>Locked-in syndrome (LiS) is a rare neurological disorder characterized by near-total paralysis (quadriplegia) and an inability to speak, while the patient remains fully conscious, alert, and able to thinkThis is, unironically, one of the only things that convinces me god may not exist. I can understand why war, disease, starvation, and other forms of suffering exist in a world god created. However, being trapped in your body while being fully conscious is so over the top cruel I can't rationalize it. It's not a common thing at all, but the fact that real humans with souls have endured it is incomprehensible
>>18440584Here's the interesting answer: God would fix them it he could. But he can't, precisely because he is omnipotent.Think about it. God is, from a certain way of looking at it, bound by unbreakable chains made of logic itself: he is omnipotent, and he is the best possible being. This means that whatever he does, he must do it to the absolute best extent of his ability - and because of his omnipotence, there often *is no* best extent of his ability, and so no possible option.Let's say for example he decided to improve the body of someone with LiS. Since he must do anything he does to the best possible extent of his ability, at what point of improvement can he stop improving the person's body?Well he can't. It's better in addition to healing the LiS to also make the person a bit better beyond that. And a bit better beyond that. And a bit better beyond that!A tricky paradox. Instead, God had to pick the best thing to improve: everything. And the best amount to improve it by: infinitely.But actual infinities are logical impossibilities. So instead, he must go with the next best thing: a potential infinity. That is, something that always increases towards infinity, though never becomes actually infinite. That's why we're in a world with time: that's the experience of the resolution of this paradox.God acts exactly as much to ensure good is always increasing, but no more, to avoid that same issue with infinite improvement.Does this make sense to you? There's a quick video on it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw
>>18440660I still don't understand why a God creating a world to the best extent of his abilities would create a world he knows will have stuff he dislikes in it, like LiS and gays
>>18440678It didn't have to. Those things are the results of choices. God's original creation was the ideal starting point and contained nothing he disliked. God ensures net goodness is always increasing, but how much is up to us
>>18440703When God creates the world, does he not know that there will be LiS and gays in it?
>>18440706As the best possible predictor he knows all possible futures and the probability of each, so far as they're logically possible to be known
>>18440584https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome#Causestl;dr don't do drugs
>>18440703How can human choice lead to LiS?
>>18440584This is just faulty genes, nothing to do with religion
>>18440755No it's caused by a substance abuse-induced stroke that damages the pons.
>>18440744Great question! So think about how God would make it to that goodness always increases. What's a necessary part of that? Well that it can't go down, of course.What's the best way to achieve that? Make all good permanent. Any goodness that comes into the world permanently improves it; no good can ever be lost. Hence how, at the beginning, there was no decay, sickness, or death: nothing could be made worse. But: what if there were something that, if it were to increase, would eventually make it so that good's growth would eventually cease? Like weeds eventually choking out crops. If that thing were to come into this original world of permanence, it would have to stop being a world of permanence to remove that thing, wouldn't it? You can't destroy something in a world without destruction of course.That thing that eventually chokes out good is what we call evil. So once evil came into the world, destruction had to come too.And so, all things are being destroyed. The stars are dying, our genes eroding. This provides an absolute guarantee of good's growth by providing an absolute guarantee of evil's destruction.Of course, this seems to destroy good along with evil. It appears to decrease the quantity of good, like with those afflicted and killed by diseases and injuries. But there's a solution that prevents that: resurrection. The resurrection will, essentially, be the first creation remade, but with all of the good we've added since then. This makes it so that all good is essentially being kept in storage - never decreasing, never genuinely going away once it does come. Take a quick look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5kAte0NX8Nc for a quick video on that!So there you have it. Introduce evil and you introduce destruction, of which injuries and diseases are a manifestation. But resurrection ensures that, despite this, no good is genuinely being destroyed.
>>18440762Didn't know, thanks
>>18440678Since Finitism Anon believes actual infinities are impossible, I wonder if that necessarily implies that his God isn't omniscient. There are infinitely many things to know, but if God knows all of them, I would say that this is a kind of actual infinity, the actual infinity of "things God knows." Maybe you could say that, while God can potentially know anything there is to know by directing his attention to answering any question, he only comes to know something in actuality after being inspired to ask the question. Maybe God's own knowledge started at zero a long time ago and has been perpetually increasing as he comes up with new questions to answer, but he set the universe in motion when he was still fairly ignorant, which is why it's a clusterfuck.
>>18440660Now THIS is mental gymnastics the likes of which I've never seen. Hell, the likes of which I couldn't have even imagined. Religion really is a virus.
>>18440717Is that's a 'yes', then God is evil. It's literally that simple.If that's a 'no' then God just seems kinda irresponsible and retarded. Throwing out whatever sticks to the wall, and see what happens to the world.
>>18440660Saying that omnipotence is bound by logic is retarded in general, but you've gone beyond the pale by trying to smuggle in paradoxes, which are the literal only defense the retards who shill bound omnipotence have.Congrats, you've played yourself
>>18440584They are created so that you can be prepared with a strong faith if you ever meet satan again in heaven in disguise. This is god's plan to ensure that the fall never happens again. Stay faithful.
>>18441157It's neither a yes nor a no: a world without evil was a possibility. A world with evil was a possibility. God had plans to deal with evil if it did come.The future doesn't exist, it isn't some sort of temporal object that can be observed. The present exists and what future moments will be like is up to us.>>18441174>Saying that omnipotence is bound by logic is retardedThere are two somewhat similar, but very distinct, things both called omnipotence: Cartesian omnipotence, which is where where God is capable of any string of words, including things like "make 1+1= Portugal", and Thomistic omnipotence, which points out that something like that doesn't even make enough sense to be a coherent proposition in the first place. (Source: https://www.pdcnet.org/pc/content/pc_2017_0019_0002_0455_0461)Scripture advocates Thomistic omnipotence, not Cartesian omnipotence. It says for instance in 2 Timothy 2:13 that God "cannot contradict himself". (source: https://studybible.info/Haweis/2%20Timothy%202:13). That's no quirk of translation, in the Greek it's directly "not able"! (Source: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/2-13.htm)
>>18440910I don't think this is really the right way to look at knowledge. It's sort of like saying that both you and I have infinite knowledge, since you know I read your post, and I know that you know that I read your post (or at least, I will when you reply), and I know that you know that I know that you know, etc. Or you could just say "We both have an accurate mental model of each other's knowledge".It's the same with God's knowledge. Look at it like how you know every number, but that doesn't mean you have an actually infinite quantity of neurons storing them all as text data in your brain.
>>18441196>When God creates the world, does he not know that there will be LiS and gays in it?This literally is a yes or no questionEither God knows that. Or he doesn't.
>>18440678He didn't create it this way. This is a result of the Fall of Man.>>18440735case in point
>>18440584autists are sinners who have performed evil and sinister rituals in hell so they may return to earth in a flawed and imperfect vessel, the more you know!
>>18441266Do you still beat your wife anon? This is a yes or no question. The future isn't an actual thing and so there's no knowing it in any true sense. There's only prediction.
>>18441207>Look at it like how you know every number, but that doesn't mean you have an actually infinite quantity of neurons storing them all as text data in your brainI think since Godel's incompleteness theorems imply that any finite set of axioms describing the natural numbers well enough will inevitably leave certain true (implicitly finite) statements about them unprovable, and likewise the consistency of those axioms will also be unprovable except by moving into a larger system whose axioms are themselves unprovable, this means that the only way someone (say God) could be able to answer any question about the natural numbers with certainty would be to contain a full infinite model of them in their mind to use as a reference (or have a magic question-answering power that doesn't require knowing things before you're asked about them). So, although many infinite sets of statements might be trivially derived from a finite set of statements or a finite model of some structure, I don't think that works for everything, and in fact there are infinitely many questions it doesn't work for.But it's also very possible that I'm misunderstanding Godel's incompleteness theorems since they are said to be notoriously misunderstood and misused.
>>18441329(cont.) On second thought this argument might involve assuming actual infinity. If finitists reject the second order logic required to specify one unique model of the natural numbers, then instead of admitting that there are statements about the natural numbers we can't know, they would stay with the first order conclusion that no one model of the natural numbers can be specified, and if a statement isn't provable from some axioms, that means the axioms haven't narrowed down the models well enough. Maybe.
>>18440584The mere fact that people even have doubts about Christianity and the fact that doubting leads to eternal torment leds me to logically believe that either >god is not good, or >he is not all powerfulor>he doesn't exist. Now I know Christians tend to bring up free will argument in response but since God is all powerful he could have made doubting him beyond the scope of free will. Like levitation for example, I can't will my way to levitate but I still have my free will intact because levitation is beyond the scope of free will.
>>18440755Nah it's non genetic. It's a freak thing that can happen do to poisoning, overdosees, or physical trauma
I guess a finitist wouldn't even believe in the natural numbers as a full set, since that would be an infinite object, so not being able to answer questions about them is irrelevant.
>>18440783This seems like it isn't actually an answer to that Anon's question? It seems like you are saying human choice in fact does not lead to LiS, God just gives it to some people regardless of what they do. He in fact HAS to give it to some people.>>18441287"Did the all knowing God know that doing X would lead to Y" isn't a leading question at all what are you even talking about
>>18441287>When God creates the world, does he not know that there will be LiS and gays in it?Yes or no.Did God know?Did God not know?
>>18441268>He didn't create it this way. This is a result of the Fall of Man.This is a result of God causing a world he knows will have gays, LiS and fall of man in it. If you believe God knows such things.Knowledge™ doesn't really matter. Even if you think God only predicts things with high confidence, he's blameworthy.
>>18441397I still feel like a finitist God would have to have a very unsatisfactory kind of omniscience, more like a guy who sees everything and happens to have a very powerful calculator than someone who properly knows everything. Since there are infinitely many worlds he could choose to create, how does he select the one to actually create? If he held all the possible world-models in his mind at once in order to identify the best one, that still feels like it should be an actual infinity. Instead he would have to go through possible worlds in some sequence and find one to stop off at after concluding that it's "good enough."
There is nothing about free will that entail evil.God can create a world were everyone freely choose the good, where evil is possible yet doesn't happen. If you disagree, please tell me the contradiction.
