As yet untitled PoE video
Added 2024-11-30 04:34:40 +0000 UTCThe problem of evil is god makes me sad
Comments
True. I just hear it as "in the story, Jesus said..."
Logicked
2024-12-01 17:19:47 +0000 UTC3 minutes in and this is going to seem like a nitpick but it isn't - He claimed to be the way, the truth, the light and the living water - he did no such thing - the disciples reported that he said these things. Jesus can write (according to the words written down about him) but he wrote nothing down that was kept. This always needs to be remembered when Christians say "Jesus said X", no, people claim that he said X.
QuebecCity Oliver
2024-12-01 17:10:09 +0000 UTCI mean, that's not true. You can't prevent people from doing evil if they have an actual choice. That is taking away choice. Or giving a false choice, whatever you want to call it. We take away children's choices literally all the time. But we can't do so through magic. We stop it and move on. So, no, if you're actually giving free will you can't just disallow the things from happening because there would simply be no choice. You'd be literally stopped through magic. Like, you're welcome to disagree that NOT doing so is a "good" action because free will shouldn't triumph people doing bad things. And that's fine. But also, why does the morality of this being necessarily have to line up with every single human's? From its perspective, it is "omnibenevolent" because doing things this way is good. Not all moral philosophies agree on everything. I just don't think what you're saying has anything to do with what I said. If your argument is, "if this being cannot do X, then they are not omnipotent," then I think that's kind of silly. Also, there's no reason to mock the word "god" don't worry, it can't hurt you. And I'm not trying to make an argument to you that such a being exists. Only that I don't think it's impossible to sidestep the argument of evil. This being would have to believe that allowing the creatures it creates to act as they want in their own capacity is morally good, even though it allows for evil. That is a relatively easy solution. We can disagree that such an action is "good" but I don't know that one can say that no reasonable person could believe such a thing. Further, the only thing that would make the god in this case not omnipotent is a claim that it should simultaneously be able to allow for free will while also restricting it at all times through magic. I just don't see that as a real problem. At best it's a silly semantic one, rather than a real one. The issue with the child analogy is that this being would literally be using magic to prevent choice, and in this scenario would literally be the creator of the creatures, and thus interference as you're describing is far beyond anything anyone can do human to human.
Doug Wills
2024-12-01 09:54:50 +0000 UTCOnce free will is brought unto the discussion, I don't think one could logically seperate the question from the issues brought on by a tri-omni creator. That is, of course, unless one chooses to limit gawd by removing omni properties. Even if you ignore the predetermined evil problem, an omnipotent, omniscient gawd could prevent people from *doing* evil without affecting their ability to *choose* the evil, just like I could choose to step in if I saw a child being abused, without affecting the mind/will of the abuser. Free will also doesn't have any relation to natural or otherwise non-sentient "evils," which are still part of the PoE issue.
OneEyed Jack
2024-12-01 04:33:10 +0000 UTCAm I the only one reading the title as a "Power over Ethernet video" or is it just professional deformation.?
Peter Luijer
2024-11-30 20:30:16 +0000 UTCI dunno how compelling it is, but: Wouldn't it work just fine if the God in question believed that giving free will to creatures it makes is good, so long as from the perspective of this God, the actions those creatures take are not considered its own fault? Yes, technically the God is "creating" bad things happening. But not directly, and it could consider it evil to prevent free will (this is putting aside the question of free will existing at all), and similarly consider the action of creation itself neutral. Which would mean creating creatures that can (but not strictly must) do evil is a good action. I feel like that's at least somewhat logically consistent/reasonable. I can imagine some counters to it easily enough, but most of them I can think of seem like things that reasonable people could disagree on. I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm the first person to have thought of this or anything. But I also am too lazy to try to look it up.
Doug Wills
2024-11-30 10:46:07 +0000 UTCIt blows my mind how people can talk for so long about something they don't understand at all
Brad Newfield
2024-11-30 05:11:31 +0000 UTC
