Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 19:37:12 GMT
Mar 13, 2017 18:46:12 GMT @miccee said:
Just because you don't like the conclusions it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, there is no ultimate human culpability, because we are all products of factors beyond our conscious control. However, punishment for criminals is still a necessary evil in order to keep the majority of the population safe, and act as a causal factor to deter others from committing crime. So punishment is neither just nor fair, but a lesser evil than the alternative.If it was something that I don't like, I would just say that I don't like it. I've got better things to do than type out such a simple sentiment into something longer and I don't think you've seen that in these conversations.
I am saying that the premise of defining what God is inherently flawed unless you believe it is not.
The argument is not really about evil existing as much as it is about God existing with the assumption that he must fall within some pretty silly parameters. Due to that it makes the whole argument fall apart.
The best argument is If God is willing to prevent evil, has the power to prevent evil, but allows choice, then God is loving.
Freedom is a better state than imprisonment even if it comes with greater risk.
Nevertheless, the problem with your post is that you've failed to demonstrate that free will is compatible with the laws of nature, or even logic. Our will is shaped by myriad factors that began before we were even born. When we make a decision, we do not choose which thoughts to think and which past experiences, predilections and biases feed into our eventual decision.
Another problem is that a God who was both omnibenevolent and omniscient would refrain from creating a universe until he was able to guarantee the safety of all of his creations. Given that the universe had no pressing need for sentient life to begin with (and therefore no sentient life forms are feeling deprived of life), God has created a mess where there need be none.