I don’t mean an application of technology. Or a specific fact. I’m interested in more big picture things.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    “If God is all-good, he can’t be all-powerful, and if he’s all-powerful, he can’t be all-good.”

    I know this is just a retread of a philosophical idea that’s been around for centuries (if not millennia), but something about the way it’s phrased really grabbed my attention and made me seriously consider it.

    The closest comparison I can think of is hearing a song that’s just okay, but years later hearing a cover that’s simply incredible.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is what made me leave religion tbh. This notion right here.

      “Why do bad things happen?”

      Because God has a plan for us, and he needs us to go through this for his plan to work

      “But… he’s all powerful. He could change the plan and we could have the same outcome. He’s infinite, which means there’s infinite ways that he could achieve the same thing… but we wouldn’t suffer”

      He’s either all-good, which means he can’t choose what happens and he just tries to do good - but that means he’s not all powerful. Or he’s all powerful, but then he is choosing not to do the good things.

      So I landed on “If there’s a god, then maybe he/she is just trying their best, and hey, that’s okay, I’m just going to try my best too.”

    • rezz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve not heard this way with “goodness” — I think the scientific way is that he can be omnipotent or omniscient, but not both. Their coexistence is a logical contradiction. Since omnipotence suggests a free will whereas omniscience is determinism.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Omniscience may not be seeing a predetermined future, but rather the knowledge of every repercussion of every possible action you could make.

        Such a being could actively make choices, while knowing the future, and all other possible futures that they chose to avoid.

        • magnetosphere@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I lean towards this view of omniscience, if only because I can’t handle the fact that every aspect of my life is predetermined.

          • rezz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            FWIW I do not believe determinism can be real in any practical sense. Even if it is provably true, it’s not actually practically applicable in anyway because it is describing an inaccessible layer of physics, to us anyway. The “layer” above our determined one would necessarily have to be non-determined to have ignited the determined “sub-reality” of ours.

        • rezz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I would contend that what you’re describing cannot be knowledge. Knowledge is a certainty by definition. It is “known.” Probability trees are a web of the unknown. “Knowing” the tree =/= knowing reality. Probability is not real, just as numbers are not real. They are concepts. They do not fall into the realm of known reality/experience/matter. You describing knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 conceptually. You are not describing the knowledge of the four trees in your lawn, of which there is only one instance.

          • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            But we’re talking about the omniscience of an all powerful entity that can create and destroy universes on a whim. Of course it’s beyond our abilities, just as dogs aren’t building steam engines, we aren’t looking at multiple timelines when we make decisions. 🤷🏻‍♂️

            • rezz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I guess I am not communicating well enough but you’ve summarized the real question of this definition well: is the being within, or without our universe?

              If above, then there is no contradiction. If they’re within our universe proper, on “our level” then there is a contradiction that can’t exist.

              The power to create and destroy universes cannot come from within this universe. Hence this debate is rendered moot, if that is the premise that they are not within our universe/physics.

              And there is only a true point in this type of discussion if you’re talking about what is applicable within our known universe.

              • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah, I understood you, I just didn’t agree that omniscience and omnipotence could not possibly coexist.