this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
20 points (72.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
34398 readers
1048 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Evil and pain/suffering/discomfort are not the same. Evil has an intention behind it. Where is the evil in dying cause I slipped in the shower, or the evil in crushing your toes cause I'm heavy and inattentive and you're dainty and I accidentally stepped over your feet? At most you could say there's evil in natural disasters, but the world was going from A to B, we just didn't know our world enough and suffered because of it (and that's why now we have seismology!), for instance, but since when does nature have conscience? The world, compared to a garden with no danger no fear like Paradise, is evidently chaotic, but does that mean it's "flawed" or just the only way things could work the way God designed the universe? So, at most I'll accept some disagreement with the fact that God put us in a place that's chaotic, but haven't we risen to the task of understanding and using the universe to our whims? They put a man on the moon!
On the other hand, however, is everything that's man-made. All the evils, from starvation to genocide, from greed to rape, this is all the result of misguided free will. And God teaches us (by the pen, so read) on what we should do to control it/us. You can't possibly put that on God, unless you wanted us to be basically sims/robots...
That's certainly one definition of evil, yes
Of course if you believe "God" set all of this in motion and with foreknowledge then even those seemingly random events have god's intent behind them, yes?
No, it means that you believe that "even those seemingly random events have god's intent behind them". A person's sincerely held belief is not necessarily objectively true.
I don't think that's true, if you see what I said I was explaining it as a conditional statement, rather than a belief.
Your comment as stated, paraphrased, says that "if you believe A, then B is true."
A belief in A does not make B true. While you may have meant "if you believe A, then you believe B is true", that's not what you said.
Is this what Thomas Aquinas was talking about when he was discussing dancing on the head of a pin? 😁
So, Is there a C?
Like, if A (god set this in motion with foreknowledge) is true then B (god did so with intention to arrive at the anticipated outcomes) is not also true?
Is there another answer? God set All this in motion knowing what would happen, and yet the outcome was not his intention? 🤪
Okay, for starters, that's different from "if you believe A is true, then B". "If A then B" can be logically sound without A being true - or with A being false (those are two different things). In such a case, it would follow that B cannot be said to be true, because A is either false or cannot be shown to be true. Side note, if there is no way to demonstrate that A is false, then A is "unfalsifiable", and the whole thing is not even worth considering.
Anyway, if A is unfalsifiable or false, then B is undefined. B would be true if A were true, provided that B necessarily follows from A. For this case, you'd need to demonstrate that A is true for further consideration to be warranted.