- Oct 22, 2004
Because his very existence is antithetical to free agency. Arguing that he can't by definition harm us, again brings into question his omnipotence. True free agency brings into question his omniscience.Originally posted by: Caveman
What about free moral agency? Doesn't everybody want that? Everyone complains when they don't feel "free" to decide for themselves.Originally posted by: Jeff7
God is all-knowing. From the moment of Creation, he would have known how everything would transpire, right down to every last birth defect, and stillborn child. Thus you must conclude:Originally posted by: Caveman
So, you believe God wants us to suffer?
You believe that things like birth defects, miscarriages and childhood diseases come from God?
What evidence is there of this? Doesn't logic force us to believe the very definition of "God" would make it impossible for him to hurt us?
Free moral agency is a much more plausible/logical explanation for the ills of the world. There is mountains of irrefutable empiricle evidence generated for us all on a daily basis as we react with other humans.
- that this horrible suffering was all part of his grand, mysterious "plan," in which case it's actually a good thing
- he didn't care enough to try again and fix the bugs in his little concoction
- he is amused by suffering
Take your pick.
How come one of your choices isn't:
- he lets us do exactly what we want to do because we refuse to learn any other way
You seem to want your cake and eat it too. You want a benevolent God who allows suffering yet is defined as benevolent and therefor IS benevolent. This a is a direct, unavoidable contradiction.
You say free will also leads to suffering. Yet free will is benevolent. In other words, to give us free will, which is a greater good, he allows us to cause each other and ourselves suffering. This is not a contradiction when it comes to your parents, your government or any manner of earthly power. It only becomes a problem when an all-powerful creator of the universe is thrown in.