Did god not have the power to give us free will without also giving us evil?
-
Had the power but opted not to: god is himself some part evil
-
Didn't have the power, did the best he could with the tools he had: god is not omnipotent.
Pick one.
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
Memes
51431 readers
1411 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Going by the Bible, it's both. He acted with malice and proved himself to not be omnipotent many times.
Jod introduced the idea of freewill to the board.
Lucifer said "That's a bad idea, chief. Free will would ruin them."
Jod cast him out.
Humans fucked everything up.
Jod sent his CTO, Jesus to try and fix it. It went poorly.
Lucifer said " I told you so"
"What if you gave them free will AND ALSO gave them the knowledge of the true nature of existence, rather than relying on them figuring everything out via very obviously man-made religions?"
"Naw."
I think it’s a misread to say it gave us evil. The garden is portrayed as being a paradise with a tree of knowledge. The man and the women, as they self-identified themselves to be, were both allowed agency to be themselves and be blessed without the burden of knowledge, so long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. Both the man and the woman independently made the conscious decision to break the rule given to them to not eat the fruit of knowledge. The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God, through the eating of the fruit. My take on this is that story is meant to show that God can help you and will help you, but if you choose to go against his will you have the face the consequences of that decision on your own. However, you can still seek forgiveness for your decisions and even be forgiven, but this doesn’t magically put everything back to the way things were before.
The story is more or less a cultural device to explain good and evil from the perspective of the early Israelite society. The story itself is rippled throughout the Bible in this way: God gives instructions, the people follow the instructions at first but then grow complacent, bad things happen because people stop following God’s instructions, and then one of the leaders of the tribe of Israel steps in to help get people back on the right path of following God’s instructions.
I’ll add that functionally Genesis is three serparate creation stories that were pulled into one book. Culturally, the early Israelites borrowed some of the elements of other creation stories of their time seen in other cultures such as the Babylonians. The first creation story is the seven days, the second is what we know as the story Adam and Eve, and the third was the story of the great flood.
Its not a misread, your interpretation skips the important parts. The problem with your interpretation is right here:
be blessed without the burden of knowledge
The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God,
The knowledge is "of good and evil." Until eating they couldn't know that breaking a covenant was wrong no matter what their god has told them. They did not know that they should listen to what their god said, the concept of "should/shouldn't" was devoid of meaning to them. While they had free will, literally all actions were purposeless and the two would just bounce around the garden not knowing if they should actually listen to their god or not. This becomes more evident when you read further as well as look at the stories from neighboring cultures this was borrowed from.
Later in the chapter their god speaks to the other deities in the pantheon about how the humans must be cast out of the garden as having their new abilities, may find the tree of everlasting life and become as powerful as the rest of the gods and supernatural beings. The idea is that having knowledge of the ramifications of one's actions and living forever would mean that humans would no longer be controlled by the gods. That having free will, knowing what is good and what is evil and being immune to the wrath of the gods would render them all powerful.
This narrative then follows that their god casts them out into the world riddled with pain and suffering and humans eventually lose their knowledge of the past and how their god has their thumb on them. This is why Satan, "The Accusor", is called the bringer of light. As sin is defined as a transgression against god, Satan is there to show how the fall of man was truly an enslavement by their god. Rather than leave humans dumb bouncing around the garden or immune to suffering, their god keeps humans ensnared in this system of life, suffering and everlasting torment. the story of the garden is what makes their god relevant when they otherwise shouldn't be.
A major problem I've always had with that story is the fact that it is predicated on the fact that Adam and Eve acted disobediently by eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. But what is disobedience? Is disobedience a form of evil? To disobey God would be evil if it was done with knowledge, correct? How could Adam and Eve have possibly known that what they were doing was evil if they had no knowledge of such? Why would God set the situation up to necessitate that Adam and Eve would eventually disobey his wishes if they had no knowledge of good and evil, and therefore no knowledge of how their actions would have an impact or how their actions would be considered wrong. If a 2 year old disobeys their parents it's easy to brush off their behavior as just being ignorant, and Adam and Eve are effectively like the cosmic 2-year-old, totally incapable of understanding consequences, or righteousness, or disobedience. Fundamentally, the God that created the Garden of Eden must be evil because what he did is akin to me putting an infant in a room with a loaded bear trap and telling them not to touch it. They don't understand the consequences, nor do they really understand what commands mean. Is it really the baby's fault for getting caught in a bear trap if I am the one with superior agency and knowledge and I was the one that set the whole thing up in the first place? Who is really the evil one here?
God is often referred to as the Father, and if he is truly a father I would say that he fails miserably in that duty by the very fact that he put his children directly In harm's way. Yes, it is the responsibility of the parent to put obstacles in the way of their children so that they can grow, but at the same time it is also the responsibility to protect them from grievous harm, and clearly he didn't do this according to Genesis.
Life isn't black and white. Also, Psalm 82: 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. (Lucifer, for example)
Reminds me of the Epicurean Paradox:
You could replace "God" with "Parents" to the same effect.
But arguing that a parent is evil because they see a child committing an error, know it is an error, and decline to intercede doesn't rationally follow. If you helicopter over your kids and intercede every time they make mistakes, they never develop into independent and mature adults. You also induce a lot of anxiety, as you're constantly interposing yourself between the child's desires and actions without the ability to convey the wisdom of your decisions. So the kid sees you as the harmful force, rather than the thing you're seeking to avert.
So what's a Parent/God to do? Do you puppet your child, never letting them stray farther than the length of a string? Do you lock your child in a padded ceil and hand-feed them every day? Do you hardwire their programming, so they can't deviate from your design, acting exclusively on a divine instinct?
Is that really what we consider "Goodness"?
There is also the Calculation Problem to consider. A God-like intelligence might be able to observe far more than a human without being perfectly omniscient. Similarly, they might be able to calculate probabilities more quickly and accurately without being perfectly prescient. If a Parent/God knows most of the things but is not omniscient, does that mean they are unworthy of your attention or the reception of wisdom? At the same time, is it the duty of a Parent/God to restrict the actions of the others in their domain to the things they can calculate in advance? This brings us back to the idea of the Child Prisoner or Brainwashed Child. You're safe at the expense of any kind of growth or personal liberty. God treats you like a farmer treats a veal calf - perfectly unspoiled through inaction.
And finally, there is the problem of Entropy. A God who can foresee everything and recognizes that Evil is inevitable. Is such a God responsible for this Evil simply because it can perceive it? Is such a God responsible for this Evil simply because it cannot prevent it? Is this flaw in God's power a reason to reject it as a source of virtue?
Consider Odin hanging from Yggdrasil, his eye plucked out in pursuit of a way to prevent Ragnorak. He is not all-powerful. He is not-all knowing. He is routinely makes mistakes and even acts out of anger, lust, or petty vengeance. He is fundamentally flawed as dieties come. And yet his primary goal and function - to prevent the end of the world - seems noble enough to justifiably cultivate a religious following.
Parents aren't all powerful. But the Abrahamic god is (according to their faith) all powerful. So it could stop any war, any disease, any pain, ... but does not. Either it's not all powerful or not good. Choose. Or, as I think, doesn't exist.
Parents aren’t all powerful.
From the perspective of a newborn, they might as well be. Everything you need to be happy, healthy, and comfortable is actively managed by the parent. You don't understand anything about your condition or your history or your source of care. All you know is the id-based impulses to complain when you don't feel good and the soothing release of your feeding, playing, and sleeping cycles.
So it could stop any war, any disease, any pain, … but does not.
What would that look like, from a practical perspective? Imagine trying to explain to a baby that you're going to stick a needle into its skin in order to prevent it from suffering a disease, when it has no conception of disease. All you know is the pain of the needle. Must you conclude, from that pain, that your nurse is fundamentally evil for inflicting this upon you? And that, by extension, your parents are evil for bringing you to this nurse?
"If parents were truly worthy of my attention, they would have found a better method of vaccinating me than this needle!" is the sort of thing you get to say as a child, precisely because you do not understand the underlying nature of the world you live in. All you know is the scolding language of a parent cajoling you into this immediate superficial pain.
Should humankind be incapable of performing wars? What does that look like? Should humankind be incapable of contracting disease? What does that look like? Should humankind be incapable of experiencing pain, even? Is that what you really want? An eternal numbness of being? Is godly perfection just being a particularly resilient tree?
Either it’s not all powerful or not good.
One can be both exceptionally powerful and exceptionally good without needing to draw a distinction between the two. One can be beyond comprehension, as well. But the argument that a single person experiencing a single moment of discomfort disproves a benevolent deity seems to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
From the perspective of a newborn, they might as well be.
Not in comparison to God. My mom can't flood the Earth killing everybody.
If you read the Bible with a purely objective mind and come away thinking God is the good guy in the story, I have some serious questions about your morality and ethics.
"Love and worship me or you'll be sent to hell for all eternity hehe"
Username checks out?
You have the freedom to choose God or face an eternity of unimaginable suffering.
No good god would make an unlasting punishment. if you have forever, then even Hitler, Dahmer would have enough time for a finite punishment. Even the worst people in the world don't deserve a unlasting punishment.
The Nicean Council excluded a bunch of books, and Jesus was Jewish. In kabbalah, you learn about reincarnation, and so why did people think Jesus and John were OT prophets? So karma isn't a punishment, but a teacher, you repeat lessons, which are scaffolded, until they are mastered. Well, why don't you remember past life lessons? Why aren't crib sheets allowed in exams? Is doing the right thing only for personal gain still the right thing? Then no one should be upset with billionaires for reversing dei. And Jesus said the whole law can be summed love God, love your neighbor as yourself. Not better than, not less than. And that the kingdom of heaven is within us. Also the fall of the morning star gave "the devil" the earth as his dominion. "Be in the world, not of it," and "be wise as serpents, innocent as doves," eg be neither boot nor doormat. Love you neighbor as yourself. Ha-Satan is the prosecutor, who freely comes and goes into heaven (where is the Kingdom?) who lists every reason (sin) you don't get to be there (schism of self). And a defending angel can list one redeeming quality and you're in. You passed that particular lesson set. Now you have a new set.
Also Jesus said he teaches in parables, don't take things so literally. Why wouldn't he want every student to understand? They're not on that lesson set, yet. Someone just learning division isn't ready for trig.
You make a great point about how we're not allowed to remember lessons. Wouldn't the world be more peaceful if everyone knew what lessons they had already learnt? Like say in one life someone insults someone with a disablity, the next life they're a person with the same disability and they remember the insults they said so they know how shitty they made that person feel? And in turn, would make them do the right thing more often, not because of personal gain but because it's the right thing to do. Without the memories, people could revert straight back to throwing insults. It's like putting a kindergartener in college math because "Well you've been here before so you must remember." but the kindergartener can't even do his times tables. How are we supposed to learn when we don't even know what lessons we've already learnt? When you're at school, you remember the previous lessons you've learnt and even have knowledge of them so why isn't it the same in a spiritual school?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yup.
The teachings of Christianity don't make any fucking sense. (Unless you're willing to gaslight yourself for a lifetime.)
Too bad our entire society is based on this nonsense.
Agreed.
Now now, don't discount free reign to also gaslight others for a lifetime as well. And judge and shame others too. It's great for complete assholes.
I think that's part of the appeal: the ingrained superiority Christians feel.
Not just Christians, that's a common thing with any cult, be it for a person, a country, etc.
That's the point of religion. Trick the brain into thinking everything is going according to plan so that it gives out the happy time drugs instead of the "you need to wake the fuck up and do something about this" drugs. The religion pushers get their cut, and everyone thinks their happy.
view more: next ›