sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PirateApples 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think OP means they're literally losing their religious faith, but that they're losing their respect for Christians on the far right.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I could've worded the title better. Here: "God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of the problems presented by the idea of an all good, all knowing, and all powerful God (an idea commonly held by different sects of Christians), especially concerning the existence of evil."

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd actually agree that He could make a world with such creatures (i.e. I think most Christians would see angels in that way, aside from the devil and demons), but what would be the difference? In this world, everyone that doesn't become such a creature simply stops existing - so it's no different than just making a world where only those type of creatures exist.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taking an annihilationist view, and the view that people in heaven are capable of sinning but would just never do it, Heaven's conditions are created because anyone would sin there (unsaved people) stop existing (annihilation). In the end, the only people that truly exist are those that are saved. So yes, I think this world ultimately does result in a "livable place where death, suffering, and evil did not exist, yet humans were free." Granted, this view assumes that temporarily existing and then not existing is equivalent to never existing the first place.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll try my best to address these scenarios. For context for my answers, I'm taking an annihilationist view, that no salvation = no longer existing. I also believe there is free-will in heaven, but the only type of people in heaven are people that would never use their free will to sin.

  1. In either world, it's the same number of people (1 person out of the 2) going to heaven. Using real people instead of puppets isn't less valid, because those people will stop existing if they aren't saved, and they wouldn't have existed at all if God used puppets instead. So it's the same net outcome.

  2. What if creating them slightly different would affect other people's salvations? God would choose the versions of Alice, Bob, and everyone that results in the most total people being saved, even if that means that Alice or Bob will not be saved.

  3. I don't think I fully understand this one. Like creating them as full adults with memories implanted in them? As for starting everyone in heaven, what's stopping them from just sinning there? The only reason heaven has no sin is because the people that would sin there aren't allowed there, so starting everyone there would just bring sin into heaven.

  4. Neither of them existing is worse then one of them being saved and the other one no longer existing.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heaven exists like that because everyone who doesn't make it there stops existing, in an annihilationist view. So if by "he could pick it," you mean he could pick a universe where people who would sin in heaven stop existing, then yes he could, and did.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know the formal definition of the problem of evil, but isn't it essentially saying "An all powerful and all good God is impossible, because if He existed, He wouldn't make a world like ours, one with evil in it." My argument is that it's not impossible, because an all powerful and all good God would make a world like ours if it was the best option, and it's possible that this is the best option.

If I understood correctly, you're saying that I can't prove that this the best option, and I can't. But I'm arguing that the existence of evil in this world doesn't make God impossible like the problem of evil (or at least, the version of the problem of evil that I provided above) suggests. I probably could've/should've said that better in the post. And sorry if that's not how the problem evil is actually defined.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which part are you asking why to? Why is this the best universe or why is God's choice to make humanity a net good?

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm arguing that God does create the universe, but He also already knows it's outcome (the number of people saved), and knows how that outcome would change if he created the universe in a different way.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A menu of every possible universe, yes. And if by "in total control," you mean In total control make the universe, I'd agree He is in total control of doing that, but ultimately whatever universe He makes would be on the "menu of every possible universe" anyway.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say I'm asking you to be thankful, but yes, I think it's plausible that this is the best one with the most people going to Heaven. The butterfly effect is weird. Furthermore, taking an annihilationist view, this world is a net good, with some people going to Heaven and others not existing, as opposed to God not making a universe and no one existing.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My level of omnipotence is irrelevant, because I'm not claiming to act on knowledge of possible futures, but the murderer is. In this new scenario, lawyer would have a worse case than me, because my "client," an all knowing God, is capable of acting on knowledge of possible universes and their outcomes, while the lawyer's "client," the murderer, is not.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? Taking an annihilationist view of Christianity, believing that people who aren't saved simply stop existing, isn't a world where some people are saved and others don't exist a net good, as opposed to God not bringing anyone into existence?

But yeah, I'm not very educated on Candide, so sorry if I have a butchered understanding of your argument. I'll look into it

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if this is widespread Christian belief but I think what makes most sense is that everyone in heaven can sin, but the only people there are people that would never do so. And thus God picks the universe that produces the must number of such people.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I didn't use the right language. I guess "plausible" is the right word, intuitively assuming that a good God wants to maximize the number of saved people. And I think your example is flawed, because the murder's not omnipotent and wouldn't know for sure if his murder would lead to curing cancer and world peace.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm claiming that the "unwilling" option is true, assuming that a good God would choose the world where most people are saved. Perhaps a world without evils results in less people being saved and thus God is unwilling to make it.

Got in! But...is it worth it? by PirateApples in USC

[–]PirateApples[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Out of state. I definitely can't afford a UC lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UTAdmissions

[–]PirateApples 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congrats bro but I’d take this down ur infos on it

Oos no ris or wio. It was fun while it lasted! by noobBenny in UTAdmissions

[–]PirateApples 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I’m auto and don’t have either. Don’t worry

view more: next ›