this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
369 points (99.2% liked)
Palestine
1979 readers
350 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would I be responsible? I'm not God. It's not within my power to stop them, unlike God.
Why would God be responsible for knowing what will happen? The human ultimately chooses whether or not to do the thing.
For example if God can go forward in time and see something happening then he could go back in time and not make the thing happen.
But that would would contradict the whole principle of giving humans autonomy to let things happen.
Unless you're talking natural disasters the entire responsibility here lies on the ones perpetrating the actions rather than God.
Because God is omnipotent.
Omnipotence does not require doing something. Billionaires have the capability to end world hunger. Yet they're piling up more stacks of money. And Billionaires definitely exist.
I think the crux of your issue is viewing it from exclusively the Christian world view where everyone goes to heaven anyways because Jesus died for our sins. The Palestinians world view is that suffering being done to someone will be rewarded in the afterlife. And the person causing the suffering will be punished.
I never said omnipotence required doing something. You asked how God would know what would happen, and the answer is that God is omnipotent.
Besides, the Old testament, which all 3 abrahamic religions share, is full of stories of God directly interfering in the free will of man. If their God does exist, he is fully capable of stopping what's happening.
By not interfering, he's cool with babies being starved to death, and therefore a cunt.
But it's all a moot point because God doesn't exist and religion is just a tool for power and control.
Threw it into the AI and it told me that it's a you problem https://quran.com/ya-sin/47-57
It's strange how you're trying to frame children starving to death as a good thing.
It's strange how you're trying to shove the blame on everything humans do onto God.
Consider reading and responding to the link.
It is on God. All of the suffering in the world is because the first humans he created didn't use their "free will" exactly how he wanted them to.
That's a pretty cunty thing to do.
It's almost like free will by definition means that God doesn't control the actions. Did God bomb those Palestinian kids or are humans choosing to do so?
Or are those humans forced to do so by deterministic nature, thus making their action morally neutral and not evil at all?
Can you prove free will exists? Also- if your god exists, and created those people that are killing innocents; yes. He is directly to blame.
And he made us in his image, so if we're cunts, so is he.
Unless you believe that you hold no agency over the choices you make in life you believe in free will. You can observe yourself making choices.
You have stated you believe in the existence of free will already by proclaiming the act of killing children to be wrong. Without free will it would simply be a predetermined event and good and evil would not exist.
Taking it a step further, if it's impossible for humans to receive free will because of determinism, then you must also say that God has no free will. Which then absolves God of anything you deem "evil".
You're falling over yourself in fallacies and are so busy being a Reddit Atheist that you're just throwing out adhominems instead of addressing the argument. Also you're doing a lot of assumptions about me.
So if God can have free will... why can't humans have free will?
Yes, and we are all agreeing they are fuckers because of it. Why it is a problem to consider omnipotent god fucker because of the same logic?
If God created the universe then God would have given humanity more than any billionaire ever can let alone will.
It's not possible to understand the Abrahamic religions which the Palestinians adhere to by cutting out the concept of an afterlife where good deeds and suffering will be rewarded and malice will be punished. That is the whole concept of a test.
How very conveniently we can't know the result of the test.
Imagine if God said "I didn't let you perform the test because I know the results, therefore you don't need to undergo the test". Then God sent people to heaven for their righteousness, or hell for sinning without them ever committing the good deeds or sins. Would that be fair?
https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=155
Verse 156 is what you will hear quoted very frequently by Palestinians in videos after a disastrous moment.
I don't think i will continue this conversation since you are giving me the unfalsifable orthodoxy loop here, and it's getting out of topic, so i just say that everything that gives them hope and lessens their suffering in their tragedy is good for them and it's understandable they resort to it.
The entire "free will" argument is nothing more than the Omnipotence paradox wrapped into a different jacket.
Omnipotence requires being able to do anything including, defying the concept of logic itself. The entire concept of God is by itself not logical, using arguments like "If there is an infinite past then we can never reach the present".
Still the universe exists, so the concept of the beginning of time breaks all of logic.
I more meant the problem of evil than paradox of ominipotence.
Yes, all evidence points to god not existing. Abrahamic god just strikes me as particulary cruel in most denominations, definitely not something i would like to worship even if i had.
Abrahamic faiths provide a reason for suffering existing, namely as a test with a reward (heaven) for the good or punishment(hell) for the evil.
I'd argue faiths which state that everyone goes to heaven after dying even if they were literally Hitler are true cruelty, because that'd mean there is no point to the suffering.
Except for quite a lot of them the reward have nothing in common with good or evil, some believe in predestination, some just require faith. And it's even before we get to their praxis. Heaven and hell itself are even arguable concepts. For me the concept of vague, mutable, contradictory and unverifable "test" is incredibly cruel.
Which ones do you mean?
Most Christian and Islamic branches. Traditional Judaism as well though watered down.
It's mostly praying to god, and if you're rich give your money to the poor. Not the most complex material
Branches like Christian universalism.
Up and including suffering genocide.
Isn't that just a collection of tiny sects?
Everything is relative to reward.
Of the major Arbrahamic faiths yes. There's also different religions such as the Druze which believe that instead of hell there's reincarnation which is more of an in-between path.
So, assuming every other factor is identical, someone being murdered in a genocide gets higher reward that someone living in peace?
From the Sunni Islamic perspective, which is what most Palestinians follow, yes.
That's incentivising the martyrdom
Rewarding martyrdom is not incentivizing it. The Palestinians didn't invite Israel to come occupy and genocide them.
In case of Palestinians no, of course not. But it did worked like that through history in various cases.