Losty Wrote:Mister Agenda Wrote:I'm not going back to the drawing board to come up with an analogy more to your liking if this one is too hard for you because I didn't try to find something morally equivalent to genocide to make a fairly simple point. If you don't have the imagination to do so yourself, feel free to continue to not get the point.
Ooooh the snark. I'm so hurt. Sniffle. No, I get the point you are trying to make. I just think it's a stupid point. I never claimed to be the almighty authority on good and evil. If something is all good and all powerful and the definition of objective morality, they need to be held to a higher standard. Not a lower one.
The way we hold adult humans to the same standards of behavior as children and animals? An adult human is merely more powerful and more knowledgeable, but they can still act in ways that are ultimately for the benefit of a child or animal that the child or animal reasonably perceives as malicious. With a God, there may be considerations that we are incapable of imagining or comprehending. I can't give an example of that (by definition), but I can propose that some version of God sees the vicissitudes of this life as transitory and brief compared to an eternal afterlife. Like getting a shot, all things considered.
Very few theologians include the ability to flatten out contradictions in their definition of omnipotence.
I don't think the God of theodicy is a coherent concept. You pretty much have to choose at least one leg of the theodic tripod to shorten. Drich is happy to saw off the omnibenevolence leg to keep omnipotence and omniscience. CL holds on to that one and insists that there must be some kind of limit to what God can do to reconcile the existence of evil. CL doesn't believe in the God unlimited by anything that you insist on. She doesn't bear the burden to defend a version of God that isn't the one she believes in.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.