feddit.org

10 points

4 months ago

There are many good arguments against God. This is not one of them.

It’s a slightly more complicated version of whether God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

It’s a very good argument against god, and your second statement is a great addition to it. Omnipotence in itself is impossible, as proven by the rock paradox. An omnipotent being can therefore not exist.

Your free will idea however has a very easy counter argument: If free will is the problem, then god has nothing to offer us - since in the afterlife the same rules would apply. Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn’t. Since the afterlife isn’t known to work by taking away our free will, suffering would therefore continue to prevail there as well. If the idea of an afterlife must be possible (as seen in most organized religions) than the idea of a world without suffering must be possible, without taking away something so valuable as our freedom.

report

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

4 months ago

Omnipotence in itself is impossible

The question of God isn’t of perfect omnipotence but relative omnipotence. There’s plenty of room for a “Godlike” being that does not resolve the paradox of omnipotence. Hell, a guy who sits on a cloud and flings lighting bolts has been sufficient to qualify for eons.

Either a world without suffering is possible, or it isn’t

Suffering without purpose. And that’s where things get sticky. Because the argument from Evil needs to assume the recipients of suffering are innocent and undeserving. Otherwise it’s not evil, just karma.

report

[ - ]

1 point

4 months ago

Suffering without purpose. And that’s where things get sticky. Because the argument from Evil needs to assume the recipients of suffering are innocent and undeserving. Otherwise it’s not evil, just karma.

There’s plenty of undeserved suffering in our world, I don’t think we have to debate that. Either evil is the consequence of our free will in some convoluted way - then the same will be true in the afterlife - or a paradise without suffering is possible - then an all-loving and omnipotent god would have been able to create just that. It simply disproves the idea that our suffering was somehow unavoidable to an all-powerful god, because that doesn’t make sense withing the ideological framework of the abrahamic religions. It must be avoidable. Otherwise paradise would be unthinkable.

report

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world

[ - ]

-1 points

4 months ago

There’s plenty of undeserved suffering in our world, I don’t think we have to debate that.

Not casually, but as soon as you escalate the scale of the discussion to “X is True Because Evil Exists”, you’re stuck making these much more formalized and stringent responses.

And I absolutely think - particularly in an era of climate change catastrophe and ecological crisis - that you can argue our collective suffering is a collective punishment for the world we have collectively built.

Either evil is the consequence of our free will in some convoluted way

Hardly convoluted. We act upon each other. And we perceive the actions inflicted on one another as “good” and “evil”. If you want to argue a purely deterministic understanding of our behaviors, you can blame God (or the Prime Mover / First Domino / Deist Clockmaker Thing). But once you open up the idea that we own responsibility for our own actions, you abdicate The First Actor from responsibility.

It simply disproves the idea that our suffering was somehow unavoidable to an all-powerful god, because that doesn’t make sense withing the ideological framework of the abrahamic religions.

All it disproves is a particular set of assumptions that not even other Christians generally believe. Like, the idea of the Abrahamic God being cruel or capricious or personally flawed isn’t even a conclusion you can take away from a straight reading of the Bible. You need one of those Evangelical hype artists to punch up the original material in order to get there.

At the point, you’re not arguing against the existence of a deity. You’re arguing against the existence of Buddy Jesus and the big smiling sun baby from Teletubbies.

The Argument From Evil can be reduced down to “I don’t believe a God exists, because if It did I wouldn’t like It.”

report

[ - ]

1 point

4 months ago

Hardly convoluted.

While you’re arguing about all the parts of human suffering that can easily be attributed to humans, other forms of suffering exist as well. Think volcanoes. Think cancer. You’re not making a good argument if you’re conveniently forgetting that not all suffering has to do with our free will at all.

At the point, you’re not arguing against the existence of a deity. You’re arguing against the existence of Buddy Jesus and the big smiling sun baby from Teletubbies.

I think you’re misunderstanding the Epicurean paradox. It specifically argues against a very specific idea of god with the characteristics of being omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time. Call him “buddy jesus” if you will (some call him “God”), but that’s exactly the thought exercise we’re talking about here. No one is arguing against deities in general. The term is way too broad to have a single conversation about every potential divine entity anyway.

report

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world

[ - ]

0 points

4 months ago

Think volcanoes. Think cancer.

Iceland without volcanoes looks like Greenland. Hawaii without volcanoes doesn’t exist at all. Volcanoes aren’t evil.

Similarly, cancer is result of a flaw in cellular reproduction. But these flaws in replication are also important in the means by which species evolve over time. Cancer is a consequence of an imperfect but necessary process for life to exist.

You’re discounting enormous processes that provide enormous benefits over the order of millennia to marginal discomforts experienced by tiny minorities over the course of months. Why stop at volcanoes and cancer? We could claim that teeth are evil. We could claim that fire and salt are evil. We could claim that emotions are evil.

It specifically argues against a very specific idea of god with the characteristics of being omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time.

With the conclusion that such a deity does not deserve to be worshiped, presumably because an immensely powerful but flawed being is not worthy of reciprocal love and devotion. But that’s not an argument against God, its an argument against Parents.

Even then, it makes enormous presumptions about the nature of Good and Evil. Volcanoes are Evil Because They Make Me Sad. Cancer is Evil Because It Makes Me Sad. A Perfectly Knowing And Loving God Would Have Done It Better.

It’s not a paradox so much as it is a child’s whining.

No one is arguing against deities in general.

Well, I mean… there’s the Atheists.

report

[ - ]

1 point

4 months ago

You’re discounting enormous processes that provide enormous benefits over the order of millennia to marginal discomforts experienced by tiny minorities over the course of months. Why stop at volcanoes and cancer? We could claim that teeth are evil. We could claim that fire and salt are evil. We could claim that emotions are evil.

If you’re seriously arguing that there is no unavoidable suffering in this world you’re very ignorant towards your fellow human beings. An omnipotent god could create a world without volcanoes and without sickness. Yet he didn’t. You’re sill not understanding even the starting point of the Epicurean paradox if you don’t get that.

With the conclusion that such a deity does not deserve to be worshiped, presumably because an immensely powerful but flawed being is not worthy of reciprocal love and devotion. But that’s not an argument against God, its an argument against Parents.

Again, you’re misunderstanding the conversation. It’s not about judgment or whining, it’s not about arguing if it’s okay for god to be how he is, it’s not about any conclusions from gods nature to anything. It’s a logical thinking exercise about the premises of the abrahamic idea of god’s characteristics and whether they make sense or not.

If the premises are: god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, the existence of human suffering creates a paradox. (And if you’re unsure why just look at the guide above.) What you’re saying has nothing to do with that. You don’t resolve the paradox by insulting those who find it interesting to think about, you’re disqualifying from the conversation. If you believe in a god without those characteristics the Epicurean paradox says nothing about your faith at all.

report