(June 5, 2012 at 8:57 am)Thor Wrote:(June 5, 2012 at 1:41 am)genkaus Wrote: The element of responsibility is missing in your argument here. A parent does not automatically have responsibility for his child, he can choose to forgo it via giving it up for adoption or simply paying child-support for the spouse. I mean, we don't go around prosecuting absentee parents for criminal negligence. It is only when they have assumed the responsibility and failed to meet it that they are considered guilty. God, for all intents and purposes, might as well be a deadbeat dad.
I disagree. I would say that the element of responsibility is very much applicable. True, a person can absolve themselves of responsibility for their child by giving them up for adoption or paying child support. However, "God" can do neither of these things. Also, people are not all powerful and omnipotent. And if you want to argue that "God" is the equivalent of a deadbeat dad.... well, deadbeat dads are prosecuted and sent to jail for failing to live up to their responsibility.
Concept of responsibility is born of system in which reciprocity is thought to lead to mutural benefit. A truly omnipotent totalitarian overlord need no reciprocity and can attain all his ends without increased trouble regardless of any efforts to thwart him by other participants in the system. So what rational reason is there to assert that he ought bind himself with anything born of reciprocity?
