I counter with deductive reasoning and the Epicurean Paradox. It’s not a question about is there a god. Can’t really solve that. The better question is does he deserve worship?
tbh the vast majority of the “weird religion stuff” is just what humans have put in front of God. If you want to be with Him forever, why not be with Him now? We don’t know when He’s coming back but it doesn’t really matter. When you die that’s it for you, you’ve made your final decision
(still meaning “you” as in “one” but not posh)
I disagree, I think the question of “is there a god?” can be answered near-conclusively, and yes, He is deserving of our worship. I watched the video you linked and to be honest, I’ve thought all of those things myself at times. But this world is fallen and broken. It’s not supposed to be like this. This isn’t how God made it. We were supposed to live forever with Him, but we fell and ran off with the devil. But someday soon, He’ll return and bring us back and everybody who wants to be with Him will be. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”” (Revelation 21:3-4).
Yeeeeeah none of this is a response to the Epicurean Paradox.
Thing is, goodly godly in’t so good. An omnipotent being by definition should be capable of anything. Including rewriting the rules of logic and reasoning, math, and even how free will inherently WORKS.
For an “all powerful” being to neglect humanity in the way they have in order to “preserve free will” they have objectively proved themselves instead as torturers.
Thus, a god figure in our accepted reality can either be all loving OR all powerful. Not both.
All loving would certainly put them on better terms, but then it would make them an untrustworthy liar as they claim to be all powerful.
All powerful directly implies neglect.
And then of course you can argue an all powerful being works “beyond our understanding” but I would then propose that it should be within that beings power to allow us to understand… Which they have chosen not to.
Either way, the Abraham god is a lil bitch baby who is an outright liar about being either all loving or all powerful. I chose not to respect them, and frankly they deserve both barrels and the meat hook of a super shotgun to the face.
But He hasn’t neglected us. That’s the beauty of what Jesus did-- He came down to us. He become a human, experienced all of the normal suffering, and then died by crucifixion, the cruelest and most barbaric method of execution ever invented. God shared in our suffering. He knows pain. He also offers an escape to a place where there’ll be no suffering, pain, hurt, death, or any of that stuff. God didn’t create evil. Evil isn’t a “thing”, it’s a natural byproduct of free will. If someone is really, truly, free to choose what they do then they can choose to disobey God and do other things. Yes satan is evil, but he isn’t the embodiment of evil, it’s something he does. And someday, God will destroy satan and the demons-- that’s what hell is originally for. Satan didn’t want to be with God, but he didn’t just do that. He wanted to be God. And when he fell he convinced a third of the angels to come with him, and he later convinced humans as well. And your right, God is largely beyond our understanding, but maybe we shouldn’t completely understand Him. It’s like we’re a bunch of three-year-olds. The three-year-olds shouldn’t know everything.
Being that no effort was put into the reply, I will instead enjoy an analysis of a more astute consultation. Although it may be incapable of forming thought, somehow I still find it’s output more engaging than the dehydrated frontal lobe viscera you expunged above.
ChatGPT: This is a philosophical and theological debate centered on the nature of God, the problem of evil, and the concept of free will, engaging with the Epicurean Paradox. Here’s a breakdown of the arguments presented:
First Post (jan [email protected]):
This person disagrees with the Epicurean Paradox by implying that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is a result of human actions (the Fall) and not indicative of God’s nature. They suggest that God’s ultimate plan is to restore harmony and eliminate suffering, referencing Revelation 21:3-4 as support for the idea that a future state will be free of pain and death.
Critique: This argument assumes a specific theological perspective that requires acceptance of certain biblical narratives and eschatological beliefs. It does not directly address the logical structure of the Epicurean Paradox, which challenges the coexistence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God with the presence of evil.
Second Post (RIPandTERROR):
The commenter argues that an omnipotent being could, by definition, eliminate evil while preserving free will, and thus a god that allows suffering cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful. They also argue that saying God works in ways beyond human understanding is insufficient because an omnipotent being could make their ways understandable.
Critique: The argument presents a strong logical challenge to the traditional theological view but could be critiqued for not considering certain apologetic arguments, such as the notion that suffering can have a higher, unknowable purpose, or that free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil. It also introduces an emotive response that could be seen as detracting from the logical discussion.
Third Post (jan [email protected]):
The rebuttal focuses on the Christian narrative of Jesus’ incarnation, suffering, and death as an act of sharing in human suffering, not neglecting humanity. They argue that the existence of evil is a byproduct of free will and that God’s nature and plans are beyond human understanding.
Critique: This post relies on Christian doctrine and the narrative of redemption. It assumes that divine and human logic may not align and suggests that God’s reasoning is inherently beyond human comprehension, which does not satisfy a critique looking for logical coherence. It also introduces a potentially problematic analogy comparing humans to children, which may not address the argument about God’s nature effectively.
Overall, the discussion is deeply rooted in individual belief systems, and each argument hinges on foundational assumptions about the nature of God, the universe, and the interpretation of religious texts. The debate oscillates between appeals to specific doctrinal stances and attempts at logical reasoning, which is typical in such philosophical discussions.
My only critique I will contribute was the LLM suggested that I had not considered “…certain apologetic arguments, such as the notion that suffering can have a higher, unknowable purpose, or that free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.”
I will reiterate that I had in fact considered that and it plays to my claim that if this is required to value worshiping this thing, and it is incapable of making the unknowable knowable, then he is either not all powerful and cannot break conventional logic, or he’s just a dick.
Yes. This is Pascal’s wager.
I counter with deductive reasoning and the Epicurean Paradox. It’s not a question about is there a god. Can’t really solve that. The better question is does he deserve worship?
[I’d answer a resounding no. In fact, he should beg for our forgiveness] (https://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo?si=RU3xdD2iBJZrb80p)
deleted by creator
tbh the vast majority of the “weird religion stuff” is just what humans have put in front of God. If you want to be with Him forever, why not be with Him now? We don’t know when He’s coming back but it doesn’t really matter. When you die that’s it for you, you’ve made your final decision
(still meaning “you” as in “one” but not posh)
I disagree, I think the question of “is there a god?” can be answered near-conclusively, and yes, He is deserving of our worship. I watched the video you linked and to be honest, I’ve thought all of those things myself at times. But this world is fallen and broken. It’s not supposed to be like this. This isn’t how God made it. We were supposed to live forever with Him, but we fell and ran off with the devil. But someday soon, He’ll return and bring us back and everybody who wants to be with Him will be. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”” (Revelation 21:3-4).
Yeeeeeah none of this is a response to the Epicurean Paradox.
Thing is, goodly godly in’t so good. An omnipotent being by definition should be capable of anything. Including rewriting the rules of logic and reasoning, math, and even how free will inherently WORKS.
For an “all powerful” being to neglect humanity in the way they have in order to “preserve free will” they have objectively proved themselves instead as torturers.
Thus, a god figure in our accepted reality can either be all loving OR all powerful. Not both.
All loving would certainly put them on better terms, but then it would make them an untrustworthy liar as they claim to be all powerful.
All powerful directly implies neglect.
And then of course you can argue an all powerful being works “beyond our understanding” but I would then propose that it should be within that beings power to allow us to understand… Which they have chosen not to.
Either way, the Abraham god is a lil bitch baby who is an outright liar about being either all loving or all powerful. I chose not to respect them, and frankly they deserve both barrels and the meat hook of a super shotgun to the face.
But He hasn’t neglected us. That’s the beauty of what Jesus did-- He came down to us. He become a human, experienced all of the normal suffering, and then died by crucifixion, the cruelest and most barbaric method of execution ever invented. God shared in our suffering. He knows pain. He also offers an escape to a place where there’ll be no suffering, pain, hurt, death, or any of that stuff. God didn’t create evil. Evil isn’t a “thing”, it’s a natural byproduct of free will. If someone is really, truly, free to choose what they do then they can choose to disobey God and do other things. Yes satan is evil, but he isn’t the embodiment of evil, it’s something he does. And someday, God will destroy satan and the demons-- that’s what hell is originally for. Satan didn’t want to be with God, but he didn’t just do that. He wanted to be God. And when he fell he convinced a third of the angels to come with him, and he later convinced humans as well. And your right, God is largely beyond our understanding, but maybe we shouldn’t completely understand Him. It’s like we’re a bunch of three-year-olds. The three-year-olds shouldn’t know everything.
Alright homie.
You didn’t read. It’s cool it’s cool.
Being that no effort was put into the reply, I will instead enjoy an analysis of a more astute consultation. Although it may be incapable of forming thought, somehow I still find it’s output more engaging than the dehydrated frontal lobe viscera you expunged above.
ChatGPT: This is a philosophical and theological debate centered on the nature of God, the problem of evil, and the concept of free will, engaging with the Epicurean Paradox. Here’s a breakdown of the arguments presented:
First Post (jan [email protected]): This person disagrees with the Epicurean Paradox by implying that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is a result of human actions (the Fall) and not indicative of God’s nature. They suggest that God’s ultimate plan is to restore harmony and eliminate suffering, referencing Revelation 21:3-4 as support for the idea that a future state will be free of pain and death.
Critique: This argument assumes a specific theological perspective that requires acceptance of certain biblical narratives and eschatological beliefs. It does not directly address the logical structure of the Epicurean Paradox, which challenges the coexistence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God with the presence of evil.
Second Post (RIPandTERROR): The commenter argues that an omnipotent being could, by definition, eliminate evil while preserving free will, and thus a god that allows suffering cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful. They also argue that saying God works in ways beyond human understanding is insufficient because an omnipotent being could make their ways understandable.
Critique: The argument presents a strong logical challenge to the traditional theological view but could be critiqued for not considering certain apologetic arguments, such as the notion that suffering can have a higher, unknowable purpose, or that free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil. It also introduces an emotive response that could be seen as detracting from the logical discussion.
Third Post (jan [email protected]): The rebuttal focuses on the Christian narrative of Jesus’ incarnation, suffering, and death as an act of sharing in human suffering, not neglecting humanity. They argue that the existence of evil is a byproduct of free will and that God’s nature and plans are beyond human understanding.
Critique: This post relies on Christian doctrine and the narrative of redemption. It assumes that divine and human logic may not align and suggests that God’s reasoning is inherently beyond human comprehension, which does not satisfy a critique looking for logical coherence. It also introduces a potentially problematic analogy comparing humans to children, which may not address the argument about God’s nature effectively.
Overall, the discussion is deeply rooted in individual belief systems, and each argument hinges on foundational assumptions about the nature of God, the universe, and the interpretation of religious texts. The debate oscillates between appeals to specific doctrinal stances and attempts at logical reasoning, which is typical in such philosophical discussions.
My only critique I will contribute was the LLM suggested that I had not considered “…certain apologetic arguments, such as the notion that suffering can have a higher, unknowable purpose, or that free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.”
I will reiterate that I had in fact considered that and it plays to my claim that if this is required to value worshiping this thing, and it is incapable of making the unknowable knowable, then he is either not all powerful and cannot break conventional logic, or he’s just a dick.
It seems to me that the both of us have our own beliefs and that neither of us are going to change our mind. Could we agree to disagree?
No.
deleted by creator
ok