No need for that. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then the only limitations on his creative powers are the logical impossibilities. Of course there are a few RVI’s who “demand” a detailed “blueprint” to explain how to do this. They prefer to forget that God can do anything and everything EXCEPT logical contradictions. The funny thing is the usual disclaimer: “With God everything is possible”.Oh so now God has put nature against us.Every living thing in the physical world deals with that - its not God against man - it called nature. The question was how to make the world a better place not how can we can control nature so natural disasters do not happen - that would be a new thread.
That is nonsense. The existence of the fault-lines are due to God’s design. Every bit of non-perfection is the result of God’s action. Of course you would love to praise God for all the good things, and blame someone else (Satan?) for the bad stuff. But that is intellectual dishonesty.Why would you build you home on a fault line that you knew was there and then say its Gods fault. Why would you build your house on a flood plain or in know paths of deadly hurricanes and then say its God fault.
Not take our “free will” away… only limiting it to a reasonable level. If you are a parent, do you leave out poisoned candy, and command your children not to touch it?Why would you build your home at the base of a volcano and then say its Gods fault - no body wants to accept responsibility its all God fault - he should wrap us all in bubble wrap take our free will away and do all things for us - you wouldn’t be you if God did that.
You can have those “darkest moments”. I am willing to take the sunshine. I don’t need Earthquakes and terrorists to love my family and others. Love does not presuppose “hate”.We learn more in life at our darkest moments and it brings us together - sorry everything can’t be sunshine and lolly pops that’s just not reality
A promised plate of food tomorrow does not help someone to starves today.The difference being that a world with God at the very least offers ultimate fulfillment even if we don’t understand why a good God would allow natural suffering.
But we are not talking about a plate of food. We are talking about the fulfillment of ones very existence; Eternal Heaven. If there is no God it is guaranteed that we will meaninglessly suffer and cease to exist.A promised plate of food tomorrow does not help someone to starves today.
Nobody knows. Things have just naturally evolved that way. The question is why would God allow natural suffering. I don’t know, and if i didn’t have other reasons for thinking that God exists the problem of suffering would be a very perplexing issue. I sympathize with you, i just don’t think its a good enough reason to reject the only hope of existential fulfillment.As for the natural suffering, just try to rationalize the pain and suffering of the teething infants. I would like to hear some theologian or philosopher to give a rational explanation for this particular problem.
Reality does not care about our preferences.But we are not talking about a plate of food. We are talking about the fulfillment of ones very existence; Eternal Heaven. If there is no God it is guaranteed that we will meaninglessly suffer and cease to exist.
That is NOT the worst possible scenario. Eternal torture and suffering is MUCH worse. And just one un-repented mortal sin will drop you into the eternal fire.The question is why would you accept the worst possible scenario?
If there is this almighty God, then there is NO natural change. Everything is the result of God’s involvement, either direct and intended or indirect and “not” intended. The teething of the infants is really very cruel. The poor little buggers cannot understand what happens, they are unable to “offer up” their pain to Jesus. They just suffer, needlessly. And only ONE such example refutes the assertion that God is good and “loving”.Nobody knows. Things have just naturally evolved that way.
God’s existence is not the question at this moment. God’s benevolence is the problem. There are two usual approaches to the problem of evil. One is the “free will” defense, but that would only answer the question of “moral evil” - even if it were correct. (It is not.) The other is the “greater good defense”, which asserts that God will only permit pain and suffering IF that suffering is logically necessary to bring forth some “greater” good, which can only be realized by allowing this suffering. You cannot defend this problem by saying that “we have no idea why God permits this suffering, but if only we would be privy to the reason, we would accept it”. This “defense” is sheer baloney.The question is why would God allow natural suffering. I don’t know, and if i didn’t have other reasons for thinking that God exists the problem of suffering would be a very perplexing issue. I sympathize with you, i just don’t think its a good enough reason to reject the only hope of existential fulfillment.
That’s what you believe about reality.Reality does not care about our preferences…
No. The worst possible scenario is no Heaven. Neither hell or absolute nothingness is desirable.That is NOT the worst possible scenario. Eternal torture and suffering is MUCH worse. And just one un-repented mortal sin will drop you into the eternal fire…
According to what?If there is this almighty God, then there is NO natural change…
I disagree. If there other reasons to think that God exists, then one can have a reasonable faith that God is good even if we don’t understand why potential suffering exists. Why? Because despite the problem of suffering there is good in the world.God’s existence is not the question at this moment. God’s benevolence is the problem. .
By what objective standard of good do you consider the freewill defense to be wrong.There are two usual approaches to the problem of evil. One is the “free will” defense, but that would only answer the question of “moral evil” - even if it were correct. (It is not.) .
Sounds reasonable to me.The other is the “greater good defense”, which asserts that God will only permit pain and suffering IF that suffering is logically necessary to bring forth some “greater” good, which can only be realized by allowing this suffering. .
If there are other good reasons to think there is a God, it is not unreasonable to suppose that God is more rational than we are (privy to information we don’t have), and from his perspective and depending on the ultimate goal of creation he may very well see that the potential for suffering is unavoidable.You cannot defend this problem by saying that “we have no idea why God permits this suffering, but if only we would be privy to the reason, we would accept it”. This “defense” is sheer baloney…
I have no problem with nonexistence. Eternal torture is not in the same ballpark as nonexistence.No. The worst possible scenario is no Heaven. Neither hell or absolute nothingness is desirable.
This is NOT a “reasonable faith”, it is the quintessential “blind faith”. The existence of “good” in the world merely supports that God is not “totally evil”.I disagree. If there other reasons to think that God exists, then one can have a reasonable faith that God is good even if we don’t understand why potential suffering exists. Why? Because despite the problem of suffering there is good in the world.
You confuse the “potential” with the “actuality”. I will ask again: “what kind of reason can there be for the suffering of teething” - which justifies that suffering?…potential for suffering is unavoidable.