You didn’t get what I said.
God wants to alive to keep other suffering for your existence. Your existence makes others suffer terribly.
You are drawing an arbitrary line around the rape of children and suggesting that if God prevents it then you would consider Him ‘good’?
But it has already be stated that a ‘good’ God is obligated to provide clear water.
And a ‘good’ God has to prevent earthquakes.
What prevents someone from saying that a ‘good’ God should also prevent heavy objects from falling on feet, gender inequality, car accidents, car breakdowns, etc. ?
Since there is no hard dividing line between what a group of people will call ‘good’ and ‘evil’, then anything could be called ‘evil’.
Ultimately, a ‘good’ God would create nothing, but then where would we be? 
I get what you mean, man, I just dont believe that to be God. A past version of God maybe before it became its future self. If God was capable of time travel what do you think would happen? One would know better, the other would claim that one to be the devil and back and forth the saga goes. I know I cause others to suffer horribly and that sucks a lot. As they have made others to suffer, so shall they suffer and I am not exempt. My enemies are trying to wait me out and shut me out, break me down to shut me up just to secure their dominance. Im too far in to back out now and I dont want to. They fucked with me hardcore and fucked with the wrong damn person. They have killed me outright in many alternate realities, layers of reality. Not this one, though, but I have been tempting them. They have tried for years to get me to commit suicide or be driven to insanity. This is our perfect storm and I will calm it and/or die in the process. But I will not fail.
You can make up any shit you want - make god in your own image, as you seem to like to when you look in the mirror. But that does not change the facts of life and nature.
And I don’t give a rat’s arse for how tuff you think you are. All I see is a pussy.
And how’s that working for you? Even if you were to look to psychology for an answer, limiting your look to psychology as the pretense of science – that is, the mechanistic view – would get you nowhere. You can’t medicate people into imposing justice, though I suppose you could medicate them into accepting injustice without any thought of its impact on themselves or others. In other words, reduced to its lowest common denominator by Mr. Occam’s sharpened shaving instrument, your ultimate solution would be the zombification of humans in an increasingly dysfunctional and dystopian world.
If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children “legally”, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that “children are atheists”, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called “comministic” countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies have to be “atheists”. If all people are “believed” (!) and have to be “atheistic” - by law (!) -, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly “theistic” parents and all other allegedly “theistic” members of their families in order to rape this children. The definition of “theist” is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a “theist” and be punished by death because of “being a theist”. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.
This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.
The so-called “free will”:
The so-called “free will” is merely a relatively free will. The whole history of philosophy is full of that topic. According to it there have always been philosophers of determinism, philosophers of indeterminism, philosophers of a mixture of both determinism and indeterminism, and all of them have always taken turns.
- Justice - It’s unjust to the victim to simply ignore that persons behavior.
This is nonsense. Let’s not get stupid here.
What is nonsense?
Do you have any argument?
No it can’t. God cannot be logically proved to exist or not to exist.
Premise 3 cannot be proven. It cannot be logically proven that a good god would not allow evil to exist in order to accomplish a greater good. Accomplishing that which is the greatest possible good is the priority. This premise is true if, and only if, eliminating evil is the greatest possible good, which cannot be known to be true. This premise assumes one knows what the greatest possible good is, which would require knowing the mind of god.
Since premise 3 above cannot be proven, this is a false statement.
Ergo this conclusion cannot be proven to be true.
Your concept of the Christian god is what is faulty, it’s a straw man.
False. An omnibenevolent God does not necessarily attempt to eliminate evil. An omnibenevolent god does what accomplishes the greatest possible good.
If God knows everything, then he would know what that dividing line is - if there needs to be one. But can we agree that a rapist raping children would fall on the more evil side of that dividing line? Or do you think it’s OK for God to sit there and do nothing while a child gets raped?
That’s a good one. My apologies for leaving it out.
Still, if God punishes by sending people to hell, then justice doesn’t come into play, as the family members of the victim don’t actually know for sure that the perpetrator is going to hell.
Nothing truly exists until someone believes it does or should and once enough people believe that it works for their tastes, it takes on a life of its own. The point of this is that nothing in this world would exist without people imagining, believing and making it real. We believe in a lot of unseeable things and it seems the way of people these days to refuse to believe the evidence of those things. Ive been believing in paranormal entities to break the binds of disbelief in others. You ask what proof is there, I say see for yourself through the scientific process of fully testing the hypothesis of these things by believing in them over the long term. Then you may not have as many questions and might not make as many assumptions. I watch and pay attention to the world around me and listen closely and I see proof all around me. People have believed in a good god that can solve every problem and puzzle given enough time. They have believed in a God that can do anything, but wonder why it doesnt.
This is cringeworthy:
No argument required.
This is also embarrassing:
God knows but you don’t. Although you act as though you know everything.
The rapist is evil for doing it but I don’t think that God is necessarily evil for allowing it. Maybe such behavior has to be allowed to achieve a greater good. I can see that by preventing all suffering, God would prevent all life from existing. To live is to suffer in some sense. Seems unavoidable.
People believe in equality and that it should extend to all realms. And people believe in a lot of horrifying things that they fear. The world is a mess of conflicting beliefs but the strongest will win out. People believe in equality between all things but some beliefs just arent strong enough. And you know why? Because they refuse to incorporate love and emotion to the equation. The truth rocks people more than weak possibilities and lies. People believe that greed will always exist, but more believe in a good god that can solve anything given enough time.
They know if they read the New Testament. Right?
Not necessarily true. If one posits a god which is logically impossible, then such a god can easily be proven to not exist.
If God can do anything, then he can accomplish the greatest possible good either with evil or without evil. And if the more evil something is, the less good it is, then the greatest possible good would contain a lesser amount of evil.
If God can do anything, loves everyone and knows everything, then premise #3 is true.
And if evil is bad, then the greatest possible good would include the least amount of evil possible. Since the god we’re talking about can do anything, it could accomplish the greatest possible good either with babies dying of cancer or no babies dying of cancer. Since it can do this either with or without such atrocities, why choose the route with atrocities when the route without atrocities is available? But in order to maintain one’s omnibenevolence, the god would have to choose the route without the atrocities.
Excuse me, Phyllo, but obviously you have no idea what happened in the history of the so-called “communistic” countries, especially in the Soviet Union, in China, and in Cambodia.
If anybody had a cow, then this one was called a “bourgeois” and then killed. This happened, for example, in Ukraine (at that time a part of the Soviet empire) many times, because the Ukranians were not as poor as the other Soviet subjects yet (in other words: they were not “equalised” yet). And if anybody was suspected (merely suspected!) to be religious or theistic (and the dictator dictated the meaning and interpretation of these words), then this one was also punished and then killed.
Those who do not know or have forgotten what happened in the so-called “communistic” dictatorships do not change anything of the historical facts. It is this ignorance that opens the floodgates to the demands of all dictatorships.
“If”…which you nor no one else has done.
Can god do evil? If by your definition that god can do absolutely everything and anything he can. Therefore by your definition there is no contradiction between god doing evil because he can do everything by definition…your definition. Therefore the POE argument is self defeating because of your definition.
Your definition of god is irrelevant as I pointed out in another thread otherwise you are just presenting a straw man argument. Your definitions of the power of god and what it means to be a benevolent god are faulty.
Once again false because of your definition of god is a straw man. Premise 3 is false based on the Christian definition of god.
Your definition of god is your own, not the Christian definition therefore your argument is a straw man. I pointed out in the other thread what was wrong with your definitions of god in regards to the nature of god.
I’m asking you to respond to MY definitions which incidentally ARE the standard Christian definitions of god. What Christian source are you using for your definitions?
You do realize this statement is in conflict with your logical argument? The POE states that all evil must be eliminated not the least amount.
Again, can god do evil? Can god make 2+2= 13 and still be good? Think carefully what god would have to do to make 2+2=13. Your definitions of gods power and what it means to be benevolent are not in agreement with Christian definitions and are therefore a straw man.