[alexander_busek]

One thing I find interesting is that those who indict God with the problem of evil fail to apply the same standard to themselves. Although we humans are not omnipotent, we nonetheless have some limited power to fight evil. If we are not using our finite power to it’s fullest extent to thwart evil are we not guilty of our own personal problem of evil?

A perfect example of the Tu Quoque Fallacy!

I will stipulate that you are correct with regards to our not always fully using our meagre powers to always choose Good over Evil - But your remark does NOTHING to address (let alone weaken) the argument that at least GOD should exert Himself to the utmost. If He were truly omnipotent AND omnibenevolent AND omniscient, He could at least eliminate all Human suffering stemming from, e.g., natural catastrophes.

BTW: He could also "zap" - or at least "doxx" - all those serial killers right after they take their first victim, rather than allowing them to continue, sometimes for decades, and sometimes without ever being brought to justice.

Any human police detective, if suddenly given superhuman detective powers, would do so. God does not.

Regards,

[Pres Raygun]

Yes, but you ignored the first half of my post. How can we judge God in this matter when He is not finished? We have no problem delaying gratification to achieve some future greater good, or to willingly endure pain such as physical exercise to enjoy the health benefits of that exercise. God is dealing with evil, but He is not finished.

Oh and by the way the Problem of Evil is the ultimate example of the Tu Quoque Fallacy. God says do good not evil and man’s response is ya, but what about you?

[daniel1212]

I will stipulate that you are correct with regards to our not always fully using our meagre powers to always choose Good over Evil - But your remark does NOTHING to address (let alone weaken) the argument that at least GOD should exert Himself to the utmost. If He were truly omnipotent AND omnibenevolent AND omniscient, He could at least eliminate all Human suffering stemming from, e.g., natural catastrophes. BTW: He could also "zap" - or at least "doxx" - all those serial killers right after they take their first victim, rather than allowing them to continue, sometimes for decades, and sometimes without ever being brought to justice.

Certainly God could, but the premise that He must in order to be good is simply absurd! For one thing, you must disallow the ability to choose, and alternatives to obedience to God, and of consequences for actions, at least evil ones, and which affect others. Plus you must effectively presume omniscience in order to assert "that at least GOD should exert Himself to.. at least eliminate all Human suffering stemming from, e.g., natural catastrophes."

Thus my multiple questions as to what God could do.

[Elsie]

Why the aversion to serial killers?

2 Peter 3:9 NIV
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

[Elsie]

Luke 13:4
... Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?