creator trolly

Or they wore mixed fabric clothing, so they're basically satan

But you just created them. The whole of their lives they have been tied to that track the way a character is trapped in the holodeck. When have they had time to sin?

I sin multiple times per day but it's ok because I always make sure to kill god first.

Aren't they from birth sinful?

Imminent death and dismemberment is my kink

the simulation we are all trapped in resets as they now need to include a provision that no weird af kinks screw up the test

Depends on denomination but source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000

The bridge will part!

What if the trolley can shrink when going under the bridge

You have a plan, that doesn't involve them. And it was all for good.

Nah, fuck that. I'm eccentric now. What's a rich guy going to do about it?

Nice

It was already a fun thread, but this comment upps it a notch.

Why do you have to "announce" your capabilities to beings you designed? Why do you have to onboard them to your "program" at all? If you truly are omnipotent, simply make beings that already know, and are already with the program. Assuming that is indeed what you want, why would you do anything else?

Are you throwing in extra steps for your own amusement? Just as a prank? Why? You're omniscient. You already know how it ends. What's amusing about it?

You are either toying with beings you created to be non-accepting and deliberately presenting conditions that won't convince them, or you're lacking one or both of omnipotence or omniscience.

An argument straight from the edgy teen atheist textbook, sure, but nonetheless one I have yet to see a compelling rebuttal for.

But, by your argument, you do have enough evidence to rule out benevolence, no?

Why did you assume "christian theology" ? I can think of many religion that fit the description

The simple obvious answer is that there is no God. If there is, I want no part of an afterlife with him.

"God is so moral that he doesn't need earthly morals" is an absolutely laughable justification. May God strike me dead before I click the "reply" button, if I'm wrong.

but if you are an atheist because you think God should follow our rules

You can't be an Atheist if you believe a god exists that should follow our rules.

That is like the whole point of Atheism.

Ah the argument from authority... this exact reasoning is I believe why christofascism is taking such a root in American politics. A pet still knows when it is being abused. Having rights and power over others does not make actions moral. This is basically a might makes right line of thinking except God becomes humanities bully.

You may not believe morality is subjective, but I do, and I define moral actions as led by my inner compass. You may choose to call your inner compass the holy spirit and assign gods divinity to it, making your interpretation of gods actions closer to divine authority, but it holds no more importance than anybody elses interpretation or convictions.

To think that any being would be exempt from judgement or morality based on their power or position of authority is in my opinion the weakest logic of all. By this logic, abortion should be a non starter for theists after all, my house my rules, right? No it turns out there is no equivalent logic to explain the relationship between man and god. All sinful humans must follow your inner compass whereas any command or action attributed to god is exempt from reproach, and since you inner compass is actually the holy spirit, it gives you or your interpretation of your favorite book dominion over all others without the need for any self reflection whatsoever. This way you can attribute acts that are considered evil by every other daily metric as good so long as you can delude yourself that it is gods will.

"Didnt you go out and do all these things in my name?"

If god exists and provided you free will and the holy spirit, why then would you not be expected to use it to discover more about god? To develop discernment instead of chalking up inconsistencies in the messaging to gods will and all actions dictated by men as "acts of God". Isn't it possible that the idea of god of the Bible or the Quran or whatever is inherently flawed and twisted to serve the desires of man? That god, if real, is not depicted accurately in any single book in the history of man?

I cant stand these ray comfort style gotcha arguments like no actually we don't have to follow logic or morality because divinity and anyone who questions our assertions has the absolute arrogance to spit in gods face.

But what if following the rules got the pet or child hurt, and not following them would not hurt them. Because that is the case here.

I completely understand the analogy, but the result bestowed upon the child/pet is what determines the subject : good/evil.

Though I read a very good comment here that said both options could and should be replaced by "responsible", which actually makes a lot is sense.

I'll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn't work.

The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn't "benevolent" at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.

The rest of my reply doesn't belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.

You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) "mommy tells the child he'll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her". OR, "mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night". Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.

And that's before you add the uncertainty. We're 100% definitely not "following rules that our parents gave us". We're following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we're going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we're wrong. And I don't mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.

What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me

This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren't we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there's a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then "Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn't want" simply doesn't cut it.

Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.

I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding "God isn't all-good" is not on the table for his POV.

The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?

Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?

If so, I think you've just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.

The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don't have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I'll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn't selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.