(March 27, 2012 at 12:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Free will is only a good defense if in reality we were free to only choose morally right actions. Otherwise God either isn't omnibenevolent or doesn't have the knowledge on how to create the best world. These technicalities contradict with his properties meaning that such a being doesn't exist.
Your logic is badly flawed. You promote slavery, and non sentient beings over what we have? No, this universe is far superior to the one you propose, and the one that you propose isn't viable.
God couldn't be viable in his benevolence if he had nothing to be benevolent about. If anything your proposal proves God. Which is why the notion of him survives: because it is a rationally coherent answer.
(March 27, 2012 at 12:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Because I believe in the Kantian theory that something is only good if everyone is allowed to do that action which you deem to be right. This is keeping in mind that people are the ends and never used as the means. Hurting people doesn't fit either category.
How isn't everyone allowed to do/ be good?
People hurt themselves. God allows that as part of the sentient model that he created.
And biblical references to people being hurt / killed are examples of divine justice in action. ie bad stuff never goes unpunished.
(March 27, 2012 at 12:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Something that assumes so much about the world that can be observed and tested begs for an objection.Yes, assumptions about God can be tested and observed. Objection is essential and acceptance demanded with no credible alternative offered.
