Comment

When discussing god with atheists it often comes down to a point similar to this, “God can’t be real because if god existed they wouldn’t allow XYZ.” In reality we have no reason to assume as much.

If there is a god that entity could be flawed and faulty while still being omniscient and omnipotent. We assume that a being with human sentiments and unlimited knowledge would have to be a good being, but that’s not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible that if god exists it views us similarly to how we view ants and simply just doesn’t share the concerns or beliefs we feel are naturally just and fair.

At the end of the day god could be a giant toddler on the playground and while they are unfair and unjust you have the choice of either believing and following (assuming the Christian god) to go to heaven or not believing and following and burning in eternal torment.

This is all just a thought experiment, but the argument that god can’t exist because god isn’t good is inherently a flawed argument.

source

Sort:hotnew top

NoWeJustSellShoes@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
It’s a good argument when the whole premise of Christianity is “God is all good.”

Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”

source
- Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”
  
  Well that’s part of the problem, the people in the situation are flawed as well. A biblical reference that comes to mind is First Samuel 15:3 in which god instructs the Israelites to kill all of the Amalekites including men, women, infants, nursing children, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey. In the story Saul actually sins and disobeys god by not killing everything he is instructed to kill as fucked up as that is.
  
  source
madjo@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
My issue is with the religious folks always hiding their god(s) in our scientific ignorance.

Lightning: A god did it! (Thor, Zeus) until we found out that it wasn’t a god, but just natural phenomenon.

Shipwrecks: A god must be angry! (Poseidon, etc) Nope, just stormy weather, or accidents. No god involved.

Failed crops: A god did it, we must sacrifice a virgin to appease him! Nope, just bad weather, viruses and other natural phenomena.

And now, they’re hiding their god(s) in the Big Bang, because we don’t know (yet) what caused it.
but at the same time they also claim that this eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god, that created this entire universe is also a personal god that cares about what these puny humans are doing in this backwater of a galaxy in their short lives.
Why would an eternal being care about what dust asks them to do?
And why, if we’re so special to this god, did that god make his universe so lethal to us?

source
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I’ve contemplated the possibility that there is a God but they regard us as no more real than we regard fictional characters. God, if they exist, could be on a whole different plane of reality than us. Why should they care about our problems? And if God has a plan for me, that might not necessarily be a plan that is good for me.

source
FridaySteve@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
This is why the Bible is kind of a drag without the new testament. God is emotionally volitile, punitive, and illogical. Jesus provides a framework for redemption, which is what people need here in this life. Reading the new testament, even without the magic and miracles and omnipresent sky-god can give people real ideas about how they should interact with others in this corporeal existence. The old testament feels like kind of a bizarre fairy tale with some historical elements.

source
- Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  If you’ve never seen it I recommend you watch the movie, “The Man from Earth.” It’s a short “indy-esque” movie and, without too many spoilers, focuses on a man who claims he is a prehistoric man who just never died. In his long life span he says he traveled to India and studied with the Buddah and while returning west began to spread the Buddah’s teachings, in time people began to call him Jesus.
  
  Really interesting movie, lots of great thought experiment stuff, but it does make an interesting point that the literal teachings of Jesus are so different from the old testament teachings that one almost wonders how they could come from the same source.
  
  source
michaelmrose@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
No christian would possibly accept the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and evil god. Once you start imagining from first principals what ought to be real you don’t end up with Christianity. If you restarted humanity 1000 times you would get newtons conception of gravity every single time you would get Christianity zero times.

source
- Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I don’t know, I feel like that’s a bit of a stretch. If god exists, creation is because of them, and early humans and faith are shaped by them, then the concept of a god who purports themselves as objectively good despite subjective proof otherwise doesn’t seem unlikely. The idea that god might not be good in the way we think good should be is relatively modern and prior to the last 100-200 years god was good because everything prior said so. For fucks sake most people couldn’t read and just trusted the guy in robes to tell them what to think.
  
  So yeah, just like me trimming a plant and putting it in rooting hormone 1000 times, I think an all powerful and knowable god could theoretically always inevitably result in Christianity if they wanted, the bar isn’t that high when the majority of the species lifetime is dismally stupid.
  
  Also, your argument is inherently flawed if you think the contrast of a good god must be an evil one. Concepts of good and evil have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, both in location and sentiment. If god made everything and said they are good then at best good to us doesn’t mean the same thing as good means to them and trying to frame the argument in that is meaningless.
  
  At the end of the day you get to decide if you believe in god or not, if you do believe in god you can still decide whether you like “god” and want to follow it; however, making the logical leap that god doesn’t exist because they aren’t good by your definition is fundamentally flawed.
  
  source
  - mr_satan@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    TL;DR
    I not so much claim God doesn’t exist as I reject it. If God can only be “proven” by faith, then it equaly can be “disproven” the same way.
    
    That’s why I have a different (although, in a very minor way) position.
    
    From experience I see that God would be at best indifferent to people. Given the choice to believe in such God I see no logical reason to do so.
    Either it exists and need to jump through hoops to get into heaven (especially if our concept of good is not the same) or it doesn’t exist I loose nothing by not believing. I don’t even want to go to heaven, I want to just live with my loved ones and then die. I hate the concept of eternal life, there is no part of me that would want it.
    
    Now looking at christian God I not so much as disprove its existence as reject it. If God can only be believed in then it cannot really be disproven, so the next step for me is just to reject the concept the same way I am required to accept it. If God’s and my human moralities do not align, I do not need such God. Morality, by itself, does not require God or punishment to exist.
    Moreover, I don’t want a God that requires belief for a reward. In no way I see it as fair and if God is not fair it’s no god of mine.
    
    source
    michaelmrose@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    You’ve still added god to the picture for no particular reason. The universe doesn’t need a sentient cause there is absolutely no reason to believe it needs one.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

you have the choice of either believing and following (assuming the Christian god) to go to heaven or not believing and following and burning in eternal torment.

That’s known as Pascal’s wager. There were many criticisms by Laplace, Voltaire, and many other philosophers. The problem is it presupposes that the only God is the Christian God defined in the Bible. Whereas other Gods (and there are an infinite possible God’s) such as Zeus wouldn’t condemn you to torment for non belief. Plus the infinite Gods that would torment you for praying to the wrong God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

source