The classic response:
"He is testing us"
And here I thought that God was all-knowing, so he should know how we would react before having to test us
The classic response:
"He is testing us"
And here I thought that God was all-knowing, so he should know how we would react before having to test us
There's been a LOT of attempts to explain this throughout history, none of them are really airtight. Until one day I finally cracked it. Like seriously, I think I have a solution without a contradiction:
What if... God is just not very clever? He's doing his best, ok?
If he's really all powerful - I hear you object - couldn't he simply increase his intelligence? Yes. Yes he could. If he thought of it =(
"if you're a dumbass and you know it, clap your hands"
suddenly, rolling thunder
All-powerful, all-seeing and loving. 1 and 2 can't be true for someone who dropped the ball this bad
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
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.
The “toddler god” idea has a flaw; he’d have tantrums.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
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
Tracks with the whole “god made us like him” premise. That just means god is an idiot about half the time. Also explains the cruelty, capriciousness, manipulation, uncaring, etc. with hypothetical random acts of kindness. It also means any potential heaven is going to be a complete crapshoot, you have no idea what fit of pique god will have built heaven in.
Either way, sounds like god is a real dumpster fire and has left humans to stew in their own as well.
This perfectly lines up with a series called Miracle Workers and in it Steve Buscemi is God and he's an absolute fuck up.
"god is all knowing" vs. "i have free will"
christians press both buttons without thinking about it.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
Or put another way: Omnipotence, Omniscience, Benevolence; choose any two. The very existence of evil excludes the possibility that there is God-being with all three traits.
Omniscient and omnipotent are mutually exclusive, as knowing what will happen means the future is locked in.
But if we’re “made in His image,” wouldn’t benevolence be a question of mood? The reality is that Father is in Heaven, therefore, he has poor awareness of the maladies of the flesh so he needed a meat thermometer (his boy)?
Meanwhile gnostics: Yes
I read a book back in the day that had the idea of a God that was just as confused about his origin as we were. He didn't know how he was made, so he experimented and made Earth with the hope that he will create another version of himself. I think he got bored in the story and stopped checking on us. Idk it's been a while.
Ancient (and a very few modern) Gnostics decided to run with "God is an asshole and we are all prisoners here"
It may be that they beleive that those who suffer are actually morally corrupt in some way, even themselves, which is part of why the wealthy become so admired.
I think religion would be way more convincing and appealing if we just gave up on the "all-powerful" aspect of God and focused on the "all-knowing" and "maximally good" parts
Just accepting many gods rather than just one; each with their own power and personalities... like in old paganisms... it is far more convincing to me. None of the producted texts are absolute truth, just a poetic view according to the dream given by the servant of one of the gods: of course it is not exact, so proving it wrong brings nothing... Responsabilities are diluted, and if you are more a fan of the god A, you can accuse the god B td oe responsible of most bad things…
That said, the original version of the monotheists god was not claiming to be the only one existing, he was requesting to be the only one they pray for and honor. A bit as it was the minor "god" of jealousy of a large pantheon…
ever tried to talk to a christian about how an omniscient god clearly obviates any concept of free will? they really don't like that.
Its kinda hard for the creator of the universe to not be all powerful though. The other two are much more maliable.
Maybe He created the universe and then the universe took on a life of its own? In the same way that a parent may create a child but doesn't then have absolute power over the child or their behavior?
Are programmers all powerful over code they created and then released into the wild? (TLDT: No, but there is likely some control, especially over new versions)
The metaphor would be code running "locally", not released into the wild. So yes. Whatever you originally wrote you could remove, rewrite, augment or fix. If god "released us into the wild" then god is not omnipotent anymore, and it also would never be required for an omnipotent entity.
Perhaps, also perhaps the classic Jesuit argument that for judgement to be meaningful free will must exist applies. Similarly a scientist should state the results being experimented on before running the experiment rather than just running p-values on a bunch of resultant data and claiming whatever pops as the intended result. Perhaps God is a scientist with a multiverse of experiments with small tweaks to initial conditions. In that sense you'd have a bunch of (or just one) locally running code(s), but effectively in the wild for fear of tainting the results.
I'm agnostic FWIW, I just find these ideas fertile ground for playing with thoughts.
Perhaps, also perhaps the classic Jesuit argument that for judgement to be meaningful free will must exist applies.[...]
Perhaps God is a scientist with a multiverse of experiments with small tweaks to initial conditions.
Not in any of the mainstream monotheistic views that would be relevant. They are omniwhatever as a matter of... well, canon, I guess.
So we're really just making this shit up.
I personally think if there is one capital G god, that being most certainly just want some fun and we are a massive source of entertainment for that God.
Most of you should probably go ahead and read Ethics by Spinoza. This whole thing is just atheism circle jerk, nobody outside of atheists actually cares. There's plenty of ways religious people will just spin this with whatever bullshit interpretation. Spinoza's theory, on the other hand, is far more powerful.
For the same reason you do.
Okay, say you have an ant farm or something like that. You have the power to pour bleach in your ant farm and kill all of them at once. Or you could drop food in there. They are aware of you and think of you like a god, so they worship you. But when they do shitty things to each other, they wonder why you didn't step in and intervene. You qualify as all-powerful and all-knowing (imagine you can see all the pathways from both sides), so, why don't you step in? The fact is, you don't really care. You might care that you have an ant farm. You care about the bigger picture. But the small things? Like who gets to be queen and the shitty things they do to each other? It's not really your concern.
If a god were a real thing, it would be some kind of life force that is quite beyond our understanding, and thus, it wouldn't really care about our internal struggles, if it had a motivation to see us as a species succeed (in what? just surviving? Basically).
It's easy to say gods don't exist, but, we really don't know what's out there in the stars. Imagine something could live in space without oxygen, and imagine it can't be seen by our instruments. That might be like a god. We don't really know.
You're not omniscient or omnipotent in the ant farm - you have a very limited view and very limited powers. "Doesn't care" does not mesh with god being all-loving, which is the 3rd part of the standard bs.
It’s easy to say gods don’t exist, but, we really don’t know what’s out there in the stars.
It's easy to say "until someone proves anything at all, which seems like a fair thing to request, you don't need to act as if you believe it", and also true. While it can't be conclusively disproven that maybe some god is lurking around out there, earthly religion makes testable, falsifiable claims all the time. Which are then tested, and falsified
Dropping in food and burning the whole thing down are pretty powerful, but not ALL powerful. These are things that any of us could do for/to each other.
Also, none of us really know what's happening in that ant farm. God supposedly knows all of our names and relationships to others and sees every single thing we do on a very granular level.
If your claim is that God is just an entity looking down at us and blindly fucking around with the environment, that may be possible, but there's no more reason to worship that being than the weather itself.
I’ve never understood the hype surrounding this pseudo-dilemma in atheist circles. The answer is actually quite simple: being all-powerful doesn’t mean being capable of doing impossible things. If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible, then, as a Christian, I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent, but that is merely a matter of wordplay.
There are many valid criticisms of religion and even of theism, but this one has never really made sense to me.
Well, the christian's claim is that god created the world as it is, in 6 days, and that each day he checked what he did and that he saw it was good. And so he not only created pain for innocent baby animals, but he also validated it as good. May is it onavoidable, but we are still able to regret it. Is our moral highes than god's moral? Or are we wrong and should we train ourself to feel joy at the idea of a new born baby mouse tortured by a cat who may (or not) eat it after his play (when the baby mouse died)?
Even if you take that myth literally, which I don't, he says things are good before the Fall, then before “pain for innocent baby animals”.
But is him the creator of the world we live in? Or is someone else the origine of this pain?
The fall is to punish humans because their ancestor many generations ago acted wrong... But why are innocent baby animals punished for that? Or have their ancestors sinned too?
I am sorry, but it is hard for me to see here any kind of justice. How do you define evil in a way to distinguish it from the god?
I'll break it down like this. Is all suffering necessary? Like do infants really need to get leukemia to achieve God's grand plan? Does he have the power to achieve his goal without giving infants leukemia?
It boils down to the fact that either he is not able to, and therefore not all powerful, or he is and chooses to give babies cancer anyway, and therefore not all good.
You seem to think that God is a micromanager which decide everything. It's not the Biblical God. This is explained by the myth of creation (yes it's a myth, but it's not because it's not historical that it's not meaningful). Evil and suffering wasn't in God's plan. What was in God's plan, was freedom for the Creation, which is not possible without an alternative: follow God's will, or not. The Creation chose to try an other way, and God cried. But he respected the choice.
Evil and suffering wasn't in God's plan
Did God create the universe? Did he know evil and suffering would occur before he created the universe? Could he have created the universe another way?
If the answer to all 3 is yes, everything must be according to his plan. If the answer to any is no, you have to get rid of either all-knowing or all-powerful.
I say no to the last one. But that doesn't mean he's not all-powerful in the proper sense of the word, because he can't do impossible things.
I guess my next question would be why would it be impossible? I'll accept that he can't do logically impossible things, like make a square circle, but the idea that he could have made changes to nature is not logically impossible.
He can change nature. But not in a way that would preserve freedom and make nature obey all his wishes at the same time. That is the squared circle.
I'm not talking about obeying his wishes, I'm talking about unnecessary suffering. Could he make a world with free will and no baby cancer?
His wish is for the creation to be free of suffering. If he forced that, there wouldn't be freedom. And by freedom I'm not speaking about human agency, but the metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn't want.
metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn't want
Either God created that capacity (literally nothing can exist if he does not will it), or there are higher metaphysical concepts than God.
I wouldn't call logic a metaphysical concept. But yes, God can't go against it.
metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn't want.
I mean that. So God is constrained by something other than logic.
No, this metaphysical capacity is the universe's, not God's. Freedom is the human form of a cosmological reality : the capacity not to be what God wants. God is the one who created the word that way, because he wanted a universe he doesn't control. Because if the universe can't not love God, then it can't love it. Love must be free.
which is not possible without an alternative
Oh? So he's not omnipotent then?
I'll cite myself one message higher:
If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible, then, as a Christian, I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent, but that is merely a matter of wordplay.
The passive-aggressive "as per my last email" doesn't magically make that bs make sense. You do understand that, right?
Omnipotence is defined as "unlimited power". god can't do X -> god is not omnipotent. Extremely simple stuff if you're not an apologist.
Of course. All the answers are simple, in such a way that it's easy to show how they're all really bad arguments. Such as "Well it's simple really, one of the three main characteristics of god, that literally everyone knows, just isn't true when inconvenient to my position."
Hence the "hype" - it's pretty useful to have an argument that, no matter what people try to argue, immediately has to result in something stupidly obviously illogical, something that contradicts one or more lore points, some cop out bs, bad faith argumentation, or everything all at once.
I explicitly said that there were good criticisms of religion and theism, so please read messages to the end before answering. Atheists, both friends and strangers, asked me very hard questions, and I'm thankful to them for that, because these hard questions made me grow. It's just that this one is not one of them.
I explicitly said that there were good criticisms of religion and theism, so please read messages to the end before answering.
See, this is exactly the bad faith argumentation and copout bullshit that I was literally just talking about.
"Please refrain from insinuating that just because you find the argument too difficult, I didn't read it" blah blah etc, see how easy that was and didn't address any of the actual questions? Real obvious stuff.
Atheists, both friends and strangers, asked me very hard questions, and I’m thankful to them for that, because these hard questions made me grow. It’s just that this one is not one of them.
Maybe it could be, if you had the time, balls and intellectual honesty to engage with it
You can't make strawmen and cry when people don't engage to them.
It's pretty funny, this tone you're taking just because you're on the Shit Arguments side. Which you evidently know, or you'd be able to come up with better stuff.
The answer is actually quite simple: being all-powerful doesn’t mean being capable of doing impossible things. If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible, then, as a Christian, I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent
Well, yeah, if you simply believe different things, then criticisms of the beliefs you don't hold aren't a problem.
Now, I'd wager that out of the ~2.25 billion Christians, about 2 billion of them would be at best skeptical that you qualify as a Christian at all and essentially all of them would vehemently disagree with you, but they disagree with each other about nearly everything too, so you aren't exactly objectively wrong to call yourself a Christian.
However, that doesn't make others wrong to level these criticisms at the vast majority of Christians who do believe that "through God, all things are possible" literally means all things, even things that are otherwise contradictory.
If your god is not all powerful, then your religion lied to you about what your god even is.
According to your lore, his will is our reality - he isn't bound by the laws of our universe, he made them. So he didn't just allow evil and suffering to exist, he actively put it here. Why worship a being so full of hate?
No, according to my lore, the world escaped God's will. That's like the first pages of the Bible. That's the meaning of the Fall's myth.
...and which defining pillar of your god are you going to rugpull to rationalize the world being able to escape god's will?
Every explanation for this shit is him situationally not being all powerful, all knowing, or all good.
It depends on how you define the words. Is omnipotence the capacity to do absolutely everything? Then yes, God is not omnipotent. But no philosopher or theologian ever defined omnipotence like that. Using that against Christianity is a strawman. Omnipotence, clearly defined is the capacity to do anything possible. So God can't make a squared circle but he's still omnipotent. He can't create a universe where everything follows his will and still is free at the same time, but he's still omnipotent.
Impossible according to what? The laws of the universe that god made? Couldn't he just as easily have made different laws?
And why is the capability to commit evil always a defining characteristic of free will? We also cannot breathe underwater, fly, or lift a freight train with our god-given anatomy, so do we actually have free will?
Compare it to our own legal system: you have free will to choose what you want for dinner tonight, right? Loads of restaurants with loads of entrees, grocery stores stocked with whatever you need to cook up your creation: the combination of options is unfathomably vast. Free, right? ...but wait, according to the law, you're not allowed to cannibalize your neighbor's 4 year old kid, so I guess that makes you a mindless drone cuz if evil isn't on the menu then neither is free will.
So let's put that restriction back in god's court: he doesn't need to enforce his law, he just wills it and so it is: you still have the unfathomably huge number of non-evil options, but this time cannibalism is actually impossible: you are literally incapable of committing or even considering it because divine intervention will not let you - do you have free will?
Our freedom exists within the constraints of some system. Both legal and divine. There are loads of things we aren't free to do - the capacity to commit evil taken away from us would be a drop in the ocean.
Impossible according to what?
Logic. Logic precedes the Creation.
And why is the capability to commit evil always a defining characteristic of free will?
Because freedom is not absolute, one is always free in relation to something. Since God is love, freedom in relation to God is necessarily the freedom not to love and therefore, the freedom to do evil.
Logic. Logic precedes the Creation.
Logic according to what? What makes you believe logic predates creation? If you're citing genesis, you might want to reread it: it's vague as fuck and certainly doesn't address the (non)existence of logic prior to creation.
Kinda sounds like you're making shit up, in which case you might want to review revelations too, which instructs not to do that or sky daddy will give you that eternal spanking.
Because freedom is not absolute
Yeah no shit, that's half the point of my last post, the other half being why it's so important to you for evil to be part of that freedom, which...
Since God is love, freedom in relation to God is necessarily the freedom not to love and therefore, the freedom to do evil.
Speaking of logic, that's flawed as fuck. The absence of love is not synonymous with the presence of evil. The absence of love is just the absence of love. All the people, critters, things in your life that you've paid no mind to? That's absence of love. They mean nothing to you - and that's fine. The presence of love? Your friends, family... I don't need to elaborate here do I? But evil? Hopefully this is something you've never been compelled to do - causing suffering for its own sake. That's not fine... and the universe we're stuck in is absolutely stuffed with it.
So again, why does free will - even specifically in the context of freedom from love - have to include evil?
all 87 comments