Omnipotence does not require doing something. Billionaires have the capability to end world hunger. Yet they’re piling up more stacks of money. And Billionaires definitely exist.
Yes, and we are all agreeing they are fuckers because of it. Why it is a problem to consider omnipotent god fucker because of the same logic?
If God created the universe then God would have given humanity more than any billionaire ever can let alone will.
It’s not possible to understand the Abrahamic religions which the Palestinians adhere to by cutting out the concept of an afterlife where good deeds and suffering will be rewarded and malice will be punished. That is the whole concept of a test.
Imagine if God said “I didn’t let you perform the test because I know the results, therefore you don’t need to undergo the test”. Then God sent people to heaven for their righteousness, or hell for sinning without them ever committing the good deeds or sins. Would that be fair?
We will certainly test you with a touch of fear and famine and loss of property, life, and crops. Give good news to those who patiently endure— who say, when struck by a disaster, “Surely to Allah we belong and to Him we will ˹all˺ return.” They are the ones who will receive Allah’s blessings and mercy. And it is they who are ˹rightly˺ guided.
Verse 156 is what you will hear quoted very frequently by Palestinians in videos after a disastrous moment.
I don’t think i will continue this conversation since you are giving me the unfalsifable orthodoxy loop here, and it’s getting out of topic, so i just say that everything that gives them hope and lessens their suffering in their tragedy is good for them and it’s understandable they resort to it.
The entire “free will” argument is nothing more than the Omnipotence paradox wrapped into a different jacket.
Omnipotence requires being able to do anything including, defying the concept of logic itself. The entire concept of God is by itself not logical, using arguments like “If there is an infinite past then we can never reach the present”.
Still the universe exists, so the concept of the beginning of time breaks all of logic.
I more meant the problem of evil than paradox of ominipotence.
Yes, all evidence points to god not existing. Abrahamic god just strikes me as particulary cruel in most denominations, definitely not something i would like to worship even if i had.
Abrahamic faiths provide a reason for suffering existing, namely as a test with a reward (heaven) for the good or punishment(hell) for the evil.
I’d argue faiths which state that everyone goes to heaven after dying even if they were literally Hitler are true cruelty, because that’d mean there is no point to the suffering.
Abrahamic faiths provide a reason for suffering existing, namely as a test with a reward (heaven) for the good or punishment(hell) for the evil.
Except for quite a lot of them the reward have nothing in common with good or evil, some believe in predestination, some just require faith. And it’s even before we get to their praxis. Heaven and hell itself are even arguable concepts. For me the concept of vague, mutable, contradictory and unverifable “test” is incredibly cruel.
I’d argue faiths which state that everyone goes to heaven after dying even if they were literally Hitler are true cruelty, because that’d mean there is no point to the suffering.
Yes, and we are all agreeing they are fuckers because of it. Why it is a problem to consider omnipotent god fucker because of the same logic?
If God created the universe then God would have given humanity more than any billionaire ever can let alone will.
It’s not possible to understand the Abrahamic religions which the Palestinians adhere to by cutting out the concept of an afterlife where good deeds and suffering will be rewarded and malice will be punished. That is the whole concept of a test.
How very conveniently we can’t know the result of the test.
Imagine if God said “I didn’t let you perform the test because I know the results, therefore you don’t need to undergo the test”. Then God sent people to heaven for their righteousness, or hell for sinning without them ever committing the good deeds or sins. Would that be fair?
https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=155
Verse 156 is what you will hear quoted very frequently by Palestinians in videos after a disastrous moment.
I don’t think i will continue this conversation since you are giving me the unfalsifable orthodoxy loop here, and it’s getting out of topic, so i just say that everything that gives them hope and lessens their suffering in their tragedy is good for them and it’s understandable they resort to it.
The entire “free will” argument is nothing more than the Omnipotence paradox wrapped into a different jacket.
Omnipotence requires being able to do anything including, defying the concept of logic itself. The entire concept of God is by itself not logical, using arguments like “If there is an infinite past then we can never reach the present”.
Still the universe exists, so the concept of the beginning of time breaks all of logic.
I more meant the problem of evil than paradox of ominipotence.
Yes, all evidence points to god not existing. Abrahamic god just strikes me as particulary cruel in most denominations, definitely not something i would like to worship even if i had.
Abrahamic faiths provide a reason for suffering existing, namely as a test with a reward (heaven) for the good or punishment(hell) for the evil.
I’d argue faiths which state that everyone goes to heaven after dying even if they were literally Hitler are true cruelty, because that’d mean there is no point to the suffering.
Except for quite a lot of them the reward have nothing in common with good or evil, some believe in predestination, some just require faith. And it’s even before we get to their praxis. Heaven and hell itself are even arguable concepts. For me the concept of vague, mutable, contradictory and unverifable “test” is incredibly cruel.
Which ones do you mean?