Youjo Senki

>God is established as evil by existing and by allowing evil to happen (see the logical problem of evil by Epicurus)
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, I guess you and I must be evil for not going out of our way to stop any evil that is within our power to stop.
Nobody has an obligation to stop evil from happening just because they have the power to.

The most evil thing she did was send a few guys to a position that was going to be bombed.

Why the fuck is she so sexy

Evil is relative to one's tolerences and preferences
A justified method may be unacceptable evil to others

However, you can also argue that evil is intersubjective.
In that case, 20th century international law suggests that causing unnecesery harm that goes beyond accomplishing military objectives is unacceptable and in a sense, "evil"
Did Tanya do that? Destroying cultural property for the hell of it, treating civilians as potential targets, willingly abusing loopholes to allow for the bombing of civilian targets during daytime, magical nukes, decapitation... none of that counts, so no.

Attached: 1523013200222.jpg (736x780, 48.25K)

book 7 never
shes supposed to be sexy

Attached: tanned tanya.png (1430x1972, 1.86M)

She has the body of a trap, very unsexy.

Peak female body right on the cusp of turning into a woman

Attached: 000.jpg (3012x4254, 2.44M)

Traps are just drawn as girls but with a dick, so saying she has the body of a trap just means she has the body of a flat girl, which is very sexy.

>Destroying cultural property for the hell of it, treating civilians as potential targets, willingly abusing loopholes to allow for the bombing of civilian targets during daytime
I hope you're not talking about Arene because if they hadn't taken the city back ASAP the whole war would've been lost.
As for nukes and decapitation it was to kill the enemy, it's war.

Atheism is evil

>As for nukes and decapitation it was to kill the enemy, it's war
Humanitarian law still applies during war, and unless not!Germany doesn't have any equivalent to the 1899 and 1907 hague convention and associated customary law (given the story is roughly set in the1920s, they should have it all), you can't say war justifies all leagues of cruel behavior
>I hope you're not talking about Arene
I'm not

True, but not for the reason you think. The whole concept of good and evil only exist in an objective sense if a God exists, so therefore if God isn't real then Atheism is neither good nor evil since there is no morality. If God is real, which would be the only scenario in which objective morality would exist, then it would be evil.
Therefore Atheism is evil since the existence of evil requires a God, which would make Atheism evil.

Attached: 1552875685811.jpg (2250x1500, 1.68M)

Using magic to create magical blades is common practice for the military, I don't see how decapitating your enemy in battle contravenes to war laws.
But the existance of evil doesn't require God?

Attached: 1489894988684.png (608x543, 152.87K)

>But the existance of evil doesn't require God?
Objective evil would, since without a God morals are meaningless concepts that humans came up with.
Also to clarify I don't actually believe in God, so I don't consider morals to have any objective meaning to them.

>Nobody has an obligation to stop evil from happening just because they have the power to.

That's debatable.

That's like saying a person is evil for not constantly donating money to starving kids in Africa, since that would prevent their suffering temporarily.
If you seriously believe in a similar concept then that would mean that every single human alive is evil, and thus the whole concept of evil becomes meaningless (Which it already is, but this topic of discussion requires at least pretending that morality is a real thing).

>Tanya
Our Lord !!! SATIFIED BE HIS NAME !!!!!

If someone could end starvation forever and did so, they could be considered a god. If they could end starvation forever and chose not to, what are they?

I do see points. Objective morality would entail the establishment of an absolute natural order that is beyond human comprehension "God". Without an absolute power to dictate what would be consider moral or evil, the very concept of morality would be abstract. Since morality would be formed on the bias perspectives of an individual or the collective. Where Objective morality cannot exist without God

Attached: Happy war criminal.png (552x400, 166.06K)

Woop I mean point

Chaos, an entity that stands neither for absolute justice or absolute evil. But rather to watch sentient beings struggled through life, trying to find meaning and purpose to their existent. There was never any end goal to strive for, but rather to take part in the journey to find the meaning of life itself.

based

Attached: 1200px-MaxStirner1.svg.png (1200x1555, 84.35K)

except god has the power to stop evil but chooses not to just because. we on the other hand are just humans and we are limited

War is terrible.
The only good war is a short war.

Her commanding officers are incompetent idiots and Tanya should have simply deserted and sought refuge somewhere else a LONG time ago. She's a mage so she can take care of herself no problem.

Not him but you've literally missed the entire fucking point of the Logical Problem of Evil, retard. The argument isn't that God should stop evil because people have an obligation to stop evil, it's that if an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God DID exist he's logically incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.

Attached: 1581603583608.png (400x419, 38.1K)

Evil is banal.

Back to your containment board

that isn't a logical problem, that's babies first "hurr why don't god real" horseshit thought up by every single 16 year old ever

I don't remember this

Is this the face of evil?

Attached: 2.jpg (1080x1551, 430.86K)

It literally is a logical problem because the existence of natural evil is logically incompatible with an omnipotent omnibenevolent God. If "every 16 year old ever" is able to understand it then you shouldn't have this much difficulty understanding it

what about this?

Attached: Happy sadist .png (812x482, 336.02K)

>tame

The only thing tame about Tanya is her obsession with securing a comfortable life far away from anything considered work. The art style and isekai genre softens what would ordinarily be an utterly repulsive premise (child soldier fights in magic WWI) into "cute girl kills enemy soldiers while wearing not-German uniforms."

So will best boy win in the end?

Attached: 1568233322928.png (906x714, 923.98K)

in the end. tanya would gladly give up all for an easy safe life in the back

Attached: EA5RVvwX4AUU_QL.png orig.png (460x527, 402.77K)

I never really understood the benevolent problem as if omnibenevolent being exist why would they not be benevolent even to evil?

restaurant side series when?

Attached: restaurant manga.jpg (677x960, 186.67K)

Because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what benevolent means in the context of religion and changing it to mean somehow accepting of rather than the agape love that God is shown to have. The entire point of the logical problem of evil as most people apply it to Christianity is that an all-loving God who is all-powerful logically cannot exist alongside the existence of evil and suffering because he would do his upmost to ensure that his creation which he loves doesn't suffer. You can say that God is okay with evil and suffering which is a solution, but then God isn't all-loving - which isn't the type of deity that the logical problem of evil addresses obviously.

Ok, yeah. You just got this all powerful magic being that can do literally anything, but doesn't give enough of a shit to help out this species that he created.

Not evil, just irresponsible as hell.

Maybe that's because of my Asian background and the idea of suffering being a necessary part of the experience as an individual. But to love imperfect being isnt it the accept and mercy provided and extended to limited being the ultimate benevolence? To hate evil and suffering one would need to create only perfect beings who have no will past the will of the perfect being.

>it's that if an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God DID exist he's logically incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.

This doesn't make sense to me. Evil and suffering are a natural product of freedom, including the freedom to be Good.
You can't have Good acts without the possibility of people committing Evil acts.
The fact that evil exists doesn't contradict the theoretical existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

The reason why God allows Evil to exist is that it must in order for Good to be possible.

Attached: 1352546154968.png (521x456, 124.63K)

Maybe he's helping us out enough so we can stand on our own feet, but without pushing it so far that we would cease to be our own individuals free to make our own choices.
The moment you accept the possibility of a good act you inherently accept the possibility of someone else going another route and doing evil acts. You can't have one without the other, and perhaps this is the conclusion God came to have.

>You can say that God is okay with evil and suffering which is a solution, but then God isn't all-loving - which isn't the type of deity that the logical problem of evil addresses obviously.
Wait a second. God being okay with evil and suffering being possible doesn't necessarily mean he's not all-loving.
In fact he could love us so much that he's willing to stand by and watch us sometime encounter suffering if that means that we can encounter goodness.

It reminds me of Clockwork Orange, where the protagonist is conditioned and brainwashed into being unable to physically carry out evil acts... but that doesn't make him good or evil ceasing to exist, it simply stripped him of his freedom.

Attached: 2 T-Rex fight for a circular saw.jpg (539x561, 41.33K)

good and evil doesn't require a good or a religion

This. How can good even be said to exist if there is no distinct alternative?

Is God really irresponsible, or is it due to people looking at god from the perspective of benevolence Christian God narrative? Is it a God's role to take care of humanity, or is it just something human imprinted upon in order to have peace of mind. Believing that there is a higher-order that stand with absolute moral as an anchor to simplify how humanity should act?

Attached: 1437536406618.gif (384x216, 426.47K)

I understood the part speaking about your asian background, but everything after that was a jumble.

>Evil and suffering are a natural product of freedom
This doesn't do anything to the logical problem of evil, natural evil and suffering still exists independent of free will.

>God being okay with evil and suffering being possible doesn't necessarily mean he's not all-loving
It does though, because it means he's okay with absolutely horrific things and an indescribable amount of suffering taking place that results in no spiritual growth and that occurs naturally and for no real reason that, with infinite power and knowledge could easily stop or lessen or mitigate and yet he chooses not to. You can have an all-loving but not all-powerful God, or an all-powerful but not all-loving God, but you can't have an all-powerful and all-loving God that exists alongside evil

>Essentially "I'll torture you until you bow to me".

Hey that reminds me of Seakats

>It does though, because it means he's okay
You just repeated what you said before without addressing my point.
You can't have Good without Evil.
God allows evil to exist because that means good can happen as well. I still have to see a response to this.

> but you can't have an all-powerful and all-loving God that exists alongside evil
Yes you can. Because that God would understand that removing one would deny the other.
It's the "perfect Matrix" problem in which a world without suffering is a world without happiness.

How can you take away the full experience of life in all possibility and call that a free existence?

That's why they borrowed satan, the opposer from zoroastrianism to excuse the problem of evil.