Religious people be like:
he won’t, because he doesn’t interfere
He causes them, because it’s the circle of life
He can’t, because doing so would cause chaos
He doesn’t exist, because you don’t believe
Please let me remake this:
A. He can’t, so he is not worthy being worshiped.
B. He doesn’t want, so he is not worthy being worshiped.
C. He causes them, so… uhm, actually maybe? Depends, is He doing terrible things to me and my friends, or my enemies?
D. He doesn’t exist, so he is not worthy being worshiped.
Side comment - C is obviously excuse to let us do terrible things to them. If You like being evil, surem that do work.
It’s just that the model of divinity as an lawful authority is complete bullshit, and has nothing to do with spirituality
Amazing how much death and destruction have come out of arguing over who has the best Invisible Friend.
nO bUT ThEyRE jUSt LyInG iTs aLWAyS aCtUaLlY aBoUT GreEd
Yes, we know, but why would they think that’s better?
Its clearly because clearly god has realized the best thing ever is isekai so he made earth and made us all isekai MCs. The terrible things that happen just give sus unique back stories when we get isekai’d so we all get to be unique MCs. /s
Who is sus and why do you give him unique back stories?
A: He can’t.
Dude forgot to add himself as admin.
this user does not have sudo access
this incident will be reported.
click me
First thing you do is enable MFA these days… dude got a new phone and forgot the password to the old account.
Growing up as an agnostic atheist, I loved the Epicurean argument. Now as an adult, I feel compelled to ask the definitions of the words Good, Evil, and God before talking about things.
I think most of the arguments surrounding these topics involves complex use of metaphors and abstract concepts that people can spend lifetimes defining, but are happy to argue about in a short form without a mutually agreed definition.
Yeah, it’s that. I’m a Christian, but I have atheist close friends, and I love our debates, but it’s because we respect each others enough to accept and recognise that we use the words differently. It’s generally not the case on the net.
The Epicurian argument is strong only if you have a very broad definition of all-powerfulness. A definition that classical Christian theology doesn’t have, as it recognizes a lot of logical limitations. All-powerfulness is the capacity to do everything possible. So yes, the Christian God is limited.
One of these logical limitations is: God can’t create anything free without allowing their creation to do thing that they disapprove, thus God being good, they can’t create freedom without accepting the existence of evil, which is not a thing per se, but the absence of good. God chose freedom over perfection, and it’s not a human.thing, but a cosmological one.
So yeah, this is a strong argument only of you are already convinced, but it’s generally the case on religious matters. I tend to tink that the only purely rational position is true agnosticism, but sometimes for important things you have to make choices without being sure. That’s why I’m an agnostic theist.
the existence of evil, which is not a thing per se, but the absence of good
…what? The absence of good is indifference. Evil takes effort, you have to work at it. It’s the difference between trying to help the homeless, ignoring the homeless, and burning down tent cities.
This also depends on once definition of freedom.
One of these logical limitations is: God can’t create anything free without allowing their creation to do thing that they disapprove, thus God being good, they can’t create freedom without accepting the existence of evil, which is not a thing per se, but the absence of good. God chose freedom over perfection, and it’s not a human.thing, but a cosmological one.
What I don’t get is - didn’t God create the necessity of evil for freedom to exist, just like he created everything else? He could have chosen to create the concept of freedom such that it still doesn’t allow for evil, but for some reason didn’t choose to do so, right?
Or is God bound by rules from an even higher power?
They’re bound by logic. They can make anything possible, but 2+2 will never be 5, and even God can’t change that. Something can’t be and not be. Something thus can’t be free without having any choice, or it’s not freedom.
But didn’t they create this logic, just like everything else? So either they’ve deliberately bound themselves, or some even higher being created that logic by which they are bound.
Something thus can’t be free without having any choice, or it’s not freedom.
Why is the freedom to do evil things necessary for freedom per se? You can have plenty of choice without the ability to do evil.
Logic is not created, it just is.
You can have plenty of choice without the ability to do evil.
It’s not a question of choice, nature for example doesn’t have any choice, and there are illnesses and natural catastrophes. It’s a question of being. God being the Good, they can’t create something purely good that is not them, or bound by them, thus or not different, or not free. But they didn’t created evil, evil doesn’t exist, evil is just something not good, thus not God. And it’s a spectrum, from almost good to almost not good.
Logic is not created, it just is.
Logic is a result of the rules of our universe, no? A universe could be created where 2 + 2 = 5. Logic dictates that matter can’t be created, yet God made our universe, right? But sounds like you’re saying God is bound by rules from an even higher being - after all, isn’t the idea that everything has to have an origin, except God?
It’s not a question of choice, nature for example doesn’t have any choice, and there are illnesses and natural catastrophes.
Well yes, illnesses and natural catastrophes exist because God created them, right? They could have created a universe that can’t have viruses existing, or where earth quakes are impossible.
But they didn’t created evil, evil doesn’t exist, evil is just something not good, thus not God. And it’s a spectrum, from almost good to almost not good.
But didn’t God create the very distinction of things being good or not good? Why couldn’t an all-powerful being have chosen to create the universe such that everything is good?
everything has to have an origin, except God?
The actual argument is everything has to have an origin inside the universe, thus our universe to exist must have a cause exterior to it. We call this cause God. It’s not a question of higher being, just that a universe where the effect predates the cause can’t hold. God is not less omnipotent because they can’t make a round square.
Why couldn’t an all-powerful being have chosen to create the universe such that everything is good?
I thought I answered this question twice, I’m sorry if I’m not clear, English is hard for me. So I’ll try again: because it’s logically impossible to have a universe which is not a part of God, thus independant and free, that is also perfectly good, as God is perfectly good. Put as a formula, the formulas
universe = good and universe ≠ God are not possible at the same time if God = good
I always see it coming back “evil is required for free choice”.
Doesn’t make any sense to me. Does gravity limit my free choice because i can’t just fly into the sky? Or does death limit my free choice because i might just want to continue to exist on this plane? Does my body limit my free choice because i might just want to be non corporeal (but not divine at the same time), not bound by hunger, disease, …
All of the above are not an issue for “free choice”, but allowing me to “choose for evil” somehow is?
If a world where crime and pain and disease and … doesn’t exist. I don’t see how there would be no free choice in that world. We would be bound by the restrictions of that world, just as we are currently bound by the restrictions of the current world.
It imo just sounds like a really lame excuse for the problem of evil. It does seem to work for those who believe in a god apparently, but i find that hard to understand. Our choices are incredibly limited, and we still regard it as “free will”. But that one choice, o boy, that one choice that if god could prevent us from making it, and thus would disprove him being good if that was an option. That one specific choice, yeah, that’s obviously not possible. He’s all powerful, but that’s just how it is you know?
I really don’t get how this is supposed to make any sense. Any god worth being called a god could have made a world without suffering, while still allowing for free choice. Choice is always limited, and evil & suffering aren’t special in any way. Take them away and i can still choose to enjoy a billion different things, while not having to suffer at all.
The answers will always boil down to: “god works in mysterious ways and we must have faith”
A: then he isn’t god.
B: then he isn’t good.
C: then he is evil.
D: the truth.
If you want to short circuit a certain type of theist
E: He’s actually just a small g god who died when we stopped sacrificing bulls to him
According to Isiah 45:7 it’s C.
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things”
Cool - let’s worship that!
That’s just seems shitty
dualism
For most catholic priests… The D is always the answer.
The god the Abrahamists have chosen to worship is a weather and war god. So he is a vengeful dick.
When the Israelites were still polytheistic they worshipped, besides this war god, a sun god and a god of fertility in the Pantheon. Yet they’ve chosen to solely worship the war god. Says a lot about them.
BeCaUsE hE’s MyStErIoUs!
This is, entirely unironically, the central tenant of the Catholic teaching on the subject.
It really does just boil down to “You can’t adjudicate the morality of the Divine.” And, for the most part, its a line of reasoning that hierarchical social structures condition us to accept. God is just the CEO of the Universe. If you accept that your boss at the toxic waste and murder machines factory is Beyond Good and Evil, believing it about God is downright trivial.
One of the earliest forms of copium
I mean, dealing with the Problem of Evil (or Suffering or however you want to describe it) isn’t unique to Christianity. It certainly isn’t one that’s gone unanswered. Hell, a cornerstone of the orthodoxy is that the Original Sin of defiance of God’s Will is at the root of all evil.
I think there’s a superficial knee-jerk response to these beliefs that boil down to “No, that sounds like some made up bullshit”. But you can dig deeper and talk about the fundamental impulses toward pride and gluttony and conclude there’s a kernel of truth over the religious pastiche.
God is, at the end of the day, an unproveable/unrefutable hypothesis. But the immediate causes of human suffering are knowable, tangible, and preventable. Whether you’re blaming a god or snubbing one, if you’re doing so on the grounds that nobody stopped one human from abusing or neglecting another it would seem like your accusation is misplaced.
Human suffering doesn’t just come from human actions.
It also comes from natural causes, genetic defects, disasters, disease and parasites
Human suffering doesn’t just come from human actions.
Virtually all modern human suffering is the result of deliberate aggression or institutional neglect.
It also comes from natural causes, genetic defects, disasters, disease and parasites
We’ve had the technology to mitigate or eliminate these problems for decades.
We’ve had tools to minimize their impact and insulate against their consequences for centuries.
Natural events are nakedly exacerbated by greedy, gluttonous administrators. You can’t blame the Spanish Flu on “nature” because it was the direct result of factory farming and poor hygiene during mass troop mobilization.
You can’t dismiss the catastrophic storms wrecking major cities as we hit climate change peaks.
You can’t blame famine on deserts that formed in the wake of industrial mining and deforesting.
At some point you have to recognize humankind as an enormous global force within its own right. One that is responsible both for its own preservation and destruction.
The Garden of Eden is metaphorical in that sense. Eating the apple of knowledge means assuming control of your own destiny in a way no other organism on the planet can claim.
I tell this story a lot but as an escaped Xtian the thing that marks the moment I was fully off board with the church was hearing those magic words ‘God works in mysterious ways’. I had heard it so many times because of course they say it all the freaking time but that was the time it really clicked for me that I won’t be getting any real answers and can stop pretending.
God is just an edgy anime protagonist
Reincarnated as the Christian God!??
Isn’t there that philosophical argument about how God can’t be both all-good and all-powerful? If he’s all-good, he would have to stop bad things.
It’s been well over a decade since philosophy class, but this reminded me of that argument.
Forgot who made it though.
Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
It’s the Epicurean Paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox
In summary:
If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?
God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth!
“He gave us free will” aka he doesn’t want to.
Yeah I’m not religious but this is it. Christians believe free will is “more good” than the bad things it leads to are bad.
The problem for Christianity is that it doesn’t fit with how God is presented. He intervenes in things from time to time. Destroyed civilization with a flood because he didn’t like what people were doing with free will.
You might be able to take a Deist stance and make it work. However, then you’re implicitly saying there’s no evidence for God, and are one step out from agnostic atheism. You could say God changed his mind and saw the flood as a bad idea, but fundamentalists are never going to go for that one.
For that matter, the free will explanation isn’t even universal among Christians.
People have free will, because that is the greatest good, but not freedom of consequences (even from god) when they behave bad with that free will. Even though they behave bad, if bad is an objective scale, their bad bahvior was still less bad than having no free will. On this scale, god not punishing them for their bad behavior is more bad than gods punishment. So, because he always has to let the most good thing happen he both has to allow free will and people to do bad and also punish people for doing bad even though he knows they will be bad and he could prevent it. Again I think it’s bs, and there’s a lot of bad logic in Christianity, but that’s their subjective stance (usually but, like you said, not a monolith). It “works” because good and bad isn’t something you can logic out very wrll since it’s highly subjective.
If you make a child, you are responsible for it. Should parents drop children in a forest to be at the mercy of nature?
I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here. Do you want my opinion? The opinion of Christians? The opinion of people who view nature to be god?
In my opinion, no. Obviously not. But I also am not a Christian.
Oh well, you are neurotypical likely, you would not get it.
As someone who is neurodivergent: what a weird fucking non-sequitur-cum-ad-hominem. Fuck you for using “neurotypical” as an insult, like you are somehow better than others because you’re so special. You make us look bad. At least your username is accurate.
