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,
"Nothing" is better than a lie.
Regards,
“The alternative is faith in natural causes”
That is not the only alternative.
I already gave the example of the Hindu explanation which fits neither of your two cases.
There are many other alternative explanations—some from different religions, some from different philosophies.
It’s one of the reasons for all this “Climate Change” garbage, to imply that Man is responsible for these things, instead of God.
The Christian vs atheist alternative is just silly.
There are many religions out there and many philosophical systems which fit neither category.
Which as sarcasm is the jaundiced view of typical atheists, ignoring the context of much of the OT, and the nature of man, and rejecting the realities at stake. One who does not believe in the realities of electrical transmission could scoff at all the instructions on use and warnings against violating protocol.
I never blame God for mankind’s behavior
You are living in a world where someone is either a Christian or an atheist.
That is just absurd on its face.
You speak with a spirit of doubt. This is the opposite of faith.
I “doubt” everything human for sure.
No, because man is still sinning. In case you didn’t notice. The phrase “natural disasters” was made up by man, to boot.
Paraphrasing the quote about Cadallic owners - if you have tyou, aren’t capable of understanding.
Why is the British Empire bad?
And what makes you presume that the Nazi and Japanese regimes would have been stopped by inaction?
And what might be your own inner thoughts on the question of evil? If you believe they are strong and wise thoughts, then you will freely give them.
Playing The Devils Advocate, are we?
False Dilemma / Equivocation Fallacy!
The atheist does not have to account for everything else, because he never claimed to possess all knowledge or have ALL the answers. Instead, he can honestly answer, "I don't know. My knowledge is not infinite."
The only comparably honest reply a theist should give is likewise: "I simply do not know. It's a true conundrum. I have, to be sure, a couple of dusty old documents that were in fragments, and have been translated and re-translated and then edited and purged and codified in Councils back when people still believed that the stars were stuck to the Firmament, and these documents purport to have answers, but I, myself, am unable to provide forensic-level evidence and prove, with geometric logic, why unjust suffering exists."
THAT would at least be honest.
Regards,
When you choose what to believe, make sure you choose what is true.
Not what feels good, and not what is convenient for you.
The question of objective truth can be painful.
“Their arguments always boil down to… “if there is no God, then how do you explain [_______]?”
____________
Oh, BS!
But I don't have tyou.
Do you doubt God?
(If you have confidence in the wisdom of your thoughts, then you will not hesitate to give them to the rest of us.)
Ask the Irish and the Indians.
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.