![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
why would this be the case?
why would this be the case?
Before you paid for “free” software with your data, you used to pay by agreeing to install a search bar in your browser. Usually you just uninstalled it directly afterwards. Not this guy though.
Lift just one side so your buttocks spread, then reach from the side to wipe. All the while, the seat carries (most of) your weight.
Well, it’s fun if anything :). Nobody actually believes in god for rational reasons.
The argument we were discussing was that god was either evil (as in not good) or not omnipotent.
Whether humans must be evil due to free will is another discussion entirely, and I would propose that free will is never entirely free and always limited by our perception and understanding of the world. If evil didn’t exist, you would be as free to be evil as you are to ignore gravity. Also, most religions believe in a paradise free from evil, so does that mean you lose your free will once you enter?
Yes, exactly. If there is a god, they definitely either aren’t omnipotent, or they aren’t good according to our definition of being good (as they ignore our unnecessary suffering).
Don’t see how that’s what I proposed as good. As time wouldn’t exist for god (implication of being omnipotent), there’s no reason that suffering ever existed in the first place - no need to change anything on a running system.
By that logic, you could say that eliminating cancer is exterminating humanity as is, and thus evil.
An omnipotent god could alter nature in a way that makes us able to enjoy good without needing to suffer. If they can’t, they’re not omnipotent. If they don’t want to, they’re letting us suffer unnecessarily, and they’re not good.
So many fruits in the berrum family, can’t believe they even had to google that question…
A four sided triangle is a verbal misconstruct, because we chose those names to represent different objects - nothing to do with what god can or can’t do. They could make all of us believe that four-sided polygons are called triangles, which fulfills the requirement you propose. On the other hand, free will can’t “require” suffering, because a requirement would mean there is a rule god can’t break, which would mean they are not omnipotent.
Still, the (theoretical) fact remains that god knows about the suffering and lets it happen. Whatever the goal is, if he’s omnipotent he should be able to reach it without having suffering. If he can’t, he isn’t omnipotent. If he doesn’t want to, he’s not good.
assuming you’re right, he either can’t or doesn’t want to create that world without human suffering. Remains either evil or not all powerful.
why not? you can choose to eat a banana or an apple, both perfectly non evil
nobody said it wasn’t
Seems to be a much faster interface with bigger bandwidth.
Somewhat is key. You can try to guide it in a direction, but that’s it. Also, as a player, you can never be sure if the dialogue is meaningful or not. Does it reveal something about the plot? Is it a key information about the character? Is it just hallucinated gibberish to fill the space?
The problem is that you can’t really control what AI spits out. May fit perfectly into the story, or it may be immersion breaking nonsense that doesn’t even fit into the narrative. What if a character suddenly makes a promise or tells you a key plotline point that it has just made up? I, for one, prefer games to be handcrafted to deliver a quality reliable experience instead of being a coinflip.
Very smart of her to use a fake name on Twitter to prevent doxxing.
math checks out tho?