RE: Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?
May 26, 2018 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2018 at 9:46 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 26, 2018 at 9:40 am)robvalue Wrote:(May 26, 2018 at 8:53 am)Edwardo Piet Wrote: There's that 'net good' comment again . . .
So it's okay for these awful things to happen if it leads to a 'net good'?
Right, and "net good" still isn't a defense if the bad things were completely unecessary in gaining that result.
This is my point as well. If God can literally do anything that is logically possible then he doesn't have to allow bad stuff to exist at all. 'Net good' only makes sense if he's not all powerful. If he's all powerful he could just create a world of 100% goodness. This 'natural world' is completely unnecessary because literally nothing is necessary as a means to an end for a God that can literally create a perfect world with perfect beings right from the outset and keep it that way.
Why does God even make finite imperfect beings in the first place?
CL gave this example of her having to take the cats to the vet and they can't know that it's ultimately for their own good even though they suffer initially. Well, like I said, it's a totally false analogy because it's supposedly God that makes suffering exist in the first place. Suffering wouldn't be needed for a means to an end if God got rid of the suffering. Or didn't allow it in the first place when he by definition does NOT have to allow it.
To be honest... it's starting to sound like God cannot only not do the logically impossible but he also can't do the metaphysically impossible... and perhaps what is metaphysically possible is actually rather unimpressive and limited compared to a being that could do anything logically possible. There's a big difference between 'the most powerful being in the universe' and a 'perfect being beyond the universe'.
