No, you are not. these people must've masturbated, hence they're sinful.
But you just created them. The whole of their lives they have been tied to that track the way a character is trapped in the holodeck. When have they had time to sin?
They should just repent for existing, if they can't even do that they're basically just asking for the train
I sin multiple times per day but it's ok because I always make sure to kill god first.
Aren't they from birth sinful?
Imminent death and dismemberment is my kink
the simulation we are all trapped in resets as they now need to include a provision that no weird af kinks screw up the test
And then when they all believe, you change the rules because you accidentally spawned to many people.
God: "I can only save some of you!"
People: "How many?"
God: "Twelve.."
People: "Twelve?!? But there are many more of us"
God: "Times 12..."
People: "144?!? But there are still many more!"
God:"... thousand."
People "Oh lord, I'm one of those 144000, right?"
God: "Of course you are my dear".
Other people:"...but you already saved more than 144000 before we were even born?"
God:" yeah well, just believe me OK?"
Depends on denomination but source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000
What if they accept that I'm the creator of the situation but I still don't save them as I promised?
You have a plan, that doesn't involve them. And it was all for good.
No no no, doesn't stop there.
Then you created a business, run by your most....devout... followers, they'll manage the business.
You pay them to collect money for you, and um, teach them the ways and make sure they bring their families and friends in.
You tell them they are all horrible people who will suffer in eternity unless they worship you and thank you that they were born.
Then your managers, they meet with all your followers and
shake them downtell them how important it is to fund the business.It's a very complex thing really being the creator of the universe and having to have people start a business to fund..um...worshiping you....
When a creator does it, the word is "ineffable". Just like how when I'm rich, I'll become eccentric.
Nah, fuck that. I'm eccentric now. What's a rich guy going to do about it?
They'll be beside themselves if this ever gets out. They might be driven to buy multiple motor yachts that they'll never even clap eyes on, to cope with that
For this to be more accurate you need to take the "God" out of the image entirely.
Of course that is not something I could judge by myself. You will have to ask the people in the situation and see what they will answer of their own free will.
Substitute the trolley for a tornado, the tracks for homes, the deity killing randomly with said tornado, and the survivors thanking deity for their survival (and their neighbors’ deaths).
Not a good analogy? Of course it isn’t. God doesn’t exist, and if he does, he’s perfectly happy killing you and destroying your family for no reason whatsoever, and your neighbors will thank him for doing so.
Nice
Evil is a dumb term. The word they are looking for is "responsible".
It was already a fun thread, but this comment upps it a notch.
And then here comes Cormac McCarthy (RIP) to shit all over your idea of some benevolent god, to give you a real sense of how chaotically brutal the reality of life actually is, to question autonomy and the very notion of free-will, and to maybe, as a side-effect of literature, to make you think twice about everything you've assumed about the world.
Gonna miss that guy.
I don't know why the Nobel asswipes didn't give him the recognition he deserved.
My guess is that his work was too "American" for their tastes.
tfw you find yourself traveling on The Road*
I was thinking more of "Blood Meridian," but it's definitely true that "The Road" tackles a lot of similar themes albeit on a more personal and isolated scale.
I think "No Country" also is a continuation of said themes, with Anton Chigur as a sort of modern incarnation of The Judge. He must own everything. Nothing can be allowed to exist or happen save by his dispensation.
He is an amoral archon, as is life and the universe itself. He is offended only by those who refuse to acknowledge and countenance the cruel and arbitrary nature of reality itself.
Decisions and random facts of chance have permanent consequences, none of which can or should be escapable. It's offensive to The Judge/Anton Chigur that anyone might imagine otherwise.
In this situation, I could see it being done in order to announce that you have the power to alter reality on a whim, and really need people to get with the program.
So I would say it would depend on your other intentions, as if you have the creative power that is chested, you could easily bring someone back to life and place them in another scenario until they actually understand what you're trying to tell them.
I don't have enough information to ascertain whether or not the omnipotent being is evil or just a prankster.
Why do you have to "announce" your capabilities to beings you designed? Why do you have to onboard them to your "program" at all? If you truly are omnipotent, simply make beings that already know, and are already with the program. Assuming that is indeed what you want, why would you do anything else?
Are you throwing in extra steps for your own amusement? Just as a prank? Why? You're omniscient. You already know how it ends. What's amusing about it?
You are either toying with beings you created to be non-accepting and deliberately presenting conditions that won't convince them, or you're lacking one or both of omnipotence or omniscience.
An argument straight from the edgy teen atheist textbook, sure, but nonetheless one I have yet to see a compelling rebuttal for.
But, by your argument, you do have enough evidence to rule out benevolence, no?
No not really, my friends and I fuck with each other all the time, but we never do permanent harm or majorly inconvience each other.
If I could just snap my fingers and rewrite reality, I'd totally put those closest to me through a haunted mansion to be just by a serial killer, maybe even have them die a couple of times as a joke...
Then I'd bring them back to life and we'd go to the planet of nymphomaniacs to laugh it off over a few ambrosial liqours and impossibly large breasted company.
"You really had me going with the whole Saw trap, but then when I cut off my leg to escape the trap you changed my biology so that I could just re-attach it. Such a kidder."
You're not mysterious! You're just a jerk!
I mean, if evil always shoots itself in the foot, this guy's off to a good start. Why would you get them to agree to blame you for putting them there, and then free them? Chaotic stupid.
I feel like that would make me some edgy child, messing around with legos or playdough.
ITT: A collectively poor understanding of Christian theology
Why did you assume "christian theology" ? I can think of many religion that fit the description
If you think Christianity fits this description then you have a poor understanding of Christianity.
Unless the creatures, overall, would prefer to have never existed in the first place, then the Creator isn't evil and should be praised(, that's only one reason, for example an other one would be our search for Absolute/Greatness/Good/..)
I'd like to propose a thought.
1.) God makes rules
2.) Following those rules is good
3.) Breaking those rules is evil
From the perspective of God the delineation between good and evil is a human perspective, not necessarily God's.
A similar point of view would be if a person sets a rule for a child or maybe a pet. The person strictly enforces this rule, but openly breaks the rule because it does not apply to them. The child or pet meet feel that they are being treated unjustly and categorize breaking of the rules as being wrong. Making the child go to bed at bedtime or not allowing the pet to eat certain foods.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you're following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn't worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
If you're an atheist because you don't believe there is a god then cool, but if you are an atheist because you think God should follow our rules idk what to say for you.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let's bad things happen to you.
The simple obvious answer is that there is no God. If there is, I want no part of an afterlife with him.
"God is so moral that he doesn't need earthly morals" is an absolutely laughable justification. May God strike me dead before I click the "reply" button, if I'm wrong.
Hey, that's chill. I'm not trying to appeal to people to change their opinions on whether there is a god or not. I'm simply arguing that if what is said about god is true, then taking the moral high ground because you're the better being doesn't really mean anything.
"Hey what did you do that landed you up in eternal pain and suffering?"
"Oh, I'm just morally superior to the being that put me here."
The same goes for religious people blaming the bad things in their life on anything other than the same all powerful being.
but if you are an atheist because you think God should follow our rules
You can't be an Atheist if you believe a god exists that should follow our rules.
That is like the whole point of Atheism.
Ah the argument from authority... this exact reasoning is I believe why christofascism is taking such a root in American politics. A pet still knows when it is being abused. Having rights and power over others does not make actions moral. This is basically a might makes right line of thinking except God becomes humanities bully.
You may not believe morality is subjective, but I do, and I define moral actions as led by my inner compass. You may choose to call your inner compass the holy spirit and assign gods divinity to it, making your interpretation of gods actions closer to divine authority, but it holds no more importance than anybody elses interpretation or convictions.
To think that any being would be exempt from judgement or morality based on their power or position of authority is in my opinion the weakest logic of all. By this logic, abortion should be a non starter for theists after all, my house my rules, right? No it turns out there is no equivalent logic to explain the relationship between man and god. All sinful humans must follow your inner compass whereas any command or action attributed to god is exempt from reproach, and since you inner compass is actually the holy spirit, it gives you or your interpretation of your favorite book dominion over all others without the need for any self reflection whatsoever. This way you can attribute acts that are considered evil by every other daily metric as good so long as you can delude yourself that it is gods will.
"Didnt you go out and do all these things in my name?"
If god exists and provided you free will and the holy spirit, why then would you not be expected to use it to discover more about god? To develop discernment instead of chalking up inconsistencies in the messaging to gods will and all actions dictated by men as "acts of God". Isn't it possible that the idea of god of the Bible or the Quran or whatever is inherently flawed and twisted to serve the desires of man? That god, if real, is not depicted accurately in any single book in the history of man?
I cant stand these ray comfort style gotcha arguments like no actually we don't have to follow logic or morality because divinity and anyone who questions our assertions has the absolute arrogance to spit in gods face.
I'm not trying to make an argument in support of religion or god, I'm making an argument that moral (subjective or objective) rationales do not validate or invalidate the existence of god. If god exists, then they do so whether you believe in them or not. If god exists and the supposed outcomes of not following their rules is true, then whatever judgements about them you have is irrelevant.
Is god evil because it allows bad things to happen? Yeah and so what? You can think god sucks and is unfair or unjust, be the better person and refuse to worship or believe all you want. If you don't meet their magic requirements for the good ending then you get the bad ending no matter how much more moral you are.
I think that trying to have a philosophical debate about the morality or ethics of god(s) is asinine since if a god exists your objections to it have literally no value.
But what if following the rules got the pet or child hurt, and not following them would not hurt them. Because that is the case here.
I completely understand the analogy, but the result bestowed upon the child/pet is what determines the subject : good/evil.
Though I read a very good comment here that said both options could and should be replaced by "responsible", which actually makes a lot is sense.
I'll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn't work.
The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn't "benevolent" at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.
The rest of my reply doesn't belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.
You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) "mommy tells the child he'll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her". OR, "mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night". Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.
And that's before you add the uncertainty. We're 100% definitely not "following rules that our parents gave us". We're following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we're going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we're wrong. And I don't mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me
This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren't we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there's a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then "Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn't want" simply doesn't cut it.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding "God isn't all-good" is not on the table for his POV.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?
If so, I think you've just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don't have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I'll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn't selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.
