this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
477 points (94.9% liked)

Cool Guides

4702 readers
1 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves. You could likewise argue that if it's the will of god, then it must be good, and if it's not the will of god, then it's not good. So children getting cancer? That's clearly god's will, and is therefore good.

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If a god exists, then it could reasonably be believed (without evidence, since there is no evidence for any god at all) that god is defining morality for us, rather than defining morality in regards to themselves.

Absolutely, and this is the frame of reference for the paradox. When, in the paradox parameters, we say "god cannot be all-good" what we are saying is "god cannot be all good as we understand it and as the Church is pitching him"

You could likewise argue that if it’s the will of god, then it must be good, and if it’s not the will of god, then it’s not good. So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.

That is not a valid argument IMO, you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it. You are deriving a quality from a source not intended to convey it. Like saying "if Ford made this car, it must be fast"

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

you are now redefining what is good or bad, not on the merits of the act or the consequences it carries, but by who executes it.

That's a core Christian ideology though. They define god as being the source of everything that is good. Therefore, if god wills it, then regardless of how awful a thing seems, it must definitionally be good. Everything is contextual to the will of god. It's a very simplistic view of morality (as is the idea that morality is universal and unchanging).

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That’s a core Christian ideology though

Well considering this is not based on evidence or logic, I think it's safe to dismiss from this argument.

To clarify, not attacking the validity of your point, I am attacking the "solution" presented here by the Church. Basically, "if we say it's good you must take my word for it"... nope

[–] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago

So children getting cancer? That’s clearly god’s will, and is therefore good.

This answer to the Epicurean paradox is nothing but semantics. Let's just rephrase the question:

  • Can god be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving by human standards?

--> No. It creates a paradox. So, using human words and human concepts, god cannot possibly be all three things. Therefore, by human standards, we cannot expect love, omniscience, and omnipotence from him. That's all the paradox proves.

It's not a "gotcha" to claim that there might be other standards, which are meaningless to us, but somehow mean something equivalent than the concepts we already have words for. Those foreign concepts have obviously nothing to do with what we humans call power, knowledge, and love. They don't mean anything and there's literally no way to fill them with meaning either, since they are by definition independent of human concepts.

Claiming that god is something, but this something cannot be understood, is in all consequence an empty claim without any meaning. Easy to make, but at the end of the day says and proves nothing.