moriquende

@moriquende@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

moriquende ,

why would this be the case?

moriquende ,

why not? you can choose to eat a banana or an apple, both perfectly non evil

moriquende ,

assuming you're right, he either can't or doesn't want to create that world without human suffering. Remains either evil or not all powerful.

moriquende ,

Still, the (theoretical) fact remains that god knows about the suffering and lets it happen. Whatever the goal is, if he's omnipotent he should be able to reach it without having suffering. If he can't, he isn't omnipotent. If he doesn't want to, he's not good.

moriquende ,

A four sided triangle is a verbal misconstruct, because we chose those names to represent different objects - nothing to do with what god can or can't do. They could make all of us believe that four-sided polygons are called triangles, which fulfills the requirement you propose. On the other hand, free will can't "require" suffering, because a requirement would mean there is a rule god can't break, which would mean they are not omnipotent.

moriquende ,

An omnipotent god could alter nature in a way that makes us able to enjoy good without needing to suffer. If they can't, they're not omnipotent. If they don't want to, they're letting us suffer unnecessarily, and they're not good.

moriquende ,

By that logic, you could say that eliminating cancer is exterminating humanity as is, and thus evil.

moriquende ,

Don't see how that's what I proposed as good. As time wouldn't exist for god (implication of being omnipotent), there's no reason that suffering ever existed in the first place - no need to change anything on a running system.

moriquende ,

Yes, exactly. If there is a god, they definitely either aren't omnipotent, or they aren't good according to our definition of being good (as they ignore our unnecessary suffering).

moriquende ,

The argument we were discussing was that god was either evil (as in not good) or not omnipotent.

Whether humans must be evil due to free will is another discussion entirely, and I would propose that free will is never entirely free and always limited by our perception and understanding of the world. If evil didn't exist, you would be as free to be evil as you are to ignore gravity. Also, most religions believe in a paradise free from evil, so does that mean you lose your free will once you enter?

moriquende ,

Well, it's fun if anything :). Nobody actually believes in god for rational reasons.

moriquende ,

The right one is the "real" accounts. Notice how the left one is newer and all the accounts have names ending with four digits, except where they aren't copies from the right.

moriquende ,

The virus may have infected my mind as well, cause I honestly been enjoying the game.

moriquende ,

Citation needed for your entire previous comment lmao. Most nerds are actually really nice people and lean left politically.

moriquende ,

Your argument against removable batteries is that they had a "flimsy plastic back"? seriously prefer being unable to change the battery when its capacity decreases, being unable to carry a spare battery around, and having to pay dumb service fees, all just to not have a back that you barely even notice is made of plastic?

Also removable storage is extremely useful as well, not only for being able to cheaply increase space when needed, but also to minimize the effort of swapping devices or sharing large files more quickly.

Modular is always better. The only good argument against it is shareholder profits.

moriquende ,

Sounds like you're just more familiar with Linux and that's fine. I use Linux, Windows and MacOS regularly and haven't had a problem with Windows honestly. The most frustrating of the 3 is MacOS, and even then it's nitpicking.

moriquende ,

This would only deter people who would otherwise plan a child. Those people tend to have fewer children in the first place and are more likely to take good care of them. I actually think the best approach to reducing the world's population increase is a heavy investment in education including reproductive education, especially in poorer countries which are the ones still actually growing fast.

moriquende ,

I think the downvotes are for the other opinions. Nobody denies that inmigration for the sake of inmigration is damaging for a country.

moriquende ,

Those are two different things. One is acknowledging uncontrolled inmigration is a negative thing for a country. The other one is not giving a shit because it's more important to help people fleeing life threatening situations, even at the expense of one's own privileged quality of life. At this point it's important to note that rich countries' quality of life is only made possible by unfair distribution of planetary resources and human exploitation of the same people being denied entry.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •