you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (6 children)

All-powerful, all-seeing and loving. 1 and 2 can't be true for someone who dropped the ball this bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Seeing is not the same as understanding.

    Maybe humans like suffering and dying. They all seem to do it, so they must like it.

    I like this idea of an all powerful toddler god

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    As a worldbuilding/fiction device, it's a hell of a lot better - genuine-looking limitations are always more convincing than "completely fantastical bullshit that just can't do any damn thing that you'd expect, for increasingly suspicious reasons", or that keeps switching capabilities after what the story/case needs. They're major alarm bells for not only being made up, but poorly.

    It isn't the shtick for the major monotheistic religions, though. That wouldn't be very omnipotent or omniscient.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Stupidity does not square with omniscience and omnipotence, though, unless one desperately needs it to. It would explain a hell of a lot, but you will notice how very little of the scripture goes "god, this god dude is such a stupe, but we're just rolling with it for reasons"

    Besides, Hanlon's razor gets sorta short circuited by Occam's, which would seem to take a dim view of an entire bible's worth of waffling to explain suffering, war, famine, kids and good people dying horrifically from cancer, natural disasters etc etc etc

  • source
  • parent