• wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I’m not going to defend the person above from having to confront the Problem of Evil (of which confrontation they seem to be in desperate need), but to play YHWH’s advocate for a moment:

    They are suggesting that they subscribe to a more traditional view of “hell” than is depicted in, say, Dante’s Inferno. They claim that Hell is merely the absence of god’s love, and that that existence without god is torment enough. They are not suggesting that God has set up a lake of fire for Samael and the other fallen angels to prod at you with pitchforks. Their idea of hell is like an endless void of nothing, alone with your thoughts, cold and alone. Simply “without”.

    Now, why an omnipotent being would choose to create a universe where there is such a dichotomy in treatment is another matter. The existence of an Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being is mutually exclusive with pur experienced reality, unless our definition of “benevolent” does not accurately describe the being’s morals.

    I.e., Either God:

    (A) does not exist; (B) is not all-powerful; © is not all-seeing; (D) is not all-good.

    • Gathorall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.