this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Cool Guides

4547 readers
3 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"God works in mysterious ways"

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The cope that always comes across when I hear this is intesne

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

imo every religion ever is a cope. All of those elaborate ideas about supernatural beings and alternate planes of existence to somehow cope with the fact that one day the good man, and the evil man, will both die and rot just the same.

It feels incredibly unjust for good men to die the same way evil men do, and for a lot of people that's too much to handle. We as humans have such a strong sense of "fairness" that we attempted to structure our entire society around the idea of justice for all, and so by comparison nature feels cruel and unfair, you can either learn to live with that, or tell yourself really really hard that it's not the end :) after they die the good man will be happy! and the evil man will get the punishment he deserves!

now layer that with milenia of different ideas about what qualifies you as "good" and "evil" and you've got religion.

This is my personal opinion, and honestly I don't mind nor care how the other person deals with their existential dread, as long as they aren't bigots about their way of coping.

[–] maculata@aussie.zone 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If there is a ‘god’ then they are a fucking asshole.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"If there is a god, he must ask me forgiveness."

-Scrawled on the walls of a Nazi concentration camp cell

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Maybe God is studying ethics, and we are his show and tell assignment.

[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This guide lacks the branch where people's sense of good and evil differs from the God's one.

[–] miridius@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So wait the argument is that yes, by human definition, God is evil, but that he thinks all the atrocities in the world are totally awesome? That doesn't make him less evil

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

More like, on the scale of mortal vs god, the things that are important to us either aren't important to god(s) or may be so insignificant to be actually imperceptible.

As a thought experiment, say you get an ant farm. You care for these ants, provide them food and light, and generally want to see them succeed and scurry around and do their little ant things. One of the ants gets ant-cancer and dies. You have no idea that it happened. Some of the eggs don't hatch. You notice this, but can't really do anything about it. So on, and so forth. Now - think about every single other ant you've passed by or even stepped on without even noticing during your last day outside the house. And think about what those ants might think of you, if they could.

Now an argument that a god is omniscient and all powerful would slip through the cracks of this because an omniscient god WOULD know that one of their ants had ant-cancer and an all-powerful one would be able to fix it. But the sheer difference in breadth of existence between mortal and god may mean that such small things are beneath their attention. Or maybe he really does see all things at all times simultaneously down to minute detail. We don't know. It is fundamentally unknowable to mortals. Our scales of ethics are incomparable.

We also don't know if the ethical alignment of a god leans toward balance rather than good. It would make sense, in a way, if it did. Things that seem evil to us are in fact evil, but necessary in pursuit of greater harmony. Or in fact even necessary to the very function of the universe from a metaphysical perspective. If we assume the existence of a god for this argument it leads to having to assume an awful lot more things that we can't really prove or test one way or the other. But one thing that seems pretty self evident is that the specific workings of a god are fundamentally unknowable to mortals specifically because we are not gods. We don't have a perspective in which we can observe it so any argument made in any direction about it is pretty much purely conjecture by necessity.

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ants are a bad example though as ants lack the physical capabilities to feel emotions, they don't have self awareness and may not even be able to feel pain. Also we didn't create ants and their properties.

[–] hangonasecond@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's an analogy, not an example. We are significantly further from a theoretical, all powerful, all knowing god than we are from ants. The scale of sentience from "inanimate object" to "all powerful god" is likely to have us mistaken for inanimate object. So the analogy serves its purpose, but of course the specifics are different.

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

The analogy is not good then. If we are talking about the Christian god, it is specifically told that he created humans and their properties. That is equivalent to us creating our own species of ants through genetic manipulation. Ants that feel pain and sorrow, plan for the future, form meaningful bonds with each other, make art and so on. Then we also (on purpose !) make it so some of them are depressed enough to kill themselves because they can't take the pain anymore. Make some die of cancer in a week-long, painful battle.

No ethics commission would ever let that experiment pass. Either god has nothing to do with the christian one or doesn't exist.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Have you considered that maybe God, who is love according to the Bible, designed this universe to be a complete demonstration of love? How can you fully demonstrate love if you don't show what it means to love someone who's evil and considers you an enemy, or someone who doesn't even believe you exist, or someone who once thought they knew you but were being deceived by people with evil motives?

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have considered that. There is a lot of evil (or suffering) that nobody directly causes and especially not because they're evil. Why is there depression for example? Or cancer?

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As for where it came from, it was all brought about with Adam and Eve's first sin, which infected all of creation with decay. You could write a creepypasta about that. Depression's a bit more complicated because it's a thing in the mind, and there's a case to be made that it's often more directly a symptom of a separation from God, knowing on some level that something's missing - but I don't think that can be said of all depression. Either way, it still ultimately stems from the first sin.

As for why it should exist for a time, it's again necessary to be able to demonstrate love in those circumstances. It's easy to love someone who's always having a good time, but it's divine to see your love and support help to pull someone out of depression, or to comfort someone who knows they don't have long to live. (This isn't just about the love God pours out, but also the love He inspires in His people.)

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Why would a loving god punish unrelated people thousands of years later with cancer and such for a harmless sin that he must have known Adam and Eve would commit?

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To nibble further at the arguments for God: free will is absurd.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, then when he created the universe, he would know exactly what happened from the first moment until the last. Like setting up an extremely complex arrangement of dominoes.

So how could he give people free will? Maybe he created some kind of special domino that sometimes falls leftward and sometimes falls rightward, so now it has "free will". Ok, but isn't that just randomness? God's great innovation is just chance?

No, one might argue, free will isn't chance, it's more complex than that, a person makes decisions based on their moral principles, their life experience, etc. Well where did they get their principles? What circumstances created their life experience? Conditions don't appear out of nowhere. We get our DNA from somewhere. Either God controls the starting conditions and knows where they lead, or he covered his eyes and threw some dice. In either case we can say "yes, I have free will" in the sense that we do what we want, but the origins of our decisions are either predetermined or subject to chaos/chance.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A good read on the inverse of what you're stating, namely that free will is logical:

https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Got to be honest, I started reading that, saw how long it was and stopped. Would you want to share the gist?

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's a long read and worth it, because it beautifully explores the theme.

But these are two quotes that summarize the main though:

God: Why, the idea that I could possibly have created you without free will [is a fallacy]! You acted as if this were a genuine possibility, and wondered why I did not choose it! It never occurred to you that a sentient being without free will is no more conceivable than a physical object which exerts no gravitational attraction. (There is, incidentally, more analogy than you realize between a physical object exerting gravitational attraction and a sentient being exerting free will!) Can you honestly even imagine a conscious being without free will? What on earth could it be like?

And

Don't you see that the so-called "laws of nature" are nothing more than a description of how in fact you and other beings do act? They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of of how you should act, not a power or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like, how you choose to act.

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

You can’t have free will without the option to choose anything. If you can’t choose evil you don’t have free will it’s just a semblance of free will. If you’d prefer a semblance of free will that’s valid

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Well I didn't choose my depression, it's origin is neuro-chemical. My free will and everyone else's would be perfectly unchanged if I didn't have said depression. Still I'm suffering every day from it and struggling greatly. How do you explain that?

[–] Obonga@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Can you do everything you want to, like fly by flapping your arms? No? Still you say you have free will. Can you buy a rocket and send it to mars? You cant? Still you say you have free will. Limited choices do not mean that you do not have free will.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is there actually "free will" without evil?

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

why not? you can choose to eat a banana or an apple, both perfectly non evil

[–] wieson@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

The free will is more about choosing to follow god or not. So if everything god does is good and everything they want you to do is good, you have no choice but to do those things. So you live in a perfect world but are a puppet.