Argument from evil, restated

[John V]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all you have to do is replace "is malevolent" with "has his own purposes."

No, he is malevolent. But you can't afford to admit that to yourself.

Incorrect. That argument is a special pleading usage of malevolent.

---

If @JohnV is going to concede omnibenevolence, and you are going chalk my objections up to mysterious ways, that's perfectly fine.

I don't recall chalking your objections up to mysterious ways.

It won't destroy your faith, and you don't even necessarily lose the argument. All any of us are saying is that the structure of Christianity has cracks in it, and we need to point them out.

Sorry, but while some Christians agree with omnibenevolence, you haven't shown that it is structural to Christianity.

[Godscreated]

---

Well, people wouldn't make guns if they always jammed would they. Humans are rather clever at finding ways to do evil. God made us ingenious so that we could do good. And He created the world to have order and operate according to physical laws so we can reasonably predict the results of our actions. Seems like you are complaining that God gave human beings both intelligence and the ability to use it to our own ends. Would you rather be stupid and ineffective?

I do not know why He chooses to interfere only rarely. He knows better than I do, and its not my place to tell God what he should and shouldn't do. I do not pretend to be wiser than God, but that seems to be the position of most atheists, i.e that they are wiser than God. That strikes me as arrogant.

---

Nobody in this thread has claimed they are wiser than God (yet). The entire purpose of even talking about this is just to voice my objections.

If @JohnV is going to concede omnibenevolence, and you are going chalk my objections up to mysterious ways, that's perfectly fine. It won't destroy your faith, and you don't even necessarily lose the argument. All any of us are saying is that the structure of Christianity has cracks in it, and we need to point them out. I applaud Christians who are willing to question and doubt what they believe in. Inquiry is a sign of intellectual honesty.

Yes they have. If an atheist were to start questioning his/her ideas on this forum you and the rest would be screaming to the top of the mountain, you can't do that, it's not right. If one of you were to inquire into Christianity you would call them intellectually dishonest.

[Ryantology]

Hardly. A more apt analogy would be that I created some robots and allowed one to talk another into breaking a rule I had set for them.

The tree would be the loaded gun. If there's no tree, there's no sin. I really cannot see what was the necessity of the entire farce, what goal God wanted to achieve that could not have been done without blatant entrapment.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all you have to do is replace "is malevolent" with "has his own purposes."

You could do that with any possible example of malevolence.

[Godscreated]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all you have to do is replace "is malevolent" with "has his own purposes."

No, he is malevolent. But you can't afford to admit that to yourself.

No, He is just. But you believe you can't afford to admit that to yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes they have.

If they hadn't yet, I'll claim it. Your gods a cockup, so much of a cockup that a cockup like me can think of an easy fix to a vast amount of evil and suffering any person might invoke. I've suggested it before, I'll suggest it again. Try creating a biosphere in which the vast majority of species -aren't- fully invested in consuming each other to sustain themselves. Or perhaps create a boundless fount of resources from which all can draw. We have godly fucking magic at our disposal so I'm not going to hear any bullshit excuses on this count.

The -only- redeeming feature of this creator character you've dreamt up is that it is imaginary.

[John V]

The tree would be the loaded gun. If there's no tree, there's no sin. I really cannot see what was the necessity of the entire farce, what goal God wanted to achieve that could not have been done without blatant entrapment.

If there's no tree, there's no righteousness. It amazes me that you guys never think of the flip side. There's two ways to know evil and good. Doing evil...or doing good. If A&E consider the serpent's temptation and reject it, they become righteous.

You could do that with any possible example of malevolence.

No, you can't do it with examples that really fit the definition of malevolence. Failing to prevent evil doesn't fit the definition. Maybe it made more sense in the original.

---

Yes they have. If an atheist were to start questioning his/her ideas on this forum you and the rest would be screaming to the top of the mountain, you can't do that, it's not right. If one of you were to inquire into Christianity you would call them intellectually dishonest.

Yes, IIRC FTR was contemplating deism some time back, and I don't recall him being congratulated by all the atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Failing to prevent evil, on the scale being referenced - which you are able to prevent, does. You could throw superpowers under the bus as well, if you like - to be rid of this nagging little bit - and we'll just mosey on down a line or two.

If unable and unwilling, why call it a god?

[Godscreated]

---

I believe through the scriptures and reasoning that God did not create evil, Lucifer brought evil into existence by living outside the will of God. This makes Lucifer responsible for the evil in the creation. I could plant and grow a beautiful garden, which I'm responsible for and then some crazy comes along with a truck and drives through the garden and mess it up.

---

The difference being that you didn't create the truck with the foreknowledge that it would one day crash into your garden and mess up your tulips.

How do you know I did not fix-up the truck and sell it to him, knowing he was a very bad driver who could possibly run through my garden. Does this mean I should forego my garden, I hardly think so. I should do just as God did, have a judgement brought upon the driver and then fix what he destroyed.

The whole perspective you've taken puts you in a box. You can't get around it by saying "but Satan!" when satan was a creation of god, you know, the all powerful, all knowing being that, by definition, must have known already what would happen the moment he 'created' satan (it would have actually known it in time immaterial if it's omni-faceted, but w/e).

What I explained above destroys the box you want to put me in. By the way God created Lucifer, it was Lucifer who made himself into Satan.

---

God needs nothing and never has,

Ok.

His omni........ takes care of that, He does desire our love for Him and a desire is far different than a need.

How?

It surely don't mean that, but encase you are serious I'll explain. A need is something to sustain one's self. A desire is something one wants but does not need to be sustained. Simple really.

What's the difference between "I desire to have sex with my wife" and "I want to have sex with my wife"?

There is no difference between a desire and a want, nether are absolute for your personal survival. Gees.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nobody in this thread has claimed they are wiser than God (yet).

Maybe not you specifically. It is a clear implication from certain atheist pronouncements like the following:

God is malevolent. = I am more righteous than God.

God's incompetent because doesn't save everyone. = I am the judge of who should be saved.

God's creation is flawed. = I have the expertise to evaluate God's performance.

God created evil. = I have better moral judgement than God.

So you're wrong. Nearly every atheist objection to God, as God, assumes that the atheist is smarter, wiser and more righteous than God.

[Sal]

Nobody in this thread has claimed they are wiser than God (yet).

Maybe not you specifically. It is a clear implication from certain atheist pronouncements like the following:

God is malevolent. = I am more righteous than God.

God's incompetent because doesn't save everyone. = I am the judge of who should be saved.

God's creation is flawed. = I have the expertise to evaluate God's performance.

God created evil. = I have better moral judgement than God.

So you're wrong. Nearly every atheist objection to God, as God, assumes that the atheist is smarter, wiser and more righteous than God.

Ah, the "you need to be perfect to judge God" angle.

Here's the ringer: you don't need to be perfect - only reasonable.