Yes, that’s why hell isn’t already the current reality, despite humanity rejecting God, He still lends us life and good things out of love and doesn’t instantly smite those who use His gifts to act outside of His will.
If I told you I built a torture chamber where I’d punish you forever, I’d get the cops called on me. When you tell others the same its actually called love? You sound so insane right now.
I’m not going to defend the person above from having to confront the Problem of Evil (of which confrontation they seem to be in desperate need), but to play YHWH’s advocate for a moment:
They are suggesting that they subscribe to a more traditional view of “hell” than is depicted in, say, Dante’s Inferno. They claim that Hell is merely the absence of god’s love, and that that existence without god is torment enough. They are not suggesting that God has set up a lake of fire for Samael and the other fallen angels to prod at you with pitchforks. Their idea of hell is like an endless void of nothing, alone with your thoughts, cold and alone. Simply “without”.
Now, why an omnipotent being would choose to create a universe where there is such a dichotomy in treatment is another matter. The existence of an Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being is mutually exclusive with our experienced reality, unless our definition of “benevolent” does not accurately describe the being’s morals.
Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.
An omnipotent being can do anything logically possible. There is nothing preventing them from thinking "I wish I was omniscient or I wish I was omnibenevolent, and so it would be. An omnipotent but not omniscient being is simply specifically avoiding becoming omniscient.
And of course, anything that is not omniscient knows they are not.
I’m not arguing that they couldnt become omniscient, which is the entire point of what I wrote, which it seems you elected not to read, given that this reply is simply a restatement of your prior take. Though I would point out that your definition of omnipotent is clearly flawed: any truly omnipotent being could do things which, to mortals are logically impossible (miracles). It seems you may just be cherry picking your definitions. In modern Christian faith (you know, the thing we’re ostensibly talking about), there are 4 words which are used to describe the traits of god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. If you decide you want to redefine one of them, that’s your affair, but don’t expect me to agree with you.
Thing is, if something is omnipotent it has chosen to be evil if evil exists. That is why if you assume omnipotence everything is an irrelevant detail. Whether they’ve chosen to become omniscient or omnibenevolent, and omnipotent being is responsible for all evil anyway. So if either is true doesn’t matter any omnipotent God would be evil.
Yes, that’s why hell isn’t already the current reality, despite humanity rejecting God, He still lends us life and good things out of love and doesn’t instantly smite those who use His gifts to act outside of His will.
If I told you I built a torture chamber where I’d punish you forever, I’d get the cops called on me. When you tell others the same its actually called love? You sound so insane right now.
I’m not going to defend the person above from having to confront the Problem of Evil (of which confrontation they seem to be in desperate need), but to play YHWH’s advocate for a moment:
They are suggesting that they subscribe to a more traditional view of “hell” than is depicted in, say, Dante’s Inferno. They claim that Hell is merely the absence of god’s love, and that that existence without god is torment enough. They are not suggesting that God has set up a lake of fire for Samael and the other fallen angels to prod at you with pitchforks. Their idea of hell is like an endless void of nothing, alone with your thoughts, cold and alone. Simply “without”.
Now, why an omnipotent being would choose to create a universe where there is such a dichotomy in treatment is another matter. The existence of an Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being is mutually exclusive with our experienced reality, unless our definition of “benevolent” does not accurately describe the being’s morals.
I.e., Either God:
(A) does not exist; (B) is not all-powerful; © is not all-seeing/knowing (D) is not all-good.
Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.
An omnipotent being can do anything logically possible. There is nothing preventing them from thinking "I wish I was omniscient or I wish I was omnibenevolent, and so it would be. An omnipotent but not omniscient being is simply specifically avoiding becoming omniscient.
And of course, anything that is not omniscient knows they are not.
I’m not arguing that they couldnt become omniscient, which is the entire point of what I wrote, which it seems you elected not to read, given that this reply is simply a restatement of your prior take. Though I would point out that your definition of omnipotent is clearly flawed: any truly omnipotent being could do things which, to mortals are logically impossible (miracles). It seems you may just be cherry picking your definitions. In modern Christian faith (you know, the thing we’re ostensibly talking about), there are 4 words which are used to describe the traits of god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. If you decide you want to redefine one of them, that’s your affair, but don’t expect me to agree with you.
Thing is, if something is omnipotent it has chosen to be evil if evil exists. That is why if you assume omnipotence everything is an irrelevant detail. Whether they’ve chosen to become omniscient or omnibenevolent, and omnipotent being is responsible for all evil anyway. So if either is true doesn’t matter any omnipotent God would be evil.