn’t negate the existence of good, nor does it make creation evil by default. the epicurean paradox isn’t the trump card you thinks it is. it’s one of many challenges that has been met with rebuttals strong enough to stand on their own, whether or not you find them convincing.

NOOOO STOP IT. STOP WRITING ANYTHING LONGER THAN 10 WORDS. YOU ARE KILLING MY BRAIN

 

[Nihilus]

if you want to argue using the judeo-christian moral framework, you can’t pick and choose which pieces to keep and which to throw out

no dude i literally can .... i can actively find contradictions and use them against the first frame to refute it

existence isn’t inherently evil just because suffering exists. the existence of suffering doesn’t negate the existence of good, nor does it make creation evil by default.

the existence of good does not come close to justifying the existence of evil
a non existence free of suffering will always be infinitely better then an existence where good and suffering exist

wrong.

first of all, that’s not true. the judeo-christian framework is rife with counterarguments to the epicurean paradox, even if they don’t tie up neatly with a little bow. but the claim that it “cannot be debunked” smacks of intellectual absolutism. you're acting like the paradox is a mic drop when, in reality, it’s just one point in a very long debate.
theological scholars have taken this thing apart from every angle since epicurus first scribbled it down. it’s audacious to claim it’s untouchable when countless minds, from augustine to modern philosophers, have spent centuries poking holes in it.

they dont refute the central point and you still didnt , acting like an apologist here

 

[Nihilus]

So what Hitler did was not objectively wrong correct?

what hitler did was a wide scale ritual , you are not immersed in occult fields so you wont understand
i dont like this "invincible ignorance" fallacy that i pulled but you get me

 

[Whitepill]

Your response betrays such profound historical and methodological ignorance that I hardly know where to begin. But, don't worry, boyo, let's educate you

First, you're committing a false equivalence so basic it would make a first-year history student fucking cringe.
The historical attestation between these texts isn't remotely comparable:

1. The Quran was compiled centuries after Muhammad, with earlier variants destroyed under Uthman. We have ZERO contemporary historical attestation of its miraculous claims. Zero.
2. The Vedas? They're explicitly mythological texts that make no historical claims to verify. That's like comparing a history book to the Odyssey and saying 'well, they're both old books.'
3. The Talmud is a legal and interpretative text, not a historical document making empirically verifiable claims about public events.

The Bible, in contrast, makes specific, verifiable historical claims about public events, names actual locations and people, and - this is fucking crucial - does so in a timeframe where it could have been easily falsified by contemporary sources.
We have non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources confirming key elements.
We have archaeological evidence aligning with its claims.
We have manuscript evidence from within living memory of the events.

Let's take the resurrection as an example.

The New Testament accounts name specific people, places, and times. They claim over 500 witnesses, many still alive when the accounts were circulated.
They include embarrassing details about the disciples' cowardice and women as first witnesses - details you'd never include in an invented story in that culture.
The early church exploded in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims could have been immediately debunked.

Compare that to the claims of other religious texts.
Muhammad's night journey? No witnesses.
Krishna's miracles? No historical claims to verify.
The Vedic ages? Explicitly mythological timeframes.

The Bible doesn't just make claims but anchors them in verifiable history, names real people, describes real places, and does so in a way that opened itself to contemporary falsification. The fact that it survived that scrutiny, that we keep finding archaeological evidence confirming its accuracy, that we have early manuscript evidence and contemporary historical correlation - that's what makes it unique.

You're basically saying 'Well, Lord of the Rings and a World War II history book are both well-preserved texts.'
The preservation isn't the point.
It's the historical methodology, the evidence, the contemporary attestation, the archaeological verification.

Try understanding basic historical methodology before attempting comparative religious analysis. Seriously. It'll save you from making such embarrassingly superficial arguments in the future.

summarized from gpt
Your argument shows a significant lack of understanding of historical and methodological basics. Here's the breakdown:

1. You're making a false equivalence between religious texts, ignoring their distinct historical contexts:
   • Quran: Compiled centuries after Muhammad, with no contemporary attestation for its claims.
   • Vedas: Explicitly mythological, not historical.
   • Talmud: Legal and interpretative, not a historical account.
2. The Bible is unique because it makes verifiable historical claims about public events within a timeframe where falsification was possible, supported by:
   • Non-Christian historical sources.
   • Archaeological evidence.
   • Manuscripts from living memory of events.
3. Examples like the resurrection highlight the specificity of its claims (named witnesses, cultural context, and rapid early church growth in areas where it could have been disproven).

Your comparison oversimplifies historical methodology and ignores evidence. Learn the basics before making surface-level arguments.
you did not need to yap this long

 

[holy]

i can actively find contradictions and use them against the first frame to refute it

anyone can point out apparent contradictions within any moral or religious framework. congratulations, that’s entry-level critique. but picking and choosing contradictions isn’t the same as refuting the entire framework.
you can’t just cherry-pick anomalies and call it a day. if you're trying to show inconsistencies to debunk the whole, then you better be ready to address counterpoints that provide coherence within that system. otherwise, you're just nitpicking without considering the theological, philosophical, or historical contexts that resolve many of these so-called contradictions.

also, contradictions within scripture or interpretations often reflect human misunderstanding or incomplete theology, not necessarily a flaw in the central concept of God. you're taking a reductionist approach—good for internet debates, not so great for serious intellectual discourse..

the existence of good does not come close to justifying the existence of evil
a non existence free of suffering will always be infinitely better then an existence where good and suffering exist

this is where you fall into the classic trap of absolutism and negation.
you're essentially arguing that the absence of existence (a void, non-being) is preferable to existence mixed with both joy and suffering. here’s where that thinking implodes on itself: by positing that non-existence is better, you're implying value judgments about what is preferable or better, and you can’t make value judgments without acknowledging some standard of value, i.e., something akin to ‘good’ and ‘bad.’

and let’s not pretend like non-existence is a solution anyone experiences. it’s theoretical nihilism at best. if you’re suggesting non-existence is preferable, you’ve wandered so far off the map of practical ethics that you’re now arguing for something no one can relate to because, well, non-existence doesn’t have any sentient awareness to enjoy its suffering-free state. it’s a non-point.

they dont refute the central point and you still didnt , acting like an apologist here

first off, let’s drop the fucking buzzword “apologist” like it’s a dirty thing to be thorough or analytical.
if you want someone to tap dance around your cynicism, that’s not happening.
the “central point” of the epicurean paradox is that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God can’t logically coexist with the presence of evil. but here’s where your assertion fails: the paradox itself is built on human concepts of what “good” and “evil” should mean in the context of divine action.

it’s narrow-minded to think God’s attributes must adhere strictly to human expectations of omnibenevolence.
the abrahamic God’s version of “good” is not limited to human comfort. it’s about the grand narrative: free will, growth, redemption, lessons learned through hardship. God isn’t a genie granting wishes. He’s depicted as a creator whose plan encompasses both triumph and suffering. that’s the counterpoint you're brushing off as irrelevant without addressing its implications.

so, no, the paradox isn’t some untouchable philosophical giant. it’s been debated for centuries precisely because its assumptions—like omnibenevolence meaning an absence of any possible evil or suffering—are not universally accepted. christian theology argues God’s “good” isn’t soft or sentimental but includes justice, consequences, and a bigger picture that humans barely glimpse.

you claiming that “no one has refuted it” is lazy absolutism. theologians and philosophers like augustine, aquinas, and even contemporary thinkers have shown that the existence of evil doesn’t erase God’s power or goodness but actually questions our understanding of what those attributes mean. dismissing centuries of nuanced debate as “not touching the central point” isn’t an argument. it’s an evasion.

you're latching onto philosophical mic drops without ACTUALLY engaging with the real meat of the argument. that's not philosophy but just talking past the debate.

 

[holy]

summarized from gpt
Your argument shows a significant lack of understanding of historical and methodological basics. Here's the breakdown:

1. You're making a false equivalence between religious texts, ignoring their distinct historical contexts:
   • Quran: Compiled centuries after Muhammad, with no contemporary attestation for its claims.
   • Vedas: Explicitly mythological, not historical.
   • Talmud: Legal and interpretative, not a historical account.
2. The Bible is unique because it makes verifiable historical claims about public events within a timeframe where falsification was possible, supported by:
   • Non-Christian historical sources.
   • Archaeological evidence.
   • Manuscripts from living memory of events.
3. Examples like the resurrection highlight the specificity of its claims (named witnesses, cultural context, and rapid early church growth in areas where it could have been disproven).

Your comparison oversimplifies historical methodology and ignores evidence. Learn the basics before making surface-level arguments.
you did not need to yap this long

Why don’t you do everyone a favor, be the well-behaved pup you are, and find your corner to sit in?

 

[Pavel]

View attachment 53782

Why don’t you do everyone a favor, be the well-behaved pup you are, and find your corner to sit in?

Dude I started to read things you've read. You seem to be pretty smart guy And you see cause-and-effect relationships in many events.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

what hitler did was a wide scale ritual

Far from a ritual.
He killed Jewish people because their evil & Destroyed his country

 

[Nihilus]

and let’s not pretend like non-existence is a solution anyone experiences. it’s theoretical nihilism at best. if you’re suggesting non-existence is preferable, you’ve wandered so far off the map of practical ethics that you’re now arguing for something no one can relate to because, well, non-existence doesn’t have any sentient awareness to enjoy its suffering-free state. it’s a non-point.

here we go into a cycle

it’s narrow-minded to think God’s attributes must adhere strictly to human expectations of omnibenevolence.

not the human expectations but rather in the context of "good" and "evil" in your religion , thats how the argument works using your morals against you

God can’t logically coexist with the presence of evil. but here’s where your assertion fails: the paradox itself is built on human concepts of what “good” and “evil” should mean in the context of divine action.

again , same point as the above

so, no, the paradox isn’t some untouchable philosophical giant. it’s been debated for centuries precisely because its assumptions—like omnibenevolence meaning an absence of any possible evil or suffering—are not universally accepted. christian theology argues God’s “good” isn’t soft or sentimental but includes justice, consequences, and a bigger picture that humans barely glimpse.

running from the central point , again

“not touching the central point” isn’t an argument. it’s an evasion

not touching the central point is in itself an evasion



this argument wasnt fruitfull at all , so "لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ"
i still love you regardless , its unconditional

 

[Whitepill]

View attachment 53782

Why don’t you do everyone a favor, be the well-behaved pup you are, and find your corner to sit in?

Why attack me? all I said is that it was extremely drawn out and lengthy for no good reason.
your reading comprehension is lacking, I never claimed you use AI
I was simply showing how you exaggerate and make your words and sentences extra lengthy for effect

 

[n9wiff]

View attachment 53782

Why don’t you do everyone a favor, be the well-behaved pup you are, and find your corner to sit in?

He wasn't claiming you were using AI just cage at the average IQ of the people actively discussing ITT

Emotional AF too

 

[Whitepill]

He wasn't claiming you were using AI just cage at the average IQ of the people actively discussing ITT

what does itt mean? i've seen you mention it before

 

[holy]

if you think this is a cycle, it’s only because you're refusing to step outside the narrow box you've built around the debate. you keeps circling back, claiming that no one is hitting the “central point” while sidestepping any actual engagement with the deeper responses i’m giving.

using your morals against you

cute phrase, but it doesn’t actually address the theological nuance here.
yes, within christian theology, “good” and “evil” exist, but these concepts don’t exist in the simple duality He wants them to. God’s “goodness” isn’t restricted to human definitions. let me hammer that in one more time: in christian theology, God is portrayed as an omnibenevolent being, but omnibenevolence doesn’t mean what he assumes it does. it doesn’t mean “the elimination of all forms of suffering or evil,” and equating it to that is misunderstanding the entire premise.

think about the concept of free will, which is a cornerstone of judeo-christian thought.
if God creates beings capable of making choices, then the existence of potential evil or suffering is part of that package. otherwise, you’d get a puppet show, not a universe full of beings with autonomy. inb4 you throw out “but why not just create beings who always choose good?”—that’s a contradiction in terms. if they’re programmed to only choose good, it’s not choice, it’s just programming, stripping the whole concept of moral significance down to a joke.

not touching the central point is in itself an evasion

no, what’s evasion is insisting that the paradox is untouchable without genuinely grappling with counterarguments that highlight its limitations. the epicurean paradox assumes a certain definition of omnipotence and omnibenevolence that isn’t a given within christian theology. when i say “the paradox isn’t an untouchable philosophical giant,” it’s not just rhetoric. theologians argue that god’s omnipotence doesn’t mean doing what’s logically contradictory (like creating free will without the potential for evil). and omnibenevolence doesn’t mean shielding humanity from every ounce of discomfort. it includes things like justice, moral growth, and freedom, concepts that often involve suffering.

“a non-existence free of suffering will always be infinitely better” — you skipped this entirely because it’s indefensible if you really think about it. choosing non-existence as the “better” state is nihilistic theorizing that collapses under scrutiny. if you want to say that existence with both good and suffering is inherently worse than non-existence, you're welcome to try to explain why any being would value or choose a state they can’t even conceptualize (non-existence). but until then, it’s empty theorycrafting, devoid of any practical or relatable merit.

maybe this feels cyclical, but it’s not because the arguments are weak. it’s because when faced with counterpoints that challenge your assumptions, people like you often retreat into calling the conversation “evasive” or dismissing it as apologetics instead of actually addressing the core rebuttals. you want the paradox to be a trump card, but treating it as such without accepting deeper discussions on theological attributes or the nature of evil is more evasion than anything i’ve said.

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

that’s fine. but let’s not pretend like this conversation reached an impasse because the arguments were flawed. it’s because you're gripping that central point like a security blanket while ignoring every challenge thrown at it. that's intellectual dishonesty, not a debate, bud.

 

[choripan]

Coca-cola is the proof God doesn't exists, and if he does, he doesn't care about our world.
Humans were never meant to eat hotdogs
Over

 

[n9wiff]

what does itt mean? i've seen you mention it before

ITT = In this thread

 

[Pavel]

Your response betrays such profound historical and methodological ignorance that I hardly know where to begin. But, don't worry, boyo, let's educate you

First, you're committing a false equivalence so basic it would make a first-year history student fucking cringe.
The historical attestation between these texts isn't remotely comparable:

1. The Quran was compiled centuries after Muhammad, with earlier variants destroyed under Uthman. We have ZERO contemporary historical attestation of its miraculous claims. Zero.
2. The Vedas? They're explicitly mythological texts that make no historical claims to verify. That's like comparing a history book to the Odyssey and saying 'well, they're both old books.'
3. The Talmud is a legal and interpretative text, not a historical document making empirically verifiable claims about public events.

The Bible, in contrast, makes specific, verifiable historical claims about public events, names actual locations and people, and - this is fucking crucial - does so in a timeframe where it could have been easily falsified by contemporary sources.
We have non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources confirming key elements.
We have archaeological evidence aligning with its claims.
We have manuscript evidence from within living memory of the events.

Let's take the resurrection as an example.

The New Testament accounts name specific people, places, and times. They claim over 500 witnesses, many still alive when the accounts were circulated.
They include embarrassing details about the disciples' cowardice and women as first witnesses - details you'd never include in an invented story in that culture.
The early church exploded in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims could have been immediately debunked.

Compare that to the claims of other religious texts.
Muhammad's night journey? No witnesses.
Krishna's miracles? No historical claims to verify.
The Vedic ages? Explicitly mythological timeframes.

The Bible doesn't just make claims but anchors them in verifiable history, names real people, describes real places, and does so in a way that opened itself to contemporary falsification. The fact that it survived that scrutiny, that we keep finding archaeological evidence confirming its accuracy, that we have early manuscript evidence and contemporary historical correlation - that's what makes it unique.

You're basically saying 'Well, Lord of the Rings and a World War II history book are both well-preserved texts.'
The preservation isn't the point.
It's the historical methodology, the evidence, the contemporary attestation, the archaeological verification.

Try understanding basic historical methodology before attempting comparative religious analysis. Seriously. It'll save you from making such embarrassingly superficial arguments in the future.

There is over 9000 religions in our world. You were only talking about the reliability of some of the most popular religions in the world. Naturally, due to their prevalence, there were more historical scientists working on their reliability. And what about little-known religions that are known only in narrow circles. What if, upon careful examination, it turns out that their reliability exceeds the reliability of the Bible.

 

[holy]

Emotional AF

Hop off your boyfriends dick and stop speaking for him, pup. I don't give a fuck if it sounds emotional, an inbred like you wouldn't dare try to refute it anyways.

 

[Whitepill]

Hop off your boyfriends dick and stop speaking for him, pup.

stop being so condescending, you are not anything special. i'd expect more from you knowing your past threads but this is flat out disappointing that you have to resort to this instead of realizing that you may be at fault.

I don't give a fuck if it sounds emotional, an inbred like you wouldn't dare try to refute it anyways.

there is nothing to refute? i never attacked anything except the fact that it is drawn out to make your opinion seem more favorable. nihilus doesn't type as much as you and thus doesn't garner as much perceived intelligence

 

[Nihilus]

nihilus doesn't type as much as you and thus doesn't garner as much perceived intelligence

I try to sum , I don't like typing much

 

[holy]

stop being so condescending, you are not anything special. i'd expect more from you knowing your past threads but this is flat out disappointing that you have to resort to this instead of realizing that you may be at fault.

one thing i’ll apologize for is making you think that just because i write decent threads, i’m some clueless saint who doesn’t recognize when i mess up. like, fault? WHAT fault?

there is nothing to refute? i never attacked anything except the fact that it is drawn out to make your opinion seem more favorable. nihilus doesn't type as much as you and thus doesn't garner as much perceived intelligence

obviously, it wasn't towards you. wtf.

 

[n9wiff]

Hop off your boyfriends dick and stop speaking for him, pup. I don't give a fuck if it sounds emotional, an inbred like you wouldn't dare try to refute it anyways.

You actually do care if it sounds emotional

You are just in too deep to back out so you act non chalant to hide the shame

Too easy to read simpletons

 

[n9wiff]

nihilus doesn't type as much as you and thus doesn't garner as much perceived intelligence

Tbf nothing about him signals any form of intelligence

 

[holy]

You actually do care if it sounds emotional

You are just in too deep to back out so you act non chalant to hide the shame

Too easy to read simpletons

View attachment 53784

Wait.
If I just claimed that "I don't give a fuck if I sound emotional", why the fuck would you then claim i'm acting nonchalant????