You must log in or register to comment.
The Christian solution to the Trolley Problem: “Don’t worry, guys on the tracks! I’ll pray for you!”
Stop judging me by how I play Rollercoaster Tycoon >:(
Plus, he also knew you wouldn’t accept him even before he created you.
I brought a question like this up in a church. It was not well received.
if only it was just death by trolley… but no no… ists actually burning for the eternity in a fiery pit of lava and ash, you know, love.
Here’s my take.
Whether “God” is all good, all knowing, all capable, or all something else is an irrelevant question. It presumes “God” has motivation to demonstrate any of these "all"s in a way we could comprehend, and I’m not talking about the Futurama idea “when you’re doing it right, they won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all” deal.
I mean that “God” is gone. Packed their shit up and moved on, when exactly they’d have done this is up for debate, but for relatability’s sake I’ll say after the ascension of Jesus.
“Jesus died for our sins.”, this phrase references Jesus’s cleansing the human race of original sin, the frustrated children of young earth creationists accuse this notion of “God” forgiving humanity for trying to learn things, but since the Torah is intended as a metaphorical text, I take the meaning of what Jesus cleansed humanity of as “sins of the father.”
Basically, “God” made humanity, and then left when humanity gained self awareness and individuality. The point of any religion they’d have placed on earth, or any messenger they’d have sent would be to model good behaviour for the people they appear to, and then to leave those people to learn to choose to behave themselves, not for fear of punishment or for promise of salvation, but because doing the right thing in a moment is just the right thing to do, and that alone merits doing it.
So the chain of development is “God” makes the world and the beginning stages of humanity, at some point “God” takes the training wheels off by making every individual responsible for their own actions rather than to be tied inextricably to some ancestor’s will or legacy or crimes, “God” leaves to give humanity the free will to choose goodness for goodness’ own sake rather than out of some command to do so.
In other words, if there’s a great and powerful creator, they’re obviously not here to intervene for their own law, and that’d probably be by design if their intention was for us to exercise our own free will in a moral manner.
Regardless of if the shoe fits or not mythologically, I feel like the “do right for right’s own sake” is a proper enough “final imperative” in a free will model of the world.
You’re essentially positing the deist possibility, where an all powerful entity created existence and afterwards just left it to its own devices.
Certainly what’d make the most sense to me given how much of the observable world doesn’t work in any other scenario besides one with no creator at all.
Note that I’m not saying I believe it in a spiritual sense, just that if I had to accept that a creator was responsible for the universe, that the above description is what would make the most sense to me given what can be observed in the current world.
I’m not concerned with you belief or lack thereof.
The way you explained yourself, I thought you’d find it interesting to know that such position towards the problematic of belief as a whole as a name.
Spinoza considered that was the only creator reasonable to exist.
Do you happen to know the name of this belief? I’m kinda in the same boat. It’s possible that god exists, but I don’t know that we can ascribe any human moral agency to it.
Oh very interesting. Thanks
He’S nOt EvIl, He SaVeS yOu!
Plus, as said omnipotent creator you leave only highly questionable ‘evidence’ of your existence
If we’re talking about Yahweh specifically, he even left evidence that shows he went from a god in a pantheon to the current supposed “one and only” god.
All the pantheistic religions are more interesting than monotheism. They’re still 100% bullshit, but monotheism is like having a D&D character with maxed out stats and skills across the board - they can do everything, but there’s no creativity or challenge, so it’s just so boring.
And monotheism is also a lot more poorly-thought out - the Ancient Greeks didn’t have any “problem of evil” because their gods were assholes just like people are. Asshole gods or no gods both make a lot more sense than all-powerful, all-good god.
Nothing in the Bible says that God is truly omnipotent; the Bibile itself references multiple times the existence of Satan, the evil, which ruins the existence on Earth and pushes people to commit sins.
So no, this meme doesn’t have any fucking sense.
The bible doesn’t say a lot of shit that many Christians claim to be true anyway. It is absolutely a common claim that god is omnipotent.
It is a common claim, doesn’t mean that I have to claim that
No, you don’t, but the meme isn’t referring to your personal interpretation.
You’re also right
Atheist here. I have a co-worker who says the world is ultimately just and so we don’t have to really work at improving things because the difference will be paid off in the afterlife.
Do you subscribe to that as well?
No, i think this would be great but being realistic, it’s a no.
…but didn’t God create Satan as well?
I never got this. They say he is omnipotent, therefore he does not perceive time in a linear way like we do. He knows everything that ever was, is and will be all at once. So there is not much to test here. Either he does the things needed to make me a believer or he doesn’t. It’s his choice and not mine. Free will is meaningless here, even if it does exist, he does already knows my choice before I make it or he is not omnipotent.
deleted by creator
Hypothetically, if such an entity did exist, shouldn’t that same logic also extend to knowing his own future choices? Since they already know everything that will happen, they also know everything that they themselves are going to do, and therefore, have essentially no agency themselves, because even if their power is infinite, it is already set beforehand what they are going to use that power for and they are essentially just along for the ride?
For that matter, if they know everything, and therefore know everything at all points in time all at once and so shouldn’t perceive time linearly, then there is no room for such a being to really engage in information processing, since that requires taking in information, and doing something with it to produce new information, and this kind of being has already taken in all the information possible from the very beginning, does not experience a meaningful flow of time (and so cannot experience change with which to apply to that input), and already has all the outputs from the very beginning too. Since thinking is a form of information processing, it occurs to me a truly omniscient being like this should basically be a philosophical zombie; basically an unconscious object of incredible scope that merely appears to be a conscious thinking entity to humans due to our limited perception of time.
This only exists if there is one possible outcome, it’s possible for the future to be undetermined, and still have an omniscient being know all future possibilities. They would know the infinite possible outcomes of their choices, all the iterations, but would still have free will to decide which path is followed. In this scenario people still don’t have free will because of the omniscience problem.
Shouldn’t they still know which path they will end up choosing to take?
Potentially yes, but it kind of breaks down if you ask whether they: made the choice (making a choice and knowing your own choice are sort of the same thing?) and followed the path to that outcome; or knew the path and made the choices to adhere to it. Obviously it’s hypothetical and also trying to assign some logic to something that’s not logical, so it gets kind of messy.
As a thought experiment, if we think of a god as a being that exists in the 5th dimension, it could be omnipotent/omniscient to the lower 4 (3 spacial + time) but only have a limited presence/influence regarding things like probability, and no influence whatsoever on things like other realities.
Similar to how we exist in the 4th dimension and can fully manipulate the lower three; but while we exist and are aware of time, we can’t manipulate it outside of trying to nudge it with extreme speed or gravity.
A god in 5th dimension then would kinda look like someone playing the Sims and making use of save states to try to optimize every decision in the game; and while you might be aware that other games exist, -this- one can only ever be Sims.
This would make omnipotence a question of scope - to the individual sim, the player is all powerful in the ways that an individual sim can experience, so, omnipotent; but that player can’t do shit to Minecraft, or instances of Sims running on other computers, so, simultaneously not omnipotent.
Basically the Many Worlds theory, but each reality would have its own god.
…which still doesn’t really pass the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good test, but it does at least frame the concept of god in a more interesting way from a mythology perspective.
No religion that I’m aware of acknowledges things like dimensions, but then they present their god as existing in a way that’s clearly outside the scope of the 4 we experience… So, there’s wiggle room even in actual religious lore in how we package things like “omnipotence”.
I love movies and books that touch on topics like this, like situations where you’ve got a super-being but they build in limitations.
-
one who can “see” into the future for hundreds of years but can only actually view one timeline simultaneously and in real-time (meaning they could see any event in the future but would need to burn time in “the now” like watching a recorded video)
-
beings that constantly lose track of what the “current” reality/timeline is in a seas of possibilities (MIB3’s “Griffin” is a fun example of this)
-
being able to know what significant future events will occur but unable to influence whether they do or not. Unavoidable destiny (e.g. Emma’s Death in “the Time Machine” is unavoidable, though the exact many it occurs changes)
-
Knowing what “bad things” will happen but still being on the “best track” timeline as deviations make things worse (Loki, Butterfly Effect)
-
Macro level knowledge overcrowding micro level suffering in the backdrop of inter-galactic scales and infinite time
-
semi-autonomous superpowers commanded by unfathomable beings without fine control and a limited self-awareness
None of this of course is an argument for the existence of an actual deity that loves us but ignores us, however they are fun ways to think of how one might know the future yet not want or be able to change it.
-
That sounds like an AI to me
“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
As an atheist I take issue with Epicurus statement, which gets floated around a lot. I think it’s because in Epicurus’s framing of the universe evil has agency, whereas christian apologetics will respond with evil representative of a lack of goodness. Then there’s the issue of free will to contend with.
I’m not sure I follow. If you see evil as “a lack of goodness”, the argument stand. If he’s benevolent, why is goodness not everywhere?
I mean, the answer I’ve heard from apologetics is the benevolence is a paternal type of benevolence. Kind of like a parent who will let their child touch a hot stove so as to not deprive them of free will. I’m probably doing a terrible steel man of the position because I don’t quite buy it
If goodness supposedly has agency because of God, when why evilness wouldn’t have it? Supposedly it also does, because of the devil. If good and evil don’t have agency, then it’s just karma and there is no God or devil.
Well yes ok. But the way I’ve heard I described is evil is a lack of goodness the same way darkness is the absence of light. There is no “non-light”, there is less or more light.
evil representative of a lack of goodness
I love the mental gymnastics of that argument, you start asking what do they mean by that statement, and they start spewing bullshit like some parrot.
Ackshuallyit was probably not Epicurus, but Sextus Empiricus. From the surviving writings it seems Epicurus was really not fond of Atheists.(Doesn’t change that it’s a great argument, I just hate that we don’t have a definite source for it)
It’s pretty clear in the Bible that you were created to worship God so your fate has been sealed since day one as far as that book is concerned. Christians get real sensitive when you start asking about the specifics of all the omnis (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) because they necessitate some unfriendly truths like “God created original sin intentionally” and “how the fuck do you die and go to hell as gods equally omni son?” “CAN God create a fart so big that even HIS butthole can’t fart it??”
“CAN God create a fart so big that even HIS butthole can’t fart it??”
Asking the real questions
For those unaware, the original theological question is
Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?
The answer, and I’m not shitting you, is
Yes. God can make a boulder so large he cannot lift it. And then he can lift it anyway.
The other answer is “he’s not omnipotent, he’s maximally powerful.” Like they claim he can’t do anything that is contradictory. Despite the Bible being full of contradictions.
He makes it so he temporarily cannot lift it, then restores his previous strength afterward so he can. They should have specified an infinite timeframe!
Can god create a fart so smelly that he himself cannot smell?
To be devils advocate here (ha irony):
The main argument against this by Christians would be, that God gives us free will that he does not control because that it objectively and ultimately good, and he is all good, so he must give us uncontrollable free will.
An alternative argument would just be that he’s god, and we can’t comprehend how he must have done/sees things, but it says it in the bible so it’s true and we have no right to question it.
That second one is not a funny exaggeration, but something I heard said very seriously growing up in church. Somewhat to their credit, worshiping a god does imply an ultimate unquestionable authority, so this would happen at a certain point no matter what, from the perspective of the religious.
Omnipotent means “all-powerful.” Omniscient means “all-knowing.”
So he has the power to acquire all knowledge, right? Being omnipotent includes being omniscient, except for the edge case of intentionally not acquiring all knowledge.
And here I thought knowledge was power.
And I thought France was bacon.
That’s Francis, not France. Common mistake
So, I assume you don’t know that story.
Oh, wasn’t aware of that
Correct. But the Christian belief is that God is also omniscient. He is the three omnis: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
Shame he doesn’t get to be an omnibus too
I believe he was correcting OPs use of omnipotent. An omniscient being wouldn’t perceive the passage of time like humans.
Omniomni Omnomni
Oye oye oye
now I’m hungry
Omnihungry
Omnisammich
Ahh yes more trinities. My favorite is the Father (gets all 3 onnis), Son(oops you can be killed apparently, so only 2 omnis then?) and the holy spirit (3 omnis).
Sure, but “God works in mysterious ways,” so it’s not my responsibility to clear up any paradoxes that arise from my religious axioms. Get with the program.
“God works in mysterious ways” is a nice way of describing him as a Lovecraftian horror we cannot possibly understand.
Playing The Sims 2 helped make His mysterious ways less mysterious but the same amount of cosmic horror.
Also brings out the capricious in you
Well have you ever read the depictions of angels in the Bible? Very lovecraftian. You may even say it’s a precisely what inspired Lovecraft.
That, and his insatiable hatred for all things dark skinned
Lovecraft didnt hate, he feared. His was a racism born and fed from paranoia, convinced that literally everything actively wanted to hurt him.
Makes the racism in his writing make a lot more sense.
Just going based on what his wife said in her biography of him
God works in mysterious ways
I wanted to find out the origin of that tripe, and it’s a poem that should be titled simply “Copium.”
I think there was this guy Calvin who already pointed that out.
If god is all-knowing, he knew I would grow up an atheist. If god is all-powerful, he hasn’t done anything about it. So I guess he’s okay with it.
deleted by creator
Why wouldn’t he do something about it while I was alive? Not omnipotent enough?
deleted by creator
How do you know this?
deleted by creator
Oh, no, it would be wrong for him to do anything to interfere with your free will! But it’s totally fine for his worshipers to do so.
Because you uhh, you have to make the choice? Even though God, if the being is all knowing, and all powerful, could set up conditions for every human being that ever existed to come to choose tobelieve in him, should he actually desire that.
So either, he doesn’t desire it, can’t do it, or doesn’t know.
If he doesn’t desire it, it doesn’t matter. If he can’t do it or doesn’t know, then he is not God, and it doesn’t matter.
I think it’s because he’s really needy and wants you to choose to worship him on your own. Never mind that you’re being threatened with eternal torment if you don’t, you choo-choo-choose him!
God only kills people he knows will be evil
Just remember next time you see a make a wish kid that they are literally worse than Hitler
Didn’t Hitler killed a lot of gay men? How many gay men has the make a wish kid killed? Check mate, Atheists.
Dude blood cancer kids are worse than Hitler. Do you know how many times I’m watching Rick and Morty and I get interrupted by the make a wish foundation? It’s infuriating.
I mean, Hitler was a bad guy but he did kill Hitler!
/s
Holy fuck that post is dripping with sarcastic and it still hurt to write.
I mean, Hitler was a bad guy but he did kill Hitler!
He also killed the guy who killed Hitler, though. That bastard.
I took a quick poll of people tied to the tracks, and a majority reported that:
- I’m good.
- Please get us off these tracks.
- He’ll take me when it’s my time.
- He works in mysterious ways.
Hahaha, thank you.
You forgot the “they accept you as the creator, and you let the trolley hit anyway”
Then condemn them to endless suffering and torment if they question you.
Also if they don’t, but they ate a ham sandwich or wore mixed fabrics or something.
It’s just part of Your plan
lol. this has such teenager atheist energy.
“my sole exposure to religion and spirituality is abrahamic and im very rational and mad about it.”
The “problem of evil” has been a topic of serious scholarship for millenia. No “theodicy” makes logical sense, but more than just teenagers examine it.
You not liking the “energy” of the post doesn’t make it inaccurate though, does it?
…you realize what sub you’re on right?
People talk about thing therefore people must not know other thing exist hur
You aren’t going to believe me and I’m positive of this, but your use of “abrahamic” here lets me know exremely precisely just exactly how much of a tool you are.
Could you elaborate? I do not understand what you mean. Is it because they are referring to the abrahamic religions as simply abrahamic?
Nope
Sounds like OP hit a nerve 🤣
Abrahamic is a large percentage, so yeah. The concept of a deity or deities that have some evil component to them isn’t just from that line of religion evolution. At least the gods of Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. openly had human flaws that contributed to their behaviors, and didn’t fall into the “mysterious ways” excuse.
Most people on Lemmy seem to be English speaking, and most English speakers are primarily exposed to abrahamic religions, so yeah that tracks
