The issues you are raising are both philosophical and theological. It would be unfair to say that traditional theodiices failed to answer your querries, because you are including questions which builds upon theoligical principles or data.
it is necessary to see the dichotomy betwen theology and philosophy. I think all posts here are theological, so you need to read theolgical treatises for this question and to always keep in mind while arguing and reading that there are theological assumptions and given. for me the question of God’s responsibility cannot really be sufficiently answered by mere philosophical speculation, hence if your disposition is not from the theoligical point of view, you can never be satisfied.
Look, the question “Is God responsible for evil?” is primarily a philosophical question. This is why this thread is in the “Philosophy” sub-section. I don’t object to theological principles and data being brought to the discussion, but the question still is primarily a philosophical one. I’m sure that theology would like to simply push all the difficult philosophical questions under the rug, but that’s just too bad. The questions I raised are, in fact, unanswered by traditional theological theodicies.
OK, your own arguments are mere arguments by assertion. You provide no rational argumentation at all.
yes people are alwys responsible for what they could have prevented, but this responsibility is true only in as much as people have the obligation to prevent them. But it is different for God.
Why is it different for God? The premise is denied. It is not different for God. If God is a being beyond which no greater can be thought He ought to least behave decently according to mere human standards.
He had no obligation whatsoever to prevent us from sinning.
Denied. Any good parent has an obligation to prevent his children from moral evil insofar as he is able to do so; calling God “Our Father” while denying that He, therefore, has at least the obligations of a human father is making the prayer a mockery.
We are given freedom as gift and it is a very good thing, if we sin it is entirely our responsibility. To prevent us from sinning is entirely a matter of God’s mercy or generousity and not responsibility.
Denied. See above. The fact that we are responsible for our actions does not absolve God of His own responsibility, anymore than the fact that children are responsible for their actions absolves their parents of theirs.
true, it is not necessary that God allows sin if he is to allow freewill. God could have the angels and human with the beatific vision of Him already at creation but that was not his plan. He created both angels and men in statu viae which menas that they have to win beatific vision as a reward.
Exactly why did He do this? What is the greater good involved?
Everyone would condemn a father who allowed his son to commit suicide in front of his eyes; yet God is to be exempted from all responsibility if He allows His own children to commit spiritual suicide in front of His.
Now can we say then that he is responsible beacuse he chooses this kind of plan and not the other? of course not.
Guess what, I just said it and say it. People are held responsible for the kind of plan they choose in order to reach a goal. According to the Catechism His purpose in creating man is for man to be happy with Him in heaven. Now He has choice of Plan A, with guaranteed success, and Plan B, where many will fail. He chooses Plan B, even though He could have chosen Plan A. Everyone would criticize a bridge designer who chose to use a blueprint with a 90% chance of failure within 5 years, versus one which has a 0% chance of failure.
He is never obliged to create us with the grace of beatific vision. he is not even obliged to reward us with this grace and to help us in attining this.
He is not, intrinsically, but this is off-topic. He is so obligated, however, if His purpose in creating man is to grant him the beatific ision.
Even if God allowed sin and consequently to happen without drawing a greater good from them still he has no responsibility over them.
Yes, He does. Allowing evil gratuitously to exist is an evil act. A God who could do such a thing is not the Judeo-Christian God but an evil entity.
It is entirely ours. So the fact that he alwys darw a greater good out of evil is not beacause he is obligated but becuase of his mercy.
Denied. See above.
For God everything is a gift, a mercy. But for us everything is an obligation and responsibility.
Denied. Nothing could be more absurd than to say a Creator has no obligation towards His creatures, that He could be totally unconcerned about their happiness and welfare, and yet expect to be worshipped as a good God. Again, this demotes God to an evil scientific experimenter.
Moreover everyone is given sufficient grace to overcome sin, which grace is also entirely a gift and never an obligation.
Denied (the second part). See above. If God wished to oblige His creatures to do something then He obliges Himself to give them the means to do it.
of course the greater good could have and have existed without the evil. if the fall didnt happen, it would have been all good.
Then the evil was superfluous and gratuitous, and God is an evil entity for allowing evil He could have prevented.
The above line of reasoning is not a law but God’s free resolve of will that in spite of evil he will always draw a greater good out of it.
A “greater good” here means a good that could not have existed but for the evil, and one which is proportionately greater than the evil. What is the “greater good” that came out of the fall? If there is none, then the philosophical objection stands.
remember the above reasonigs are not merely philosophical but theological
Which is a polite way of saying you can’t answer the philosophical objections so you will attempt to brush them under the rug. Theology can’t contradict philosophy; they both deal with truth in their own ways.
