SteveII Wrote: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.No one has to prove what a proposed entity doesn't have prior to the proposed entity being shown to exist at all It's your proposed entity, if you don't even know enough to imagine what its motives might be, why consider it omnibenevolent at all, beyond that being what you would prefer it to be? If you work from the observable universe to an awesomely powerful entity, it's just as easy to arrive at something Lovecraftian. It's a matter of taste, not logic. In logic, you do not presuppose undemonstrated attributes.
And for Azathoth, outside the ordered universe ruling all space and time blindly from the center of chaos, evil is not a problem.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
