(March 13, 2011 at 10:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote:This is a tricky one. A god may only be able to maximise, bring about the best possible set of circumstances, "save" the most people (in a heavenly sense) rather than use all of the omnipowers to prevent all suffering all the time. A theist case can be made here. I think it shot full of holes however.(March 13, 2011 at 10:07 am)theVOID Wrote: An omnibenevolent God necessarily wouldThat is obviously wrong.
Philosophically the theist would need to reconcile ominbenevolence with the existence of innocent suffering/evil. They can only do that by saying its the best that god could do and bring people freely to him. However this defence is lost if god can materialise a worlds where both free people freely come to believe in him and there is no suffering. Apparently this has been done in he case of heaven, eden and the post flood earth. From a real world perspective. Can a theist utter these words and be serious. The babies killed in the womb as the natural disaster strikes. It is an appeal to emotion, but come on what is more likely: there is a big friendly sky fairy wringing his hands while millions die saying to himself "shit I wish I could do better, but that would mean I shat all over their free will", or there isn't and shit happens.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
