Replies

I would say no: they are opposite traits, but not contradictions, in the sense of "a round square." Do you see the difference?

Your post though, reminds me of the old (Hume's)philosophical argument, "the problem of evil." In this, (and I would suspect Rand would fall into this line of reasoning), the non-believer says:

1. A good God would destroy evil.
2. An all powerful God could destroy evil.
3. Evil is not destroyed.

Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.

Or there are variances on it, which include "goodness" as a part of the definition of God.

"Free will," of course, is the (best) rallying cry of those who wish to refute this argument, which is definitely valid, and it spurns an interesting debate--why would God, a seemingly good God, produce a man capable of forming the thoughts that would create such evil, like Hitler or Stalin? God certainly could have given us free will, but not given us the ability to think such evil thoughts.

It's a tough situation for a believer to be put in, because it is a difficult position to refute. It is very simple and very damaging. The presence of evil makes for a difficult world.

1. A good God would destroy evil. 2. An all powerful God could destroy evil. 3. Evil is not destroyed.

But according to my beliefs, God is working to destroy evil, but he is doing it in a way that does not infringe upon man's free will.