http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theodicy-6

Alt textOnce Simulation Theory logic is allowed, you can prove ANYTHING.

Bonus panelBonus panel

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Hmm, it was my understanding that in most theologies, the concept of omnipotence is incompatible with being dumb: a smarter creator would be "more powerful", and therefore "all powerful" implies infinite intelligence.

Cool comic anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    I disagree. I think there is a case to be made that you could be omnipotent but stupid. Consider an omnipotent god which has the capacity to increase its own wisdom, but chooses not to for lack of wisdom. Consider an omniscient god which can see all things, or even know all things, but cannot process all things in their context at the same time (or could make itself able to, had it the wisdom to perceive the problem). Consider an omnibenevolent god which seeks good outcomes, but for lack of wisdom does not successfully accomplish them. Consider an omnipresent god who's definitely here, right now, in this moment, but just doesn't understand enough of the context of all things to realize why it needs to pay attention to this set of events in particular, since it can just know about it afterward with its omniscience.

    No, we require a fifth potential quality of a completely perfect divinity (a quality clearly lacking in whatever divinity formed this cosmos): Omnisapience. An omnisapient, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would never create this universe, but such an entity would be, definitionally, perfect. It seems, indeed, that the lack of omnisapience in a divine creator would be a requirement for the problem of evil.

    "It is a tale told by an idiot: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    An omnisapient, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would never create this universe

    Unless such a deity decided to create all universes in which there exists at least one entity which would prefer to exist, instantiating all other entities in such a universe as philosopher's zombies...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Excellent point! I hadn't considered the possibility of a scenario where the whole universe is created for the sole benefit of a single real inhabitant, presumably oneself.

    I still maintain the necessity of omnisapience as a quality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Excellent point! I hadn't considered the possibility of a scenario where the whole universe is created for the sole benefit of a single real inhabitant, presumably oneself.

    He did a pretty bad job, you guys keep fucking around instead of worshiping me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 14 hours ago (6 children)

    I generally don't care for the arguments of "an X creator must be Y, therefore Z". It's very similar to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/, and always tries to sneak in an "ought" for an "is". From that link for example, "God is ontologically superior to every partite entity", what does "superior" mean? Why?

    So not to pick on you specifically, but I'd need to see a well-reasoned argument about why a smarter creator would be "more powerful". In fact, flip it on its head. A dumber creator is "more powerful" because it must require more power than a smarter creator in order to do the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (5 children)

    It is not that a smarter creator is more powerful, but that an all-powerful creator, by virtue of being all-powerful, must be capable of expanding its own intelligence. If it cannot, it is incapable of something, which makes it not all-powerful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

    It must have no need to expand its own intelligence even though it could, for if it's all-powerful, it must be able to do everything possible, while being dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

    A lack of intellect is a dis-ability. To be omnipotent, one must have perfect ability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    To be omnipotent, one must be capable of giving oneself perfect ability. It doesn't require that one must have perfect ability.

    A being that is all-powerful despite having a disability must truly be more powerful than a being that doesn't have that limitation. In fact, the being that is all-powerful despite having the most limitations must be the most allest-powerfulest of all.

    This is just the semantic word games you get with terms like "all-powerful". I've never cared for arguing about the term, because it's ill-defined 🤷

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

    I do not think a being can be all-powerful and have a disability, because a disability is a lack of ability. Any limitations must be self-imposed and not substantive—they would have to be purely symbolic—or the being would otherwise be limited, and therefore not omnipotent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -1 points 11 hours ago

    The being with a true disability that is all-powerful must truly be aller-powerfuler than another being that lacks that true disability.

    Yeah, it's a silly argument, but that's because theology as a whole is silly.

  • source
  • parent