I like to think of why people suffer or God allows it like this. Even if you don’t think there is a plan, 70 years on earth vs an infinity of bliss is a good deal.

[–] interested_party@lemmy.org 1 points 1 hour ago

I think of this too, and then I think God gave humans a brain to figure out what to do.

[–] Dropper_Post@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago

That is exactly true. Life is only about 3 things: food, reproduction and dealing with boredom. Humans add so many colours to that, that it looks like we do more than those 3 things so that's where you might see free will.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Church dilemma - knowing the will of God vs affirming that God's ways are inscrutable, According to convenience

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 42 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Reminds me of the Epicurean Paradox:

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You could replace "God" with "Parents" to the same effect.

But arguing that a parent is evil because they see a child committing an error, know it is an error, and decline to intercede doesn't rationally follow. If you helicopter over your kids and intercede every time they make mistakes, they never develop into independent and mature adults. You also induce a lot of anxiety, as you're constantly interposing yourself between the child's desires and actions without the ability to convey the wisdom of your decisions. So the kid sees you as the harmful force, rather than the thing you're seeking to avert.

So what's a Parent/God to do? Do you puppet your child, never letting them stray farther than the length of a string? Do you lock your child in a padded ceil and hand-feed them every day? Do you hardwire their programming, so they can't deviate from your design, acting exclusively on a divine instinct?

Is that really what we consider "Goodness"?

There is also the Calculation Problem to consider. A God-like intelligence might be able to observe far more than a human without being perfectly omniscient. Similarly, they might be able to calculate probabilities more quickly and accurately without being perfectly prescient. If a Parent/God knows most of the things but is not omniscient, does that mean they are unworthy of your attention or the reception of wisdom? At the same time, is it the duty of a Parent/God to restrict the actions of the others in their domain to the things they can calculate in advance? This brings us back to the idea of the Child Prisoner or Brainwashed Child. You're safe at the expense of any kind of growth or personal liberty. God treats you like a farmer treats a veal calf - perfectly unspoiled through inaction.

And finally, there is the problem of Entropy. A God who can foresee everything and recognizes that Evil is inevitable. Is such a God responsible for this Evil simply because it can perceive it? Is such a God responsible for this Evil simply because it cannot prevent it? Is this flaw in God's power a reason to reject it as a source of virtue?

Consider Odin hanging from Yggdrasil, his eye plucked out in pursuit of a way to prevent Ragnorak. He is not all-powerful. He is not-all knowing. He is routinely makes mistakes and even acts out of anger, lust, or petty vengeance. He is fundamentally flawed as dieties come. And yet his primary goal and function - to prevent the end of the world - seems noble enough to justifiably cultivate a religious following.

[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Parents aren't all powerful. But the Abrahamic god is (according to their faith) all powerful. So it could stop any war, any disease, any pain, ... but does not. Either it's not all powerful or not good. Choose. Or, as I think, doesn't exist.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Parents aren’t all powerful.

From the perspective of a newborn, they might as well be. Everything you need to be happy, healthy, and comfortable is actively managed by the parent. You don't understand anything about your condition or your history or your source of care. All you know is the id-based impulses to complain when you don't feel good and the soothing release of your feeding, playing, and sleeping cycles.

So it could stop any war, any disease, any pain, … but does not.

What would that look like, from a practical perspective? Imagine trying to explain to a baby that you're going to stick a needle into its skin in order to prevent it from suffering a disease, when it has no conception of disease. All you know is the pain of the needle. Must you conclude, from that pain, that your nurse is fundamentally evil for inflicting this upon you? And that, by extension, your parents are evil for bringing you to this nurse?

"If parents were truly worthy of my attention, they would have found a better method of vaccinating me than this needle!" is the sort of thing you get to say as a child, precisely because you do not understand the underlying nature of the world you live in. All you know is the scolding language of a parent cajoling you into this immediate superficial pain.

Should humankind be incapable of performing wars? What does that look like? Should humankind be incapable of contracting disease? What does that look like? Should humankind be incapable of experiencing pain, even? Is that what you really want? An eternal numbness of being? Is godly perfection just being a particularly resilient tree?

Either it’s not all powerful or not good.

One can be both exceptionally powerful and exceptionally good without needing to draw a distinction between the two. One can be beyond comprehension, as well. But the argument that a single person experiencing a single moment of discomfort disproves a benevolent deity seems to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

load more comments