Did God Create the Best Possible Universe?

[soulfree]

All evil is due to ignorance. It is never in our interest to ignore, despise, harm or neglect others and live for ourselves.

If the child-like, naive faith that makes one exclaim “Father knows best” satisfies you, then God bless you. Surely, if God is perfect, good and love, then there can’t be an instance where he is not either of these things. If such is the case, then he can live with a couple of “renegades” playing Devil’s advocate. So can you. This can’t be the best possible universe where one is trapped between loving and submitting to God or having an atrocious eternity. The people who are in hell had no business being created. God’s disregard for human misery, both temporal and eternal, is perplexing. Even Jesus said Judas should have never been created. Smearing the stain of original sin on humankind as a whole when only two poeple had disobeyed God is not justice, sorry Tony. Hence Jesus’ incarnation becomes a deus ex machina to correct a situation that God unjustly brought about. The exaltation of Jesus was big on God’s agenda from the get-go. I liken it to extinguishing a fire that you ignite, you get glorified for the people that you “saved”.

 

[tonyrey]

I wonder though how is love manifested? Did Adam and Eve truly loved just because they had been created? How does one know of love? Humans are vastly different than the angels in that any human will not truly understand until they come to experience what was taught to them. It was interesting that Jesus had told St. Maria Faustina the reason why the angels were punished immediately after they had sinned was their profound knowledge of God. Angels it seems follow a different route than men and women. Angels do not need experiences. We are not given profound knowledge for it needs to be acquired in time and if men and women were given profound knowledge it would not have serve them because they would not have understood this knowledge until they come to seek experiences which will reveal to them what this knowledge was all about. Mark Twain had written that man is not made of atoms but of stories. Our “profound” knowledge must be acquired within those experiences which stories have become the largest contributor to our acquisition. Did God create the best possible Universe? It seems to be a very interesting Universe with this story we have written for Him and He seemingly wants to contribute to this story to help us to acquire more of His knowledge. I think men and women are a very interesting species that God has created which is vastly different than the angels. We can create interesting stories that perhaps even the angels cannot and the angels I believe are also learning more about us because of these incredible stories. We learn best not from direct knowledge but by experiencing what we can relate to. I believe that is how love is manifested in us to be able to express that same love. We need those experiences to teach us.

It is significant that Jesus used parables to teach us how to live that even a child can understand.

 

[chimo]

It is significant that Jesus used parables to teach us how to live that even a child can understand.

Yes that is so true. We all could learn more. By the way thanks for the thumbs up!

 

[tonyrey]

If the child-like, naive faith that makes one exclaim “Father knows best” satisfies you, then God bless you.

Faith is not naive and child-like when one gives reasons to support one’s beliefs. That is the purpose of this forum.

Surely, if God is perfect, good and love, then there can’t be an instance where he is not either of these things. If such is the case, then he can live with a couple of “renegades” playing Devil’s advocate. So can you.

“playing” is the keyword. An authentic Catholic would not state dogmatically:

Forgetting that there was once me and forgetting there was once a God who claimed to have a universal love, waking up everyday to realize he lies more than he loves. I wish God would have spared me the incredible pain of having him as a Creator, the pain of having a human heart with so little in the way of potential to be fufilled and vibrant.

Anyone reading these words would think they were written by an ironic sceptic rather than a believer.

This can’t be the best possible universe where one is trapped between loving and submitting to God or having an atrocious eternity. The people who are in hell had no business being created. God’s disregard for human misery, both temporal and eternal, is perplexing.

The choice between good and evil is not a trap but a fact. It doesn’t make sense to blame God for how people choose to live. Nor does it make sense to think the choicesof** non-existent** persons are predictable.

Even Jesus said Judas should have never been created.

It doesn’t follow that Judas is in hell. In fact he is far more likely to be in heaven because he said* “*I have betrayed innocent blood”, repented and killed himself because he was tortured by a sense of guilt. Jesus knew not only how much Judas was going to suffer but also how much He was going to suffer because of His apostle’s treachery. So it is understandable that Jesus wished Judas hadn’t even born just as He prayed to be spared from the ordeal of crucifixion. Otherwise He wouldn’t have been human.

Smearing the stain of original sin on humankind as a whole when only two poeple had disobeyed God is not justice, sorry Tony.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”.

The bloodstained history of the human race is ample evidence that we are all victims of the sins of our ancestors.

Hence Jesus’ incarnation becomes a deus ex machina to correct a situation that God unjustly brought about. The exaltation of Jesus was big on God’s agenda from the get-go. I liken it to extinguishing a fire that you ignite, you get glorified for the people that you “saved”.

Your hypothesis is flawed by its failure to recognise human responsibility for all the needless suffering in the world. It is tempting to offload one’s guilt onto God but hopelessly unrealistic. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…" Anyone who believes he is completely innocent and doesn’t need redemption is deceiving and glorifying himself. It is a well-known fact that some individuals often accuse others of their own vices and defects…

 

[Tomdstone]

It is never in our interest to ignore, despise, harm or neglect others and live for ourselves.

Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes interference or intervention in someone else’s business can cause greater harm. The attempted cure may be worse than the disease in some cases. Take for example, the intervention of the USA in Vietnam.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are some people who think they would make a better God than God has proven himself to be. But it’s a very dangerous business to judge God when God will be judging us.

Well, the question is whether or not God created the best possible universe. I guess we can just say yes, and let it drop at that, but is that what the OP wanted or did he want a discussion pro and con.
One reason I have doubts that this is the best possible universe is that God has created people with an objective disorder that is a cause for moral concern. Obviously, I could be wrong, but why would it not have been better not to create people with this objective disorder that is a cause for moral concern?
Please see #10 in:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Aloysium]

Not to be rude, but following that logic in relation to the same sin, most (all) of us should not have been born with hands.

 

[soulfree]

It doesn’t follow that Judas is in hell. In fact he is far more likely to be in heaven because he said* “*I have betrayed innocent blood”, repented and killed himself because he was tortured by a sense of guilt. Jesus knew not only how much Judas was going to suffer but also how much He was going to suffer because of His apostle’s treachery. So it is understandable that Jesus wished Judas hadn’t even born just as He prayed to be spared from the ordeal of crucifixion. Otherwise He wouldn’t have been human…

While naive optimism is great and has its merits, if Judas is indeed in Heaven then there is no point in lamenting his birth or conception, right? The Catholic Church has a policy of not speculating about the particular denizens of hell. How cheap is the ticket to eternal damnation? V-e-r-y cheap. One lonely sin of the “right” kind can nullify several decades of a life lived right. Pit that against being 3 years with the son of man, the living loving God in the freaking flesh, beholding heaps of miracles, you betray that man for a bit of money and you kill yourself afterwards? Let’s stop ignoring the huge elephant in this tiny room: Judas is indeed in hell.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”.

The bloodstained history of the human race is ample evidence that we are all victims of the sins of our ancestors…

Not “totally corrupted”, “just” 75% corrupted, maybe…We are “victims” of the sins of Adam and Eve because God decreed that I was going to personally carry the weight of the single act of disobedience through no personal fault of my own. When we know how God deals with sin, concupiscence is very serious business, Tony. Don’t take the stain of original sin with which God has stained us all lightly. Again, Jesus came to put out a fire that God had started. If a cousin you haven’t seen in 25 years commits a grievous crime, do you expect a fair and just judge to send the whole family tree to jail, Tony?

Your hypothesis is flawed by its failure to recognise human responsibility for all the needless suffering in the world. It is tempting to offload one’s guilt onto God but hopelessly unrealistic. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…" Anyone who believes he is completely innocent and doesn’t need redemption is deceiving and glorifying himself. It is a well-known fact that some individuals often accuse others of their own vices and defects…

I was conceived in sin because God decreed, unjustly, that all of humanity has to bear the blame of a solitary act of disobedience ages and ages ago. I don’t deny that I’m sinful. Concupiscence is God putting us, parched, in a hot desert near an oasis. Of course I’m going to drink from the confounded oasis! If I don’t whole-heartedly regret drinking from the oasis, God has a very unpleasant and eternal surprise for me. Don’t get too bogged down in the analogy, though, it has its limits. You get the idea, hopefully. I wish you could live for a short period of time without original sin and with the preternatural gifts, the scales would fall off from your eyes and would keenly feel just what God has unjustly taken from you and me. But no original sin and no exaltation of Jesus, the exaltation is of paramount importance to God. The whole thing looks like a set-up from the get-go to be honest.

 

[soulfree]

Not to be rude, but following that logic in relation to the same sin, most (all) of us should not have been born with hands.

If we all had been born with a mortal soul and only the good people of the “Well done good and faithful servant, enter into joy” category would have had their souls made immortal by God, everyone would be happy. Except God. Untold human suffering, both temporal and eternal, to keep God happy. His thirst for suffering is unquenchable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If we all had been born with a mortal soul and only the good people of the “Well done good and faithful servant, enter into joy” category would have had their souls made immortal by God, everyone would be happy. Except God. Untold human suffering, both temporal and eternal, to keep God happy. His thirst for suffering is unquenchable.

Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

What is there in Catholicism that you do believe in?

 

[tonyrey]

While naive optimism is great and has its merits, if Judas is indeed in Heaven then there is no point in lamenting his birth or conception, right? The Catholic Church has a policy of not speculating about the particular denizens of hell. How cheap is the ticket to eternal damnation? V-e-r-y cheap. One lonely sin of the “right” kind can nullify several decades of a life lived right. Pit that against being 3 years with the son of man, the living loving God in the freaking flesh, beholding heaps of miracles, you betray that man for a bit of money and you kill yourself afterwards? Let’s stop ignoring the huge elephant in this tiny room: Judas is indeed in hell.

Not “totally corrupted”, “just” 75% corrupted, maybe…We are “victims” of the sins of Adam and Eve because God decreed that I was going to personally carry the weight of the single act of disobedience through no personal fault of my own. When we know how God deals with sin, concupiscence is very serious business, Tony. Don’t take the stain of original sin with which God has stained us all lightly. Again, Jesus came to put out a fire that God had started. If a cousin you haven’t seen in 25 years commits a grievous crime, do you expect a fair and just judge to send the whole family tree to jail, Tony?

I was conceived in sin because God decreed, unjustly, that all of humanity has to bear the blame of a solitary act of disobedience ages and ages ago. I don’t deny that I’m sinful. Concupiscence is God putting us, parched, in a hot desert near an oasis. Of course I’m going to drink from the confounded oasis! If I don’t whole-heartedly regret drinking from the oasis, God has a very unpleasant and eternal surprise for me. Don’t get too bogged down in the analogy, though, it has its limits. You get the idea, hopefully. I wish you could live for a short period of time without original sin and with the preternatural gifts, the scales would fall off from your eyes and would keenly feel just what God has unjustly taken from you and me. But no original sin and no exaltation of Jesus, the exaltation is of paramount importance to God. The whole thing looks like a set-up from the get-go to be honest.

Your anti-Christian caricature of God amounts to nothing more than filial ingratitude.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . God is love.

Some of us are filled with hate, resentment and anger, at the bottom of which lies ignorance and pride. While not wishing to let go of this attitude, the fear arises that it cannot but define one’s life. God knows and loves us better than we do ourselves; we are saved. Can one choose to reject God again, as did Adam originally? Knowing suffering it is much less likely. Pride can deny God. The bitterness whose source and object is pride itself, can be redirected onto God, but He understands. He is trying to free the person from its clutches, to give them peace, but pride refuses. Sin has been vanquished. Being charitable and engaging in a relationship with Him, one ultimately will come to know He is Love. Gossiping and spreading misinformation about Him on the Internet is next to useless, especially if that is all one is seeking.

 

[Cimachol]

Copies are not identical. That’s fine. God could create something that was in all respects the same as himself except that the other thing was created.
Also, there are schools of thought which hold that omnipotent beings are not bound by logical contradictions and can do anything regardless if they seem somehow self-contradictory.

In either case, our speculation is irrelevant until Eric Hyom tells us how to distinguish correct answers to his questions from incorrect answers.

There may be schools of thought that hold that, but I don’t believe the Catholic Church attends one of those schools. If actual contradictions – as opposed to oxymorons or things that merely seem contradictory on the surface – can be true, than there is no truth. We might as well cease reasoning all together, because whatever we hold to be true could also not be true, so truth itself would be a meaningless word. But, I think our human experience shows us that truth DOES exist, however limited our understanding of it may be, so I would hope we could dispense with such nonsense immediately.

As for the non-identical copy, once you’ve accepted that it’s non-identical in terms of being a creation, and then eliminate logical contradictions like an all-powerful God creating a being He can’t overcome, and that therefore any creature He creates must be less powerful than He, you’re left with a very powerful, but not quite as powerful as God, creature. One could argue that the angels fit such a definition.

Could he have made the angels more powerful than they are? Perhaps, but given the nature of free will – that a free will is NOT controlled by God, that allows for the possibility that an angel could reject God. In fact, 1/3 did. That in itself might have been a reason for God not to have made them more powerful.

Therefore, I reject the idea that the best thing God could create would be a copy of Himself.

The greatest thing He could create is a creature capable of love, and the greatest thing that can be loved is He who is the source of all love and all good, so such a creature could have no higher purpose and no greater privilege than to be able to love God. And, He has created such creatures.

 

[soulfree]

Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

What is there in Catholicism that you do believe in?

Because I was raised as one. If I had been born in Bombay, i’d probably believe something else. There’s lots I believe in Catholicism, not that what I believe matters to anyone, but you asked. But I look at my life, lives of people around me, hear that God is all that and more, and see no evidence of that. To be blunt, i hate God and his system. To be more accurate, i hate who I think God is and I hate what I think his system is. I also understand God is so self-enamored that I should be constantly amazed by his “generosity”, i.e. gift of Christ. I also hate his dolorism. But my beliefs are irrelevant, the discussion is whether God is an absolute genius and his system and the universe are optimal.

Your anti-Christian caricature of God amounts to nothing more than filial ingratitude.

God thinks very highly of himself, you kind of expect that any worthless crumb that he will give away, he expects eternal praises for. I’ll take your compliment, but it doesn’t further the discussion. Personally, I think God’s gift of life to me is actually not a gift according to how most people with 2 cents of good faith would define “gift”. I actually think that you ought not to go to jail for a distant cousin of yours who commits a serious crime, likewise I see no reason for God to plunge me in a filthy bowl with “original sin” written on it at the time of my conception because he doesn’t understand that i am not Adam, do not know him and had no say in his personal choice of disobeying God once (slight overreaction BTW). Call that what you like, i could not care less.

 

[Cimachol]

While naive optimism is great and has its merits, if Judas is indeed in Heaven then there is no point in lamenting his birth or conception, right? The Catholic Church has a policy of not speculating about the particular denizens of hell. How cheap is the ticket to eternal damnation? V-e-r-y cheap. One lonely sin of the “right” kind can nullify several decades of a life lived right. Pit that against being 3 years with the son of man, the living loving God in the freaking flesh, beholding heaps of miracles, you betray that man for a bit of money and you kill yourself afterwards? Let’s stop ignoring the huge elephant in this tiny room: Judas is indeed in hell.

Not “totally corrupted”, “just” 75% corrupted, maybe…We are “victims” of the sins of Adam and Eve because God decreed that I was going to personally carry the weight of the single act of disobedience through no personal fault of my own. When we know how God deals with sin, concupiscence is very serious business, Tony. Don’t take the stain of original sin with which God has stained us all lightly. Again, Jesus came to put out a fire that God had started. If a cousin you haven’t seen in 25 years commits a grievous crime, do you expect a fair and just judge to send the whole family tree to jail, Tony?

I was conceived in sin because God decreed, unjustly, that all of humanity has to bear the blame of a solitary act of disobedience ages and ages ago. I don’t deny that I’m sinful. Concupiscence is God putting us, parched, in a hot desert near an oasis. Of course I’m going to drink from the confounded oasis! If I don’t whole-heartedly regret drinking from the oasis, God has a very unpleasant and eternal surprise for me. Don’t get too bogged down in the analogy, though, it has its limits. You get the idea, hopefully. I wish you could live for a short period of time without original sin and with the preternatural gifts, the scales would fall off from your eyes and would keenly feel just what God has unjustly taken from you and me. But no original sin and no exaltation of Jesus, the exaltation is of paramount importance to God. The whole thing looks like a set-up from the get-go to be honest.

You raise some great questions, but I’m not sure that your manner of doing so is conducive to actually getting answers. The gist of some of your questions seems to be:

1. If God is all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he allow souls to go to hell, where they will suffer for eternity?
2. Why would a just God allow the children of Adam and Eve bear the mark of Original Sin when Original Sin was their parents’ fault, not their own?
3. Why would God allow temptation to exist within his universe?

I’m sure you have many other questions as well. These are great questions, and they’ve been dealt with by many brilliant minds throughout the Church’s history. I suggest, if you want answers, posting these questions individually as threads of their own or even asking them in the “Ask An Apologist” forum, rather than posing them all in one thread that was started to address a completely different question. Otherwise, the discussion bounces all over the place and it’s very difficult for anyone to answer any question satisfactorily.

This reminds me of some of the things I used to write criticizing the Church. I assumed that if I had a question to which I’d never heard an answer, there was no answer. In fact, I’ve come to realize that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a good question that the hasn’t been addressed by someone within the Church at some point.

I’d also recommend you consider the tone of your questions if you want good answers. Accusing the God that we Catholics believe in and worship of all kinds of evil is not going encourage open discussion. Questions encourage answers, but accusations encourage defensiveness and counterattacks.

 

[soulfree]

You raise some great questions, but I’m not sure that your manner of doing so is conducive to actually getting answers. The gist of some of your questions seems to be:

1. If God is all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he allow souls to go to hell, where they will suffer for eternity?
2. Why would a just God allow the children of Adam and Eve bear the mark of Original Sin when Original Sin was their parents’ fault, not their own?
3. Why would God allow temptation to exist within his universe?

I’m sure you have many other questions as well. These are great questions, and they’ve been dealt with by many brilliant minds throughout the Church’s history. I suggest, if you want answers, posting these questions individually as threads of their own or even asking them in the “Ask An Apologist” forum, rather than posing them all in one thread that was started to address a completely different question. Otherwise, the discussion bounces all over the place and it’s very difficult for anyone to answer any question satisfactorily.

This reminds me of some of the things I used to write criticizing the Church. I assumed that if I had a question to which I’d never heard an answer, there was no answer. In fact, I’ve come to realize that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a good question that the hasn’t been addressed by someone within the Church at some point.

I’d also recommend you consider the tone of your questions if you want good answers. Accusing the God that we Catholics believe in and worship of all kinds of evil is not going encourage open discussion. Questions encourage answers, but accusations encourage defensiveness and counterattacks.

Don’t you think I know the answers?! The answer: God does everything to bring a greater good. He is just and awesome, and worthy of dulia. He is perfect, omnibenevolent, and questioning him or his attributes (or rather, what people claim his attributes are) is silly. I’m past that now. I think it’s dumb for the curse to be extended to all the descendants of Adam and Eve. I don’t marvel at Christ’s incarnation, I think if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, God would be scratching his head wondering how he’s gonna pull off the deus ex machina (drum roll…Jesus). But planting a serpent right in the middle of the garden was a very good start. Making the tree readily available was very crafty. God, at heart, is a bad novelist. Many are unwilling characters in his inane book. I think Tony is incapable of anything but knee-jerk reactions. Religion seems to churn out people like that.

 

[oldcelt]

Don’t you think I know the answers?! The answer: God does everything to bring a greater good. He is just and awesome, and worthy of dulia. He is perfect, omnibenevolent, and questioning him or his attributes (or rather, what people claim his attributes are) is silly. I’m past that now. I think it’s dumb for the curse to be extended to all the descendants of Adam and Eve. I don’t marvel at Christ’s incarnation, I think if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, God would be scratching his head wondering how he’s gonna pull off the deus ex machina (drum roll…Jesus). But planting a serpent right in the middle of the garden was a very good start. Making the tree readily available was very crafty. God, at heart, is a bad novelist. Many are unwilling characters in his inane book. I think Tony is incapable of anything but knee-jerk reactions. Religion seems to churn out people like that.

Some of the reasons that prompted me to conclude that the god of the bible doesn’t exist. I also believe that if you handed the bible into a basic composition course at any decent college you would fail.

 

[clem456]

Prior to the beginning of this cosmos, God had a choice between an infinite (or nearly infinite) number of possible worlds that he could have created. God chose to create this one. This leads some philosophers to suggest that this is the best possible world that could have been created because obviously:

It’s speculation as to whether God deliberated between choices as a human being would do. It would seem the divine will does not operate with uncertainty and deliberation as ours would, because God is omniscient. God knows everything from eternity to eternity.

Keep in mind also that in the mystery of God, he is not “in” time, he is outside of it, he is not constrained by time. Deliberation over choices would imply that God operates in time as we do, “taking his time” to sort things out. But if God sees all time at once then your premise is doubtful. Wouldn’t human deliberation over choices would be a meaningless thing to God?

1. God is good
2. A good God would create the best possible world
3. Therefore, this must be the best possible world

The line of reasoning also works in reverse:

1. God is good
2. A good God would create the best possible world
3. This is not the best possible world
4. Therefore, God doesn’t exist

God’s identity is “I Am Who Am”, or in other words “I exist”. (someone correct me if I am understating this, I know some posit that God is outside of existence or pre-existent"?)
He creates us to share in his existence:
If God is all good, and he is Love, and he is omniscient and omnipotent, then he cannot create an inferior product, due to his nature.
And because he does nothing but love, God is an outpouring of his own life, because love pours itself out to “other” by nature. Even before he created “the world”, God is an outpouring of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our life is a participation in that outpouring of Trinitarian Love. We are made in that image. That is good. How can it ever be said to be not good?

Because we are created by Love, for Love, our existence is a participation in a relationship. We are not put into a machine to go round and round in deterministic fashion. We are called to participate in that relationship by loving God in return. To love in return we must be free. God cannot not force himself.

Because we are free and abuse that freedom by putting “I” above “we”, this relationship breaks down on our part. We refuse this relationship and suffer the consequences of our refusal. God did not create The Tree as a bad thing, it is we who abused The Tree. And it is we who crucify Christ.

I would like to argue, however, that God is in no way obligated by his goodness to create the best possible world. The reason is because the “best possible world” can only be brought into existence by the creatures that God creates (by their obedience to his commands), and not by God himself. In other words, I think that premise 2 above is a non-sequitur: God is not required by his goodness to create the best possible world. I think it is clear that God could have chosen a world where more of his creatures obeyed his commands, but he did not. However, I fail to see how this impugns God’s goodness, because God’s intent toward his creatures is always the same: that they all be saved.

Therefore, I propose that God could freely choose a universe where more people go to hell over a universe where no-one goes to hell and still be just as morally good. In other words, he could freely choose to not create the best possible world and it would not affect his goodness at all. Am I wrong?

Whether God is obligated to do this and that is probably a moot question, as above.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Don’t you think I know the answers?! The answer: God does everything to bring a greater good. He is just and awesome, and worthy of dulia. He is perfect, omnibenevolent, and questioning him or his attributes (or rather, what people claim his attributes are) is silly. I’m past that now. I think it’s dumb for the curse to be extended to all the descendants of Adam and Eve. I don’t marvel at Christ’s incarnation, I think if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, God would be scratching his head wondering how he’s gonna pull off the deus ex machina (drum roll…Jesus). But planting a serpent right in the middle of the garden was a very good start. Making the tree readily available was very crafty. God, at heart, is a bad novelist. Many are unwilling characters in his inane book. I think Tony is incapable of anything but knee-jerk reactions. Religion seems to churn out people like that.

Apparently you believe you would be a better god than God.

Do I detect some raging hubris there?

At any rate, I won’t be reading any more of your posts as they are chronically blasphemous.

 

[soulfree]

Apparently you believe you would be a better god than God.

Do I detect some raging hubris there?

At any rate, I won’t be reading any more of your posts as they are chronically blasphemous.

The way he handled so compassionately the near extermination of his chosen people from 1939-1945 shows how trustworthy and reliable he is. God is inept at being a decent god. He is a father to the fatherless? Of course he’s not. Creating only people who are minimally happy to be alive would be my first decison as a god. i’d be more of an interventionist type. I’d make Tony mean it when he says, “God is so good!” Unfortunately we’ll have to settle for the “good” God who thinks eternal agony is a just and reasonable sentence for a human being.