i think the common argument for this (not that i agree with it) is that God just see evil differently? i.e. you mere mortals think something is evil doesn’t mean god does too.
(and this argument then becomes circular and unfalsifiable, that’s why i think it’s dumb).
Not currently religious, but my understanding at the time was not that he didn’t think things could be evil, though obviously we might see things like death as “evil” and he might not. It’s that in order for us to “deserve” good things, we need to prove we are worthy. The only way to prove that is to allow us to do the wrong thing so that we can of our own free will choose the right thing instead. The question would then be why would you create beings with free will knowing some of them will inevitably suffer forever and the answer is generally “I’m god, who the heck are you to question me?” or some stupid explanation about how free will existing is itself a good that god did and therefore even if we choose evil every time we make a choice we are still engaging in a universal “good”. Religions do obviously differ though, so everyone likely learned things a little differently.
The problem is when you think about free evils (evils that suppose no possible learning opportunity or some bullshit like that).
Also, other problem is that, why would he create an infinite pain place for when we make decisions he doesn’t like?
There’s this explanation that the point is we’re the ones creating that eternal punishment with our actions, that’s what logically follows from rejecting its “love”; but, not to mention that then it’s completely toxic, completely egomaniacal, narcissistic, pathologically jealous, and psychopathic love, the biggest problem is, who’s supposed to have created logic and set up which causes produce which effects and what logically follows from what, according to religion? Right. “god”.
thanks for elaborating! i’ve never been religious so i only have a surface understanding of these stuffs. and honestly i kinda dislike it when fellow atheists throw out the “bUt wHAt abOUt eVil?” as the gotcha to try to prove that religions cannot be logical. but generally speaking religions can be logical and quite self-consistent in fact, and the question ultimately will be “what do you believe” which can’t be empirically tested anyway.
It’s not about being “good,” it’s about power, punishment, and hierarchy. You don’t have to be “good” to get into heaven, just fully devoted to and in alignment with the ambitions of their puny gods. They don’t believe you are rewarded for who you are, but who you serve and how obediently. There’s a reason why christians call their deity “The Lord.”
i think the common argument for this (not that i agree with it) is that God just see evil differently? i.e. you mere mortals think something is evil doesn’t mean god does too.
(and this argument then becomes circular and unfalsifiable, that’s why i think it’s dumb).
God’s a Taoist. There is no good, there is no evil. There is only his way, or the highway.
The highway:
Not currently religious, but my understanding at the time was not that he didn’t think things could be evil, though obviously we might see things like death as “evil” and he might not. It’s that in order for us to “deserve” good things, we need to prove we are worthy. The only way to prove that is to allow us to do the wrong thing so that we can of our own free will choose the right thing instead. The question would then be why would you create beings with free will knowing some of them will inevitably suffer forever and the answer is generally “I’m god, who the heck are you to question me?” or some stupid explanation about how free will existing is itself a good that god did and therefore even if we choose evil every time we make a choice we are still engaging in a universal “good”. Religions do obviously differ though, so everyone likely learned things a little differently.
The problem is when you think about free evils (evils that suppose no possible learning opportunity or some bullshit like that).
Also, other problem is that, why would he create an infinite pain place for when we make decisions he doesn’t like?
There’s this explanation that the point is we’re the ones creating that eternal punishment with our actions, that’s what logically follows from rejecting its “love”; but, not to mention that then it’s completely toxic, completely egomaniacal, narcissistic, pathologically jealous, and psychopathic love, the biggest problem is, who’s supposed to have created logic and set up which causes produce which effects and what logically follows from what, according to religion? Right. “god”.
thanks for elaborating! i’ve never been religious so i only have a surface understanding of these stuffs. and honestly i kinda dislike it when fellow atheists throw out the “bUt wHAt abOUt eVil?” as the gotcha to try to prove that religions cannot be logical. but generally speaking religions can be logical and quite self-consistent in fact, and the question ultimately will be “what do you believe” which can’t be empirically tested anyway.
What about aggressive cancer in young children?
God made them wrong, as a joke
Couldn’t they be rewarded accordingly in the afterlife?
Does that absolve evilness?
Not OP and I don’t really care, but why wouldn’t the reward absolve the evilness?
That’s basically like doing a hard thing that has a an associated payoff…
not all tragedies occur because of evil
What do the morals of ants mean to man?
Why put an argument you know is bad? If God isn’t good by our subjective metric, he isn’t good
It’s not about being “good,” it’s about power, punishment, and hierarchy. You don’t have to be “good” to get into heaven, just fully devoted to and in alignment with the ambitions of their puny gods. They don’t believe you are rewarded for who you are, but who you serve and how obediently. There’s a reason why christians call their deity “The Lord.”
Well, yes, if might = right, I think I was thinking more along the lines of subjectively from my point of view judging god haha