The axioms seem to hold though.

It’s impossible for you to know that.

We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.

Says who? How do they justify that claim?

Axioms are pragmatic and therefore used a lot in math and science but when you enter the realm of metaphysics (e.g. Philosophy) you have to ground your worldview in a justified true belief.

The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.

You’re right to point out that God knew what would happen. In Orthodox theology, this is acknowledged—but it’s essential to distinguish foreknowledge from predetermination. God’s knows the outcome of free choices but doesn’t coerce them. His foreknowledge does not violate our freedom.

More importantly, God is not only omnipotent but all-good. And since God is the source of all goodness, the possibility of choosing anything other than God is the possibility of choosing evil—which is, by definition, a lack or distortion of the good. If we are to love God freely, we must be free to reject Him.

Therefore yes, God could have created a world where Adam and Eve never fell—but that would not be a world of genuinely free persons. It would be a world of perfectly programmed beings, and Orthodoxy insists that freedom is essential to personhood. Without it, love isn’t possible.

Also, it’s important to clarify: Orthodoxy does not teach that God “damned” humanity for the Fall. The consequence of sin is death and corruption, not divine vengeance. God’s response was not punishment but a rescue mission—the Incarnation. The “Tree of Life” returns in the Cross.

It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.

From our human perspective, it may seem this way. But God did not create evil or suffering—He permitted it as the cost of freedom, because only through freedom can there be love, growth, and communion. What matters is not just that suffering exists, but how God responds to it.

And His response is not indifference, but sacrificial love. In Christ, God enters our suffering, takes it upon Himself, and opens a path to life. The Cross is not God watching suffering from a distance—it’s God partaking and being the example for all of man for our sake.

Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.

While it may not mean much to you I would be remiss not to defend Orthodoxy here. Faith isn’t blind belief or wishful thinking; it’s trust grounded in revelation, history, and experience. The resurrection of Christ, the lives of the saints, the enduring wisdom of the Church—these are not “proofs” in a modern empirical sense, but they are reasons for belief.

Furthermore I don’t know what your standards for evidence are but I encourage you to look at arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God. It argues that universals like logic, reason, and math are only justified if God exists. (e.g. X (God) is necessary for Y (logic, math etc). Y therefore X.)

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify. Furthermore without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

Believing in God is foundation to a worldview that relies on universals the alternative is arbitrarily granting yourself self-evident axioms.

From my other comment:

Arguments for God’s existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.

Assuming you don’t believe in God…

without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

Basically you’re in no position to determine whether God is imperfect or not if you can’t justify the tools you use to make that assessment.

Assuming you’re a skeptic…

There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. [i.e. God]

Arguments for God’s existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.

No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.

Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You’re using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it’s trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.

I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.

Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.

Again. I’m being nit-picky but I feel like this thread is meant to invite some apologetic banter.

It being a meme doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for the argument.

I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.

Redemption from what? Whatever it is, God had control over it happening. Why did it happen? He is trivially capable of creating a universe where there is no need to be redeemed. Why is one where redemption required the one he chose to create? Dismissing something as just being a meme does not actually answer the question.

The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.

The point is, God knew we would create the struggles. Is he omniscient? He knew it would happen. Is he omnipotent? He could have created a situation where it doesn’t happen. Is he benevolent? He wouldn’t want it to happen.

Yes. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good. But benevolence doesn’t mean preventing every possibility of suffering. In the Orthodox view, God’s goodness is shown not in preventing freedom, but in enduring suffering with us, and transforming it into life and healing. God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.

Yes, this is what the church teaches. I’m well aware. Does it make sense?

Not in a tidy, rationalistic way—and Orthodoxy is okay with that. There’s a deep apophatic element to the theology: the idea that not everything about God can be explained in human terms. But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love. Evil isn’t ignored—it’s faced head-on, and transformed in Christ.

There is argumentation beyond the transcendental argument to believe, for example, the Christian God. It has to do with prophesy, metaphysics, theology etc

You have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian. Regardless you aren’t going to find any group of people who are perfect. Christianity is all about how people are sinful and must commit daily to emulating Christ even though they will continuously fail. Regardless it sounds like you are opening yourself up for massive disappointment by casting such a wide net. There are many “Christian churches” which are just jokes if not outright scams. Christians can’t control who calls themselves a Christian. I encourage you to investigate the Eastern Orthodox church which has a rich tradition and clear direction for how the Orthodox should live their lives. It is Ancient Christianity that holds in high esteem prayer, fasting and alms giving. There is real spiritual meat on the bone.

I’m saying that your assertion isn’t justified (e.g. it’s just a subjective opinion). That you can’t expect to apply the scientific method to something that transcends the material world and that there are indeed logical arguments for why someone should believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.

I’m an Orthodox Christian.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10

Define “Christian Church”. This almost invariably comes from former evangelicals in my experience.

Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason.

Assertion

Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife.

Applying material requirements to the metaphysical and transcendental

Proof is unexisting by definition of faith

Transcendental Argument for God makes an affirmative pre-suppositional argument for God.

This is why a “feeling” should not be the reason you convert to a religion. You should be skeptical of Christians that argue their conversion on feelings alone. I certainly had feelings that I attribute to the Holy Spirit when I was an inquiring Christian but I frankly tried to ignore or diminish them to stay sober minded. Relying entirely on emotionalism or charism is historically discouraged as you could just as easily be swayed by demonic forces (e.g. prelest). It’s one of many critiques of charismatic Protestantism and the LDS church.

Just for the sake of argument… According to what standard? Yours? Why should we follow your standard?

Yes the Orthodox view of God accepts his imminence and his incomprehensibility all in one. It is a humble, mystical, experiential and all-encompassing approach to life. It is therefore extremely difficult for us stubborn humans to adhere too 🙃

I recommend Stalker and Solaris by Tarkovsky. Even though they are secular films the depth of Orthodoxy is present in their soul searching, repentant and deeply ponderous nature. Even the Solaris remake does a decent job just because of the mechanics of the story. I saw it years before becoming Orthodox and it stuck with me. We should all be deeply concerned with the state of our souls.

Can anyone make sense of this post? It looks like unintelligible symbols crammed together to me.

There is no way to know the truth

Is this true? Because if so it is a contradiction.

There are ways to know certain things aren’t true

This is just another way of making a truth claim even though you can’t know the truth.

…you should always seek it

How do you go about seeking the correct one if striving for truth is valuable?

Who says seeking truth is something we ought to do? Particularly if knowing the truth is an impossibility. These are all assertions as to what we should do without any justification as to why we should do them.

I’m being slightly annoying to shine your own standards on yourself. Not meant to be combative.

I viewed your link and randomly selected 4-5 of the “contradictions” and basic knowledge of the bible and historicity dispelled them. I’m not going to go through all 50. Sorry you get out what you put in lol. But I’ve heard many of them before and highly recommend the “Whole Counsel of God” podcast which walks through scripture verse by verse and addresses the most common Catholic, Protestant and Post-Modern critiques of scriptural “contradictions” which are typically due to bad theology, poor historicity, translation errors, cultural ignorance etc etc It’s also a great way to learn scripture in a deeper way.

If God exist why bad thing happen

This is a meme in Christian apologetic circles because non-Christians always think it’s a big own when it is really just a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what Christianity is actually about – Redemption. The story of how the world enters a fallen state is explained in Genesis. The fact that the world is fallen is critical to Christian theology and the process of sanctification.

God does not play by your rules. The struggles we face on Earth (often of our own creation) are for our salvation. This is what the bible and church tradition teaches.

I have a more expanded response in this thread here for some other points – https://lemmy.ml/post/30390799/18750134

First of all “Orthodoxy” is accepted as a shorthand referent to Orthodox Christianity so no issues there.

Secondly no worries on the assumptions I also anticipate Protestant hand waving when it comes to certain topics such as canonicity.

Now for your core issues…

1. Original Sin - This is where Orthodoxy is different from everyone else. The Orthodox perspective is that the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin is theirs alone. The consequence of their sin, death, is inherited however. This factors into the sotieriology (e.g. salvation doctrine) of the Church. The nature of man entered a state of fallenness due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Since God cannot be in the presence of sin Adam and Eve had to be expelled from the garden. This expulsion brought with it struggles such as the pain of childbirth, toil, hunger, sickness etc. This is, however, a mercy because despite entering a fallen state humanity has an opportunity to sanctify itself in this life and rejoin with God in death. This is a unique feature to humanity. Heavenly beings are in a static state. It is why Satan is jealous of humanity because the state of his soul cannot be changed and he will be eternally damned. The human soul can no longer change its spiritual state when this life ends. Human beings for all the struggles they have on earth can persevere in their faith and enter the Kingdom when they repose.
2. Omniscience/Free Will - This is a false dichotomy and is highly dependent on what you mean by free will. Just because God knows all things doesn’t mean he orchestrates all things (e.g. foreknowledge ≠ predestination). God is incomprehensible and operates outside of time. This is part of what makes God a transcendent all powerful being. Furthermore because the Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin the theological allowance for how man moves and works in the world is different. Man can live in the world and freely choose between Good and Evil. Salvation is achieved through a process of working together with the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life. This process is called Theosis.

Orthodoxy doesn’t conceive of God’s knowledge as something that competes with human will. Because God is not bound by time, His knowledge isn’t predictive—it’s participatory. We remain free precisely because God allows our freedom to unfold within His omniscient love. This is the mystery of synergy with the Holy Spirit.

What we perceive as logical already presupposes the existence of God, because logic itself depends on the existence of objective truth. If God is bound by created laws, He ceases to be God; He is the source of all order, not subject to it.

1. Vengeful/loving god - This is primarily a postmodern critique of scripture by people like Richard Dawkins although ancient Marcionites and Gnostics love this critique as well. The Orthodox wholly reject this critique as a shallow reading of scripture that does not take into account the context of passages in and of themselves or scripture in its entirety. While God does render punishment in the Old Testament he is also endlessly loving despite being heartbroken by the wayward sins of his people who repeatedly abandon him for other Gods that can’t save them. There is love and wrath in both the OT and the NT. (e.g. OT - Jonah, God saving Nineveh when they repent; NT - Jesus over-turning tables of Money Changers) This is more of a squishy critique than the other two so I’m not sure what else to add.

Two paths forward…

I’m forced to admit that the ‘perfect eternal Divine Truth’ is neither perfect nor eternal (re:god’s nature purportedly changing) and therefore also not true.

The revelation of God is one that compounds on the past. Creation, Expulsion, Punishment, Enrichment, Liberation, Exile etc until you reach God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ who uses the history of human failures to illustrate the grace of God and the establishment of a new covenant that saves all people. This is a logical progression.

What is being passed off as divine truth was either created or corrupted (which doesn’t necessarily imply malicious intent; simple error will suffice) by flawed humans and thus is also not true.

I haven’t seen a compelling case that divine truth has been fundamentally corrupted. It seems more a result of your sentiment than a critical analysis.

I recognize you may disagree with the points I adequately communicated or have questions about ones I failed to describe well. I am a fallible human after all 😂. You may find that many of the contradictions you’re grappling with don’t exist in Orthodox thought in the same way they might in some Western traditions. I’d encourage looking into Orthodox apologia for a perspective not burdened by the theological inheritances of later Western heresies like penal substitution or strict determinism…

An aside about “war crimes” – I will not expound on this too much because it’s a whole separate topic but be wary of using a modern lens when assessing the ancient. You’re smuggling in a moral framework to critique a metaphysical one. It’s easy to forget that secular ethical ideas such as “war crimes” typically find their origin in Christian morality to begin with (at least in the West). What is the epistemic justification for Good and Bad in a world where everything is relative? Philosophically it is an arbitrary critique without grounding.

TAG addresses this in the way you describe. A transcendent being is not constrained by our physics or metaphysics.

TAG addresses infinite regress. A transcendent being functions outside of our physical and metaphysical constraints.