Okay, let's grant that God, defined as the greatest possible being, would be omnibenevolent. That would move it from a logical argument to a probabilistic argument. Is there sufficient reasons to think that God and evil co-existing is improbable. The conversation seems to be about natural evil (earthquakes, etc.). So does the presence of natural evil make the idea of an omnibenovent God improbable?
First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?
What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?
So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?
1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to refrain from a) preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.
2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)
NOTE: some of the bullet points adapted from a debate between William Lane Craig vs. Kai Nielsen
To conclude, I think for the above reasons, it is probable that God and natural evil can co-exist.
First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?
What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?
So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?
1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to refrain from a) preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.
2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)
NOTE: some of the bullet points adapted from a debate between William Lane Craig vs. Kai Nielsen
To conclude, I think for the above reasons, it is probable that God and natural evil can co-exist.
