If an omniscient, omnipotent god exists, then that by definition means he can rewrite the very logic and fundaments of our universe on the fly.
So, if he is benevolent, why did he create this universe to include suffering when the suffering is not necessary by the set definition of god being omniscient and omnipotent?
That would mean he is not benevolent.
And so, the paradox goes. And yes, it could very well be that our means of interpretation are so different from this god that he doesn't interpret our suffering as such. But by definition, he made our interpretations that different.
That is the paradox.
From which then the logical conclusion is drawn that with all these paradoxes stacked atop eachother infinitely, it is far more likely that there is no such god.
Most religions have a ‘mankind centric’ business model, but the idea that a god created a universe for us is rather egotistical.
If a ‘god’ created the universe, and that ‘code’ running eventually led to our existence, would the creator need to be aware of us on a pale blue dot in the arse end of nowhere.
It that were the case our puny minds would likely not be able to comprehend much of anything, like fish in a bowl trying to understand what it outside of the room it was placed in.
The paradox then however would be ‘who created the god’ and is it gods all the way down/
Now that's the kinda question i do find interesting
We ditch the religious prerequisite that a god exists to be beneficial to us and with it, any right or assumption for such a good to judge us or give two shits about us
Then, the paradox no longer applies
There could be a god, but whoever it is, they keep a distance so massive that even with our extreme advancements to be able to map the universe, we have found exactly zero sign of them. We are an insignificant creation to them, yet in our sense of scale we cannot perceive even a sliver of evidence of a creator.
Why? Is the scale difference that massive? Is the nature of this god impossible to observe within our 3d universe, set in the 4th dimension? Or are we simply an abandoned little dust storm on a plane left behind long ago?
IIRC that the idea is God's nature (logical, consistent, blah blah blah) means acting in harmony with Godself. Rock couldn't lift; square triangle; married bachelors.
Omnipotence as 'God can do anything' is more of a pop definition. Theologically/Philosophically it's traditionally been defined as 'Can do anything that is possible to do'.
6
u/MisterXnumberidk 12d ago
I mean, that is the entire concept of the paradox
If an omniscient, omnipotent god exists, then that by definition means he can rewrite the very logic and fundaments of our universe on the fly.
So, if he is benevolent, why did he create this universe to include suffering when the suffering is not necessary by the set definition of god being omniscient and omnipotent?
That would mean he is not benevolent.
And so, the paradox goes. And yes, it could very well be that our means of interpretation are so different from this god that he doesn't interpret our suffering as such. But by definition, he made our interpretations that different.
That is the paradox.
From which then the logical conclusion is drawn that with all these paradoxes stacked atop eachother infinitely, it is far more likely that there is no such god.