Whenever I ask a religious what’s so bad about the fruit of knowledge, they could never give a definitive answer as for why.
Yay more gnostic content!
God: I’m going to make humans, and I’m going to give these humans free choice… but i already know what all their choices are going to be because I can see the past, present, and future, which means that it’s all already written. I actually made them to be the person they are and give them the experiences they need to be the person I want them to be. So, they only get to think they have freedom to make choices and decisions. Then I’m going to make them feel bad for making the choices I made them make. Then they’ll love me because they’ll feel bad for not loving me. And it’ll seem to me to be their choice to love me. I need to be loved. I’m very insecure.
Lou: yo dude, you’re fucked up. I do not wanna work for you
God: shocked_pikachu_face.png
Lou: you are not very good at this anyway, I bet I can do it as good a you can. You’re sad.
God: go to hell, Lou.
Lou: fine, but I’m taking my friend’s with me. Douche.
“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?”Whoever originally wrote this, I want to be their friend! Thank you for sharing. It’s beautiful.
I think they’re called the Epicurean paradoxes because Epicurus originally stated them.
Marcus Aurelius, if I recall correctly. Good dude.
i think the common argument for this (not that i agree with it) is that God just see evil differently? i.e. you mere mortals think something is evil doesn’t mean god does too.
(and this argument then becomes circular and unfalsifiable, that’s why i think it’s dumb).
God’s a Taoist. There is no good, there is no evil. There is only his way, or the highway.
The highway:
What do the morals of ants mean to man?
Why put an argument you know is bad? If God isn’t good by our subjective metric, he isn’t good
It’s not about being “good,” it’s about power, punishment, and hierarchy. You don’t have to be “good” to get into heaven, just fully devoted to and in alignment with the ambitions of their puny gods. They don’t believe you are rewarded for who you are, but who you serve and how obediently. There’s a reason why christians call their deity “The Lord.”
Well, yes, if might = right, I think I was thinking more along the lines of subjectively from my point of view judging god haha
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
That’s a huge leap.
My coworkers smoke. I could take away their cigarettes and put them in the trash. Am I malevolent for not doing so?
If I did, I would be considered malevolent for infringing on their personal freedom.
You don’t have the power to make it so smoking never existed, addiction never existed and evil never existed. Your argument is a false dichotomy.
In the analogy it would be more like if they did not know the existence of smoke and you handed them a pack and then punish them after they fail to stop smoking
It depends on who has power over who … you don’t have power or control over your coworker … they could slap you in face for taking away their cigarettes … and if they are strong and violent enough, they could punch you in face and knock you out
God may or may not have power over us and if they did, they’d snap their fingers and put us out of existence … which is why the paradox makes you think … if God is all powerful, why don’t they do things to make things better … because if they don’t, then they don’t care … and if they can’t, why call them God?
In this scenario, who’s performing an evil act if you’re not willing to stop it? The smokers?
I’ve been a smoker. The kind of damage I have been inflicting on myself over decades of smoking is crazy. The addiction makes you ignore a lot of warning signs.
So I guess my comment stems from the situation I find myself in now: I feel guilty because I can’t do more to help the people around me.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
This is not a necessary conclusion. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible. Since God is Love, he could not create something distinct from himself unless his creation were at least capable of not loving. Evil is simply a consequence of creation’s capacity for unlovingness. So he’s not able to prevent evil even if he’s willing to, but he’s still is omnipotent of the word is correctly defined. If you want to keep the maximalist definition then I, as a Christian, will cheerfully say that God is not omnipotent. But it’s just a wordplay.
I’m ready to respectfully discuss this idea, but will ignore any disrespectful or insulting message.
Ah the Christian apologists final form: “God and the Bible mean whatever I want them to mean whenever it’s convenient”.
God killed everyone on the planet but that’s obviously bad so that story is a myth but all the ones that I want to be true are true.
God says he’s omnipotent but that makes his existence impossible so I’ll just change the definition of the word omnipotent. Thereby admitting that god isn’t even powerful enough to speak clearly in his sacred texts.
Going even further down the rabbit hole and they’ll start talking about how they learned ancient Greek and Hebrew just so they can manipulate the text further. God is all powerful but just really bad at translating words in a book.
You’re grasping at straws. God does not exist and if it does it is evil.
In the Christian biblical sense and beliefs of creation … God created everything out of nothing … which implies that they are capable of creating and controlling everything … the story of Noah is God deciding he didn’t like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out
So now we live in a world where so many terrible things are happening … sure there are many good things and good people but there are also an overwhelming number of bad people and bad things making this world very, very uncomfortable … so where is God? Things are worse (or just as bad) now than they were before the biblical flood … so why hasn’t God stepped in to either make things better - or hit the reset button again.
Which then begs the question of the paradox and asks where is God, what are they doing, and why aren’t they doing anything?.. and leads to the ultimate question about God … do they actually exist?
the story of Noah is God deciding he didn’t like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out
This story is a myth. God didn’t wipe anyone out. In fact, the story answers your question: the text presents the Flood as a bad thing. The destruction of everything because evil exists is portrayed negatively; that’s why God promises never to do it again. Instead, he promises to walk alongside humanity. For Christians, he fulfills that promise by becoming human and suffering with us.
He had only three choices: to create nothing, to create something completely obedient, or to create something capable of not following his will. He chose the third because it was the best option. But he knew that, in creating it, he was also creating the possibility of suffering. He didn’t wish for suffering, but it was a necessary consequence. In response, he had two options: simply let suffering continue, or accompany his creation through it. He chose the second.
So no, he doesn’t do nothing. He does what he can to help us while still respecting us as independent beings.
But he knew that, in creating it, he was also creating the possibility of suffering
If a being is capable of creating anything and everything from the own will, how could they allow suffering to become reality? If creation from nothing is spontaneous and under their full control, why would they allow suffering to enter the equation?
It either means that creation is something that is not under their full control therefore does allow them to be completely omnipotent … or they chose to create a reality with suffering on purpose which provides for some questionable ethics and morality (why create something that will suffer?)
He didn’t wish for suffering, but it was a necessary consequence
if an all powerful being is capable of creating life and reality out of nothing … then you’d think they would have full control over the process. If there was nothing to start with, then how could side effects like suffering enter the process?
God is not completely omnipotent, like I said more than once. He can’t do anything. He does have maximal power though; he can do everything possible.
Who are we to say what God can or can’t do … or is capable of or incapable of … maybe they are able to do anything and everything they want and just sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t … or maybe they are just as influenced by the random universe as much as we are
Which means that we can’t know what a being that was at the start of universe is able to do … or even cares.
Then what the fuck is the deal with parting the seas, bombing Sodom and Gomorrah, and annihilating humanity ten times over before we came along?
All these texts are myths.
Every religious everything is a myth, that doesn’t address my question in any way shape or form.
Then, you should explain how in your opinion these texts contradict my thesis, even if they are myths.
The christian god, in the myth, literally and tangibly did things and contorted reality to his will and plans to ensure his/his followers success. He blew people up, attacked children with an army of bears, flooded the earth, and a bunch of other stuff.
Also, according to your shit, in the beginning your god literally created everything. Not most things. Not some things. They claim that your god created all that has been and all that ever will be. How does that translate to “can do what it is possible to be done, but is not all powerful” without some high level mental gymnastics?
Edit: A dude (not jesus) died and was brought back to life, for fuck’s sake.
myth, literally
A myth, by definition, is not something that should be read literally.
can do what it is possible to be done, but is not all powerful
Easy. Our world was the one he was able to create.
Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible.
Omni - all, potent - powerful/able. All powerful. Having unlimited or universal power. You can of course interpret as you want, but words are words and they have meaning.
Etymology doesn’t work like that, or a pineapple would be an apple that grows on pines. For real, omnipotence is defined by philosophy as maximal power.
This is basically alt-fiction. Lucifer rebelled because he wanted to rule as a god our of pride and personal ambition. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, but because a lot of people have a problem with the Bible’s fiction and how its cult acts it out, they like to indulge in this alt-fiction that Satan was essentially just another Prometheus. Why not just disengage from the entire fictional premise completely rather than pick one which deliberately antagonizes and plays into your critics?
The old testament originally didnt portray Satan as a singular character. The Hebrew word was used fairly often to describe all sorts of adversaries. The idea of a figure that portrayed the ultimate evil that rebelled against god and was cast out of heaven isnt found anywhere in the bible.
Wicked for atheists.
I’ve always subscribed to the idea that Lucifer was the good guy that tried to overthrow God but lost. He got A THIRD of the angels backing him. That’s not insignificant. Shit was going on and people were unhappy.
Even though the Bible is written by the victor, it somehow still manages to show how fucking evil God is.
The Abrahamic religions and their followers are completely nuts or simply just don’t know much about their faith.
It’s like a Democrat arguing with a Republican. Predictably it doesn’t matter which one you choose to be which.
It matters this time.
Okie dokie
every major election users come out of hibernation just to tell you your vote doesn’t matter.
funny innit?
Are both sides proposing legislation to monitor micro plastics in drinking water?
Are both sides proposing improving anti trust laws?
Are both sides trying to protect trans people and abortion rights?
Or is it that you’re so privileged that both sides seem the same to you because neither one affects you personally?
