Are You Religious?

[BitBuster]

Interesting question, but it seems... malformed/meaningless to me. I think a better question might be, can statements be shown to be true, in which I would answer, yes.

Maybe you meant something else?

I purposely left it ambiguous, because I think that the very concept of "truth" lacks a rigid definition. A discussion on the concept of "truth" could go in a lot of interesting directions, and I didn't want to box it in by virtue of a question that made certain presuppositions that others might feel is unfair.

Anyway, how can statements be shown to be true?

I would open that by asking whether evil can exist as a standalone concept. I believe evil is the absence of good; would good be the absence of evil if there existed an evil god? I heard this hypothesis promoted in debate and found it odd, but nevertheless worth considering, unlike some who consider it absolutely ridiculous.

Well, I think you could argue the "standalone concept" thing either way. More relevantly for this discussion, I think it's quite possible for "good" to exist and for God to be evil. I certainly don't think that it's as simple as "evil is the absence of good." It becomes particularly thorny when you begin to consider good-evil hybrids.

My contribution to this discussion: there is literally no such thing as good or evil.

There's no objective thing as "good" or "evil," but as constructs that are meaningful to us, they do exist, imo. It doesn't matter if something is inherently good (or not); what matters is that we consider it to be good (or evil).

I'll bring up the old Epicurus quote for my opinion on this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

I always liked this quote.

My view on Epicurus' questions is that God is able and willing to prevent evil, but allows it to occur for the time being to permit free choice between the two; eventually, evil will be eliminated.

Is free choice really that valuable? Do we even truly have free choice?

That brings up another question: God apparently gave us free will, but he expects us to use that free will to choose to become his slave and do anything and everything he tells us to. Is that really such a gift?

If God were to eliminate all possibility of evil in the world right now or whenever it happened, we would all be dead, and nobody really wants that; God mercifully waits and allows us to repent instead.

Why would we all be dead if God eliminated the possibility of murder, rape, etc?

In contrast to the opposing opinions about the nature of omnibenevolence, I do not find it reasonable that an omnibenevolent God would force humans to choose Him and live in His presence for eternity.

Because he created us, he essentially has forced us to face eternity in one form or another (presuming that you believe in heaven and hell as prescribed by most Christian denominations). The choice, as many present it, is between eternal bliss and eternal damnation. But what if you don't want either one?

People always compare God to a father figure, but I don't buy that for a second. A truly loving parent wouldn't let their child burn for eternity. Some people say that God offers us that choice...BS. A parent would drag their kid away from that fate, no matter how obnoxious the kid, no matter how much he/she professed to hate the parent. BTW, this brings up something else that troubles me: the whole "if you aren't with me, you're against me" thing that God seems to be into.

James, Markus, tensorpudding, et al, is that something you would want God to do? The only logical alternative is to permit evil to exist.

Like I said before, God has forced us to live in the first place. There are a lot of things he apparently does that I would not want him to do...

I can't answer for anyone else, but if it came down to the choice between eternal bliss and eternal suffering, I'd be more than happy if God pulled me into the realm of eternal bliss. BTW, why didn't he just place all of us into the "eternal bliss" state in the first place? Yes, yes, yes, you can go on about the garden of Eden, but I'm not sure if I'd call that a truly blissful place, given God's somewhat arbitrary rules:



God: You may not eat from that tree.

Adam: Why not?

God: It contains knowledge.

Adam: I don't understand.

God (with a sigh): Just don't eat from that tree.

Adam: Why not?

God: Because then you will understand why you shouldn't eat from it.

Adam: I still don't see why I can't eat that apple. It looks so delicious!

God: I put it there to tempt you. I want you to remain ignorant. Just don't eat it.

Snake (whispering to God): If eating the apple is the only way he'll know not to eat it, what do you think is going to happen?

God (to Adam, ignoring the snake): Just don't eat the ----ing thing, ok?



I mean, you get the idea.