AWKWARD ZOMBIE

It's a bit of a silly question to ask, though. It depends on too many factors. Are they true Gods, or the same sort of pseudo Gods Thor and Loki from Marvel are? If they are true Gods, then the most accurate comparison would be us controlling the breeding habits, and genetic code of a colony of bacteria. Whether or not those bacteria are sentient, and have an idea for "rape" is pretty irrelevant, the truth is that we're still infinitely more intelligent, and influencial than they are, and the better question would be whether or not they (as in we in the case of us vs a true God) can really do anything about it.

"The concensus has reached a verdict...it is classified as 'rape'."

OK......now what?

Well, now your choice is, you can either pretend that the God youre following is benevolent, or he's a rapist douche. The end result is still the same, since you have no power to influence him with, but he did some pretty bad things to you, should you really love him for it?

So I'm asking this question because I read someone on a blog saying, "Gee, these Greek Myths have so much rape in them!"

Zeus has sex with many ladies, some of them without their consent. He's still viewed as a cool guy even though he rapes ladies. Do the ladies even care if Zeus rapes them? Is carrying the child of a god not a huge honor?

Sorry for causing a ruckus, it was just something jumping around in my brain for a while.

My major concern isn't really "Is God benevolent?" To be honest, it shouldn't really be anyone's concern...not until we at least answer the question of "Does God even exist?" So far the facts of reality show that, if God truly exists, he's probably not as caring, and effectionate, and benevolent as everyone wants to think him as.

Besides which I always see people making it an issue of God being a huge tool, therefore he doesn't exist which is just...well it's just terrible logic.



God is viewed as a cool guy despite his shenanigans because we'd have to come to terms with the idea that any religions that hold him on a pedestal might be false if we do start paying attention to them. It's basic human psychology to do that. How many of our own shitty actions have we furiously defended while pointing and yelling at the actions of others? We can do all of this with Zeus because we don't believe in his religion.

Actually, a douchebag God I could accept, if he did exist, if his followers didnt swear up and down that what he does is benevolent, like that line of thought about God being evil, I cant remember the exact term. If he does exist, and is evil or just uncaring or too alien to think of in human thoughts, well thats it, isnt it? There's nothing I can do, he's omnipotent and Im not. What I can do is not accept that he IS good when he is clearly not. And thats the crux of the matter, the Christian God as I see him IS. NOT. GOOD. And no amount of preaching or phamplets or semantics arguments are ever going to make me think he is.

So you're saying a lack of action is evil? By that logic Daoism is inherently an evil religion.

Its also possible god is just letting us do our own thing, I.e. free will. If god stepped in to handle things, then god controls you and your life so you don't have free will.

Also its sorta established Zues is not the same god as what many people think of as "god" as in the all seeing all knowing creator of everything that is without form or comprehension. Greek gods are ethereal beings with human emotions. Sort of palettes of the human psyche taken to an extreme rather than a infalliable entity that many worship today. Sure, zeus was a rapist but that was the cultural mindset. That's the sort of thing that came up in stories. Carnal, base or extreme desires and emotions were major parts of greek stories. Jus how they were like we are with tits and violence BUT NOT FOR THE CHILDREN.

The lack of action in god or a god may be because of like how Greek gods worked, they just wanna see what we'd do. In way making god a kind of scientist, though that only brings gods omnipotence into question. Why would something that knows all even need to create an experiment. Its like reading a book you already know and understand word for word. Its better to think of god philosophical concept rather than a proof of concept.

I think he's saying that lack of action when it's clear that something could easily be done is evil

A lot of people would say that if I had some way to prevent a murder with little-to-no cost to me and I didn't do it, that would be evil

Of course, that argument entirely depends on whether you would define that sort of inaction as evil or not

It would be a criminal offense, so I'd say so.

That's defining it from our perspective. Since it's being asked of a god, other aspects can come into play such as omniscience and free will.

Take that same situation, let's say it's someone shooting at another person and there's a third person with a pocket knife.

From our perspective we'd judge that a pocketknife is not good enough to take on a gunman. From a god's perspective though, they see that the one with the knife, if they choose to do so, would close the distance while the gunman is distracted and succeed in saving the one being shot at.

You could say that the god should maneuver things to stop the gunman, since by your definition inaction is evil. But then comes free will. Say the god does make the one with the knife carry out their fated task. Where was their choice in the matter? Say that they were fated to get killed and let the other person escape through their sacrifice. Shouldn't they have the choice to make that move?

That's how I see God and his perceived inaction. He gave humanity free will and everything that comes with it. He sees how everything will happen, and knows the choices that will be made, but humanity still makes those choices on their own. If he were to intervene to stop all evil, like that quote I hate says, then there would be no free will and we'd all just be puppets.

So you think that free will can exist at the same time as a being with omniscience?

Yes I do. Omniscience allows the knowledge of what everyone will do, but they're still the ones who make the choice to do whatever it is.

"Reading" someone's move is already a common thing in strategy; going off of the relevant information to predict with high accuracy what move someone will make. Someone with omniscience has infinitely more information than that, they would know every detail about everything, who's to say they can't use it to perform divine levels of "reading?"

Not really, omniscience also means you know what WILL inevitably happen, removing free will from the equation.

I don't quite see how you can reconcile that. If an all-knowing God knows for certain what I am going to do, how can you say that I had a choice to do anything else? Doing so would make the omniscient being incorrect, which is by definition impossible.

If what you say is true and this being is using massive amounts of information to make "reads" of moves, I don't really see how that helps your case for free will. It really seems more like an argument for determinism i.e. there is actually only one possible "choice" in any given situation, which we would be able to predict if given enough prior information.

I honestly don't see how omniscience counts out free will. I already said that someone with omniscience knows all the moves that will be played, but the one making them is still doing so out of their own choices.

There's two types, inherent, and total omniscience.

Inherent basically means that you could know everything, but you choose to only know certain things. The potential is there, but it's limited.
Total means you know everything, and you always know everything.

Now, if God is totally omniscient. He would know everything always no matter what, yes.

But a inherently omniscient God wouldn't necessarily. He could easily limit his knowledge, purposefully, of future events.

Even if either is true, what would limit free will is not the knowledge of these events, but ourselves.

The idea of free will, true free will, is something that relies totally on the idea that at any time, anywhere, you could do any thing. This is an inherently false thing, because nobody can do so. Free will becomes an even more limited idea when you realize that if there is only one timeline, then there is no choice to be made at all. Now, yes, you make choices every day and you consider them part of your ability to have free will, but these choices are just a facet of your personality. The being that you are, built up over time. Anything you do will be part of that character, no matter how random or unlike you, it can easily be traced backwards to a facet of your being.

However, considering there are multiple timelines, you now have choice. Note that these choices are still part of you, something that can be mathematically determined, but now there's a possible split. A place where it could be entirely possible for you to do a number of things, and all of which branch out and become a new universe, a new timeline, based on that decision alone.

So, when there is no true free will, does it matter if God is limiting it? In a fixed timeline, where there's only one outcome of events, God matters not at all. Even if he knows things are going to happen he's powerless to do anything because that's how they have to happen.

In a branching timeline, God could know any number of billions of thousands of things that could happen in every atom of every molecule of everything. But, even then, he will never predict what you will do. Sure, he can predict the actions and the outcomes, but when you reach that point, he will never be able to figure out which one you will take, because to him you've taken all of them.

So really, who gives a fuck if knowing the future means you don't have a choice. You hardly have a real, true choice even if he does.