[Blink]

We'll go with the common definition of God which includes him being omnipotent and omniscient.  A lot of religions say that humans have free will, or 'freedom of choice', so we'll go with that too.

The paradox is as follows:

If God is all powerful and all knowing, then he knows what will happen in the future. (going with 'he' because that's how gods are usually referred to in monotheistic religions, as of now)

If God knows what will happen in the future, then he knows what one will do in the future.

If one's future is known, then that future will occur.

Thus, that future must occur, so one isn't choosing what will happen, as all of one's choices are predetermined.

Sometimes I'll bring this up in a discussion of religion, and I'll often get an answer similar to "it's beyond human understanding", which is just saying that it's a conundrum and not a paradox.

Edit: It's probably best if you just ignore this...

[sigma]

How can God exist as an extension of benevolence and also moral good if he is omnipotent and merciless? That is illogical. You can't just discuss this as a conundrum, either. It's paradoxical, and needs to be addressed.

Colloquial usage of the word "good" or "great" does not always imply a value-judgment, but may just be shorthand of conveying that you enjoyed a particular experience. But when you literally mean something is "good", I don't know what that would mean. A person does not contain some ethereal essence of good. An object is not made of "moral" molecules. And an action or intention does not emit "moral" wavelengths. So what does calling something good mean if you're not just expressing merely an emotion you literally have access to?

[Blink]

How can God exist as an extension of benevolence and also moral good if he is omnipotent and merciless? That is illogical. You can't just discuss this as a conundrum, either. It's paradoxical, and needs to be addressed.

Colloquial usage of the word "good" or "great" does not always imply a value-judgment, but may just be shorthand of conveying that you enjoyed a particular experience. But when you literally mean something is "good", I don't know what that would mean. A person does not contain some ethereal essence of good. An object is not made of "moral" molecules. And an action or intention does not emit "moral" wavelengths. So what does calling something good mean if you're not just expressing merely an emotion you literally have access to?

1. You can but it's weird
2. Objectively define morals, this is what religious books attempt to do. All-good means nothing in relation to God, when God is the definition of good.

[sigma]

How can God exist as an extension of benevolence and also moral good if he is omnipotent and merciless? That is illogical. You can't just discuss this as a conundrum, either. It's paradoxical, and needs to be addressed.

Colloquial usage of the word "good" or "great" does not always imply a value-judgment, but may just be shorthand of conveying that you enjoyed a particular experience. But when you literally mean something is "good", I don't know what that would mean. A person does not contain some ethereal essence of good. An object is not made of "moral" molecules. And an action or intention does not emit "moral" wavelengths. So what does calling something good mean if you're not just expressing merely an emotion you literally have access to?

1. You can but it's weird
2. Objectively define morals, this is what religious books attempt to do. All-good means nothing in relation to God, when God is the definition of good.

God isn't the definition of good, he's the *assumption* of it. Assumptions aren't based in logic or truth. They're conclusions jumped to by people afraid to do the math.

[Blink]

How can God exist as an extension of benevolence and also moral good if he is omnipotent and merciless? That is illogical. You can't just discuss this as a conundrum, either. It's paradoxical, and needs to be addressed.

Colloquial usage of the word "good" or "great" does not always imply a value-judgment, but may just be shorthand of conveying that you enjoyed a particular experience. But when you literally mean something is "good", I don't know what that would mean. A person does not contain some ethereal essence of good. An object is not made of "moral" molecules. And an action or intention does not emit "moral" wavelengths. So what does calling something good mean if you're not just expressing merely an emotion you literally have access to?

1. You can but it's weird
2. Objectively define morals, this is what religious books attempt to do.  All-good means nothing in relation to God, when God is the definition of good.

God is the definition of good, he's the assumption of it. Assumptions aren't based in logic or truth. They're conclusions jumped to by people afraid to do the math.

1. In religion, God is what determines what is good, and is also the greatest good.
2. That's not math, it's logic
3. Not necessarily, in fact, that's usually not the case.

[sigma]

1. In religion, God is what determines what is good, and is also the greatest good.
2. That's not math, it's logic
3. Not necessarily, in fact, that's usually not the case.

1. Hopefully, you got my edit.

2. I don't think, honestly, that logic is the same as math. Math is subjective, whereas, logical reasoning is objective. It's all relative anyways, when you think about it.

Moreover, many people mistakenly use fallacies to define either existence of answer of God or some of the existence of God. When justifying morality, a person will try to back it up by saying that since an act is undesirable, it is therefore immoral. This is the Appeal to Consequence fallacy; because a god says it's good, it's good, which is an Appeal to Authority; because a culture says it's moral, it's moral; or if it's so ingrained in our nature that most of us know what is right: Argument ad Populum.

The fallacies are boundless it seems, so what is a man to do? That's right kids: accept that you'll either never know, or that if you did it wouldn't matter because you don't matter.

After all, this is just a simulation anyways.



Morality is relative and therefore doesn't matter.

[ncmxracer]

Whoa. Kind of far out there thinking. But i like it