(April 21, 2017 at 1:05 pm)SteveII Wrote:(April 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What does God lack that his need for people with free will overrides any harm that may result? God can't foresee which people will choose to be evil and refrain from making them, thereby not violating the free will of any people he does allow to exist? It isn't logically impossible for people to only freely choose good...so an omnipotent God should be able to manage to come up with a world where that's the case, and an omnibenevolent God would want to. [1]
What about natural evil? God can't make planets that don't have earthquakes and tsunamis? [2]
So that wasn't the devil in the Garden, just your run-of-the-mill talking snake? They don't have to make us sin, if we're worse off because of them and God is able to destroy them or confine them away from us, God is morally obliged to do so. We're innocent of their creation, that's on God. Of course if God isn't actually all that benevolent, that's not a consideration. [3]
Believing in demons and the devil having any power at all in our world is inconsistent with believing in the God of theodicy. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe in devils and demons. Do you think the free will of evil spirits is an important consideration for God? [4]
1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end.
2. I posted this awhile back in response to a similar question:
Quote: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 a) refrain from 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)
3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything.
4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.
"Sin" is an old bullshit mythological word.
Humans do good and humans do bad. No old book need to state the obvious.
There are empathetic people and non violent people, and greedy people who don't give a fuck. The there are also issues of upbringing which can lead a child to become abusive, overbearing parents, physically abusive parents. There are also economic reasons that desperate people end up stealing.
Evolution unfortunately doesn't give a shit if empathy or cruelty work. It doesn't give a shit if the Muslim or atheist or Jew or Hindu or Christian or Buddhist win, or end up in prison or die in war.
The good thing is that our species DOES have empathy in us and we can chose to be non violent and care about the economic stability of our neighbors and more people.
You fell for the idea that you needed to be lead rather than considering that you can do good and be good without that book. Humans were doing good and bad long before Christianity or the word "sin" was invented, and even today there is not one nation that does not have hospitals or prisons.
The word "sin" isn't a natural explanation for human behavior. It is a mythology someone sold you. If only Christians were cable of being good then we should expect to see no Christian majority nation with prisons. Not even the idea of Buddhist/Hindu "Karma" is a natural explanation as to why humans do good or bad.
Most humans can figure out that it is not ok to steal from your neighbor. Most humans can figure out that if you punch someone there is a good chance they might fight back. Most humans don't like having their kids fucked with.
I am sorry someone sold you the idea that you needed a cosmic sky camera watching you in order for you to do the right thing. But you don't need that. Morality isn't doing something out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. Morality is doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.
