RE: Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?
May 26, 2018 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2018 at 1:35 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 26, 2018 at 11:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good.
Strawman and false dilemma again. We're not talking about him stepping in to prevent anything and everything. We're talking about him at least stepping in to prevent the very worst things. This is not a choice between either no intervention and constant intervention. It's a choice between God stepping in to prevent things like animal cruelty, child rape and serial killings. At the very least. Or a choice where he just overlooks it all and waits until judgement day......... When he could have prevented it from happening in the first place.
This isn't a choice between stepping in to prevent all possible suffering or not stepping in at all. After all, we wouldn't want God stepping in to prevent the suffering that comes with a smallpox vaccination, for example. But then again: That begs the question... why does God allow things such as smallpox in the first place? Why are those things even necessary? Why does God create an imperfect natural world with suffering when he could create a perfect world without suffering?
These things are only necessary because he makes them necessary. He wants suffering. You can say it's for the greater good but then you fail to realize that he could allow the greater good to happen without any suffering involved. God doesn't need a means to an end he can literally create perfection right from the outset.
And, to be honest, the only reason it would be bad for God to step in to prevent the mildest sufferings—once he stupidly allows any kind of suffering to be possible in the first place when he doesn't have to—is because when it comes to milder sufferings God interfering with freedom WOULD cause MORE suffering by limiting people's freedoms. But that is NOT the case with more extreme sufferings like rape and murder and childhood cancer and animal abuse. Those things would very much be worth God's intervention to remove and prevent. This is why you keep offering this strawman and false dilemma between intervening about absolutely everything or not intervening at all.
But still, even the mild sufferings are not necessary because God doesn't need to allow them in order to get to this 'net good'. God can do literally anything logically possible, right? So there is absolutely no need to create bad stuff to get to the good stuff he can just get to the good stuff and yet he chooses not to. So he's clearly either not all that good or he's not all that powerful.
(May 26, 2018 at 11:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(May 25, 2018 at 10:02 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: If god doesn't exist morality is still objective . And no most atheist don't believe it's subjective.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-48227.h...e+morality
(May 26, 2018 at 11:46 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: 3 million children die of hunger each year, you're telling me that this necessary for some greater good?
No, and that's what I just explained, dude.
The individual thing itself (ie starvation) does not serve a greater good.
God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good. Both in allowing humans to have free will and in allowing the natural processes of this natural world to run their course. I assume there is a valid reason why He allows for both of those things, even though they sometimes cause suffering.
Quote:Why can't God just eliminate suffering and death altogether, it seems to me that God if he is all powerful could reach maximum goodness without all of the death, pain, and suffering.
I assume this IS the maximum goodness, if all things are considered, which we can't consider since we haven't seen all of eternity.
(edited due to misreading the first time lol)
We agree that that would be the maximum goodness! You see? This is why morality is objective... because we both agree on that because we both recognize that needless suffering is objectively bad. I don't need a God to think that that would be the maximally good scenario: Zero pain, death and suffering.
And yet... once again you are missing the point. If God is truly omnipotent and can do everyhting logically possible THEN HE DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE LOTS OF SUFFERING AS A MEANS TO THAT MAXIMALLY GOOD SCENARIO. HE CAN INSTEAD CREATE THE SCENARIO FROM THE START AND KEEP IT THAT WAY.
