this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
195 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1459 readers
88 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am not an atheist, I genuinely believe that God exists and he is evil, like a toddler who fries little ants with a lens.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] shrugal@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

Isn't the god supposed to define what good and evil even is, and wouldn't therefore any monotheistic god be "good" by definition?!

[โ€“] Lemmeenym@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Socrates answered this. If morality is objective or has an objective basis then it is necessarily independent from any God or god's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Edit to add: If you're interested in the concept of an evil God in the context of Christian beliefs I recommend reading "Answer to Job" by Carl Jung. He doesn't exactly make the Christian God evil but ascribes moral failings to God and frames Jesus as the redemption of God instead of the redemption of man.

[โ€“] AndrasKrigare 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Neither of those are necessarily true. For an Abrahamic god, sure, but one can certainly conceive of a god that doesn't define good and evil, and a god that defines good and evil and doesn't define itself as good.

[โ€“] shrugal@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think I would even call a being like that "god", more like "evil spirit" or something.

[โ€“] AndrasKrigare 2 points 9 months ago

These things aren't well-defined, so you're certainly welcome to, but I think most people would consider an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe to be a god and not a spirit.

[โ€“] dudinax@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago

That's what people say, but in practice people have their own ideas and just project them on to god.

[โ€“] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Somewhat off-topic, but there's this line of thought, which multiple Christian thinkers have come up with throughout the centuries, called the Ontological Argument. It basically tries to prove the existence of the Christian God with only pure logic, no axioms involved.

Proofs without axioms don't exist elsewhere, so take the following with a massive grain of salt, but basically it goes:

God is a maximally good being. Existence of a maximally good being is itself good. Therefore, God must exist.

Aside from this being circular reasoning, it also involves a massive axiom: The existence and definition of good vs. bad.

But with your point, we can advance the argument even further:

Defining what's good is good.

That way, we get twice the circular reasoning, but no axioms anymore. ๐Ÿ™ƒ

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)