Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered. There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil, For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if: Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices; And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil, And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly. But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known. Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28) Consider some alternatives. God could have, 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds]. 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God]. 3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments]. 4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]). 5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices]. 6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices]. 7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative]. 8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice]. 9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good. 10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given]. But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe, and in the sea of humanity, and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time, and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity, and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others, and for this life, as well as eternity, is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life, who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions, not only in this life but for eternity. And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace. And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God. This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to,
C.S. Lewis warned against denial of God.
Thanks for your rejoinder!
Oh, wait - You didn't have one.
Regards,
It has been a while since I read him—but I don’t recall any warnings.
It is impossible to deny God without first wanting to deny him.
There has never, in all of academic or common history, been a denial of God derived from pure practical reasoning. It always comes from a desire to deny him.
Silly sophistry that always sits on the porch swing. A slight breeze and there it is again. Three is the answer. The number of angels on the head of a pin.
If God didn’t allow us free will, then He couldn’t show His lovinkindness and His incredible Grace.
I was a terrible sinner, and by His Grace I am free from that bondage and I am basking in His Love.
But my suggestion that you don’t really want to be a robot is quite plausible.
It’s the major theme of Mere Christianity.
Thank you for your post. So far, you are the only poster who has demonstrated any ability for sympathy or empathy for people in painful mourning. Your rhetorical response to a grieving individual is perfect and the correct one.
When someone is grieving, it’s unfeeling and cruel to arrogantly advise the aforementioned person that they should be happy and celebrating the fact that their loved one (or loved ones) are gone forever.
Most of the responses on this thread are just word salads.
Straw Man Fallacy. No one here has yet to identify himself as an "antitheist."
And an "atheist," by the way, could be anyone who simply states, "I have not yet been given sufficiently convincing arguments and forensic-level hard evidence to adopt your belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Shiva-Brahma-etc. I therefore remain in a condition of non-belief."
Regards,
Excellent post. Even If you spend your time learning the proofs to deny God’s existence, you’ll also have to actively avoid the people who can easily debunk your theories.
I get a lot of blank stares with that one.
And likewise we assume that God would FORCE us to be where we don’t want to be- with Him.
Thanks.
Unfortunately most of the religious people I know just want to make a point with words instead of deeds.
What really matters is what we do—the rest will take care of itself.
Good point. Kind of like the thought that global warming is only bad but if there’s more cropland, beach front property, how is that bad?
An astounding theological assertion!
Would that individual - who has undergone extensive severe suffering, e.g., in a Concentration Camp - still be the same person?!
How could you argue that (I mean: As opposed to just claiming it, as you have here)?
What supporting arguments and/or evidence can you provide to underpin your bold claim?
Regards,
God made us. He can do what He wants. That’s good enough for me.
Did you choose God or did God choose you.
= = =
God chose me, and I let Him.
Well, one could end up - after lengthy deliberation - concluding,
"There is insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
I could respect that!
You, on the other hand, seem to already know, a priori, where your deliberations will eventually lead you.
Regards,
If love isn't a choice, if it isn't freely decided upon and freely given, then it isn't love.
And if we decide NOT to love God (and his righteousness), then we are going to be disobedient to him and we are going to be unrighteous...and that means sin...and sin means evil.
Therefore, evil is about more than just free will. It is about the rejection of love for God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.