Hitetlen:
Here is a purely logical analysis:
Beginning a “logical” analysis with a false premise is never a good way to start things off.
- If God is omnibenevolent, God wants to correct a possible evil.
And your “logic” comes crashing to the ground right here.
Inserting your own “wants” into the Divine plan is neither logical nor supportable.
Believers, however, do not wish to accept it, and bring up all sorts of “explanations” to refute it.
Of course. The atheist, sensing the threat to the self-worship of his intellect, immediately denounces any challenge to his non-authority and garbage argument as “irrational.” Your set of proofs above takes the cake where irrationality is concerned. One wonders where you remain incapable of seeing it.
Another one tries to prove that human free will is very important. God does not want “robots” and thus he is willing to tolerate some evil, because it is the corollary of free will. This attempt is bogus, the existence of free will does not explain the existence of evil, only the possibility of evil.
Not bogus at all.
A world full of free human beings and lacking moral evil post-Fall is an intrinsic impossibility. C.S. Lewis mentioned this long ago. You’ve tried to reinvent the wheel several times here and it still is not working. Just as God “making a rock so heavy He cannot lift it” is one of those infantile atheistic outbursts desperately searching for arguments that cannot be made, so is your “refutation” above the only thing here that can be classified as bogus.
There is the “soul-building” explanation, which I refuted just above. I doubt that it will do a whole lot of good. People simply want to believe, no matter how irrational it is.
And here we come, yet again, * ad nauseam*, to the famous Freudian psychoanalytic standby of the atheist who has exhausted his previously insufficient means to convey his irrational philosophy.
When in doubt, when your “refutations” have failed miserably that is hard to pick out where your “logic” was begun (because the whole of it was illogical), when you have nothing more of substance to say, return to that standby, which is, simply, that you must convince yourself that the Christian is an idiot, a child in an adult’s body, incapable of reason, lacking sense, a pitiable piece of emotional wreckage clinging to vestiges of fairy tales.
You might toss some references to Oedipal complexes or Kinseyan sexual deviancy into the anti-Catholic cake you’ve baked yourself, just for consistency’s sake.
But, that we might stop the bandwidth-wasting campaign you’ve waged, you should be disabused of this mistaken notion at least.
The Catholic, far from being irrational, has selected the supremely rational course, having recognized the Supreme Good, identified Him as the End towards which the short life on Earth must be directed, and having opted to pursue the path that brings him to this End.
The atheist, ignoring clear metaphysical logic and irrefutable supernatural evidence, opts for the irrational course, convinces himself of its rationality “just because,” thinks himself possessive of a bulbous, superior intellect that dwarfs those “irrational” theists, and carries on with his delusions. What a sad mode of existence. Memory failing me at the moment, whoever it was that said that the atheist’s methodology requires more blind faith than any other has spoken truly.
The only thing you have succeeded in refuting in the course of your corrosive outbursts is any charitable attempt on the part of the posters to consider you someone worthy of rational exchange, you having laid quite a convincing claim to the irrational sector by now.
