Asklemmy

43755 readers

1210 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

321

Is there a specific religious term for the belief "God exists and he is evil"? (lemm.ee)

submitted 7 months ago by IsoSpandy@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

197 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am not an atheist, I genuinely believe that God exists and he is evil, like a toddler who fries little ants with a lens.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Somewhat off-topic, but there's this line of thought, which multiple Christian thinkers have come up with throughout the centuries, called the Ontological Argument. It basically tries to prove the existence of the Christian God with only pure logic, no axioms involved.

Proofs without axioms don't exist elsewhere, so take the following with a massive grain of salt, but basically it goes:

God is a maximally good being. Existence of a maximally good being is itself good. Therefore, God must exist.

Aside from this being circular reasoning, it also involves a massive axiom: The existence and definition of good vs. bad.

But with your point, we can advance the argument even further:

Defining what's good is good.

That way, we get twice the circular reasoning, but no axioms anymore. 🙃

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Philosophical, not logical. The actual axiom is still 'god exists."

Defining what god must be, rather than defining what would qualify as a god, assumes there is such a thing as god.

Example: The cat god is a being that is a better cat than any other imaginable cat.

Compared to: A god would be all-powerful. This being, x, is all-powerful. Therefore, x is a god.

Compared to: There exists a cat better than any other cat. This cat, being greater than all others must be the god of cats. (Does this qualify as an omnipotent 'god'? No, but at least the cat is provable.

Defining what’s good is good.

Adam and Eve were canonically cast from heaven for being able to define good and evil.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Philosophy needs to be logical, in my opinion. Otherwise, you're just making up bullshit with no connection to reality.

Which, yeah, not wanting to have any axioms, does lead to that. It's just reasoning around in a circle, but there's no logical path to get into that circle.

Adam and Eve were canonically cast from heaven for being able to define good and evil.

I mean, sure, but then we just need to give a slightly different wonk to our circular argument:

As a maximally good being, only you know what's good, so defining what's good is in itself a good deed.

But yeah, obviously this is just nonsense. I just find it hilarious, how much argumentation you can layer on top of itself, without actually providing a logical statement.