Answering Atheists

[Nimos]

Please show where in the creation account (Genesis) animals ate meat.

Why would that be relevant? It was about whether God could have made it so lifeforms didn't eat each other, and according to revelation that is possible because there will be no suffering and everyone will live happy together.

Did I mention that God allows evil. Yes. You read that, didn't you. You responded to it. Did you understand that I said allowing something is different to causing it?

Yes I fully understood that, and I completely disagree. If a child molester ask me, if its ok that he molest that child over there and if im going to interfere or try to stop him, and I answer him. "Not worries, Im going to allow you to molest the child, what do I care" then I find that to be highly immoral and evil of me.

Equally when God allows it, I think he is just as evil as I would be. The difference is that he have no excuse at all compared to a human, because of the traits people have given him.

Evil did not come from God. God is holy - pure to the superlative degree. There is no unrighteousness with him.

I don't care if it came from him or not!! Does he have the power to stop it and chooses not to? If that is the case, then he is an evil monster, its pretty much that simple

Ask global warming, and then come back and tell me the answer. We can talk then about if the world really has to be the way it is. Okay?

No this is a classic example of blaming humans for everything that is wrong. God could have created things in whatever way he wanted. He could also have made it so humans in much higher degree lived in harmony with nature, not needing to expand and subdue everything around us. Meaning he could have made human nature different than what it is.

If there is a good reason for me not to do anything, then how can I be evil?

Its just a random person that fell on the track, no need to assume that it is the next Hitler laying down. Just assume its a 5 year old kid, what good reason would you have to not help?

For example, I watched this movie where this really ruthless murderer was given a chance after begging for mercy. The hero decided, out of compassion, he would show mercy.
Do you know what that "animal" did? He took that mercy and spat on it, by trying to take the life of a child.
When an opportunity arose for the hero to save the child, he took it, and during a struggle, the killer fell, and just as you said, was about to get ran over. he begged for help.
What do you think happened?
What would you have done?

I once saw a movie, a long long time ago, where this father was a real evil person, so some people hid his children from him, so they wouldn't also turn evil. Now it turned out that this one kid of his, the boy, is very powerful with something called the force and despite his father trying to make him evil, the son keeps trying to convince his dad to return to the good side, which he eventually does and his father, turns out to actually help his son in the end killing the really evil guy. Which then isn't really dead and it all turns a bit messy after that.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Why would I care what happened in a movie?

 

[1213]

When did God eliminate evil, exactly?

Not yet, in the end.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not yet, in the end.

Ah... so you were talking about imaginary people complaining in a scenario you imagined. Gotcha.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That does not change the point of the illustration. Don't miss it.

Sounds like you're the one missing the point.

By the premises of the PoE, God is much more capable than any human father or doctor. If he were to want the benefit without the suffering, he could make it happen.

OTOH, if God insists that humans suffer to obtain punishment, he would be immoral or sadistic like the father who refuses anaesthetic for his child's surgery.

 

[nPeace]

No, I think you aren't following me. I'm talking about God's actions.

No, I am following you. You were talking about Satan's actions, being God's actions. That's Satan's actions, not God's

I think you're misunderstanding me. I think we have different ideas about what the consequences of a person's decision are. Here's my perspective:

Say that a person is confronted with a decision: they can either take a particular action or choose not to take it:

- if they take the action, the world will be a particular way. That action will have direct effects, those direct effects may cause other indirect effects, they may influence other people to take actions of their own which have their own effects, etc., off potentially to infinity.
- if they take the action, the world will be a different particular way.

- the consequences of the decision is every difference between how the world would be if they take the action and how the world would be if they didn't take it, including the consequences that involve other people/agents/deities/angels/whatever.

We are responsible for these consequences that:

- we can foresee, or ought to have foreseen, and
- would have been avoidable if we had chosen to avoid them.

Human responsibility is limited because we:

- often can't foresee the consequences of our actions very far into the future. For instance, a parent can't predict with good accuracy the sort of person their baby will grow up to be.
- often can't avoid a negative consequence without also avoiding a positive consequence. For instance, we often can't do surgery to correct a problem without running a risk of death or complications.

Neither of these limitations apply to an omnipotent, omniscient God.

All the foreseeable outcomes of a decision are the responsibility of the person making the decision, and the outcomes of a decision are everything that happens that would not have happened if the decision hadn't been made. An omniscient being can foresee every negative consequence and an omnipotent being can prevent every negative consequence.

So God is confronted with a choice:

- he can create an angel that he knows will become Satan, who will unleash all sorts of evil and suffering on humanity.
- he can not create this angel, and then none of those things happen.

All that evil and suffering is God's responsibility as well as Satan's.

Okay. Thanks very much for sharing your perspective.

This is what the Bible's says on the matter.
God did not exercise his power of foreknowledge to look into the future to see what would unfold, before he created. So God did not know what his intelligent creatures - both heavenly and earthly - woul do.

God had a purpose. God's purpose is somewhat different to a plan, in that what he intends to do, is like a "done deal". It will be done. So God did not have options, like we do.
There was only one purpose.

Jehovah is all good, so what he purposed was out of love.
His purpose involved having a united universal family - one in heaven; one on earth.
God is eternal, and he purposed that his family would be existing eternally, provided the also were like him - holy.

When the angel opposed God, and slandered him. Genesis 3:1-5, it was an attack on God's sovereignty - his right to rule, and make decisions for his creatures, as to what is right and wrong.
This angel evidently thought he should have that position.

So this challenge was made in the presence of God's entire family
Here, God had two options - shut the accuser up, by destroying him, or prove the accuser wrong, so that that issue is settled once and for all... in the mind of every family member.
God took the second option. Why? The first left the issue unsettled. It could come up again, causing God to have to repeat the action he takes.

Good choice. I hope you agree.
Curious as to what you would do though.

When Adam - God's earthly family - joined the rebel angel, in disobeying God, there was not a second option in this case, other than to let Adam fulfill his "assignment" - fill the earth and subdue it.
Why was there no second option?

God's purpose. It's a "done deal" The man and woman - our fore-parents were the means of having a family on earth.
Some people may have the thought, 'Why not destroy them, and start again?' Say what?
Some say, 'Well destroy them, and forget about earth.'

In both cases, those actions are not keeping in line with God's name. Numbers 23:19 ; Isaiah 55:10, 11 Is he not God?
So the problems begin...
Adam is sinful. He passes on his defects to all his children. They are alienated from God - not his children.
(Deuteronomy 32:5). They suffer and die.

Not because of God, but because Satan deviated from the way and Adam - the primary common ancestor of all mankind - followed.

How is God to blame for giving people an opportunity to live, even though it won't be an easy life?
How is God to blame for putting measures in place for the healing of "sick", suffering mankind.
What we see here, at least... let me not speak for you. What one can see here, is a loving father, whose earthly children have been badly hurt by the selfish actions of a rebellious son, and their fre parent, and God does what any loving father would do... bandage their wounds and make them feel better, until the wound heals completely.

God does this by all his spiritual provisions - his word; his spirit; the ransom; open communication in prayer; good news of the coming kingdom; a spiritual family; etc.
These are available to all who hunger and thirst for righteousness
(Isaiah 55:1) Come, all you thirsty ones, come to the water! You with no money, come, buy and eat! Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
(John 4:14) Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.. . .
(John 7:37, 38) 37 ...Jesus stood up and he called out: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever puts faith in me, just as the scripture has said: ‘From deep within him streams of living water will flow.’. . .
(Revelation 21:6) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free.

However, keep this in mind.
God's spirit sons rebelled. Adam rebelled. The world of mankind are full of rebels against God.
With that in mind, not everyone will want to turn to God, and receive his tender care. Not everyone will work in harmony with God's will. So they too, will add to the problem of suffering - others, as well as their own.
So why blame God for rebels against good?
They are not all innocent victims of the act of Satan and Adam.

I'll pause here, to hear your thoughts, However, we can say God has allowed suffering. He has not caused it. Your thoughts?

 

[nPeace]

Do you think that a person needs to be a robot in order not to murder anyone?

No

- Are you a robot?

No

- How many people have you murdered?

None... yet.

God's wisdom would make him more culpable for his actions. A human has the excuse that they didn't know better; this excuse is unavailable to an "all wise" god.

What actions do you have in mind?
What excuses has God made?

The quality of a creation is a reflection on the quality of the creator. Flaws in a creation indicate a lack of either skill or care on the part of the creator.

Flaws of creation? Do you have an example of one?

The creation of a perfect creator is exactly as the creator designed it.

Here is another illustration.
The manufacturing company is responsible for the driver right?
So they must manufacture both the vehicle and its driver, right?

God is responsible for both the created being, nd his choice right?
So God should think for the created being right?

After I gave you a long list of scriptures that show the thoughts and intentions are from within - the heart, I am surprised you return again with this.
What would you say, you don't understand about having the ability to make a personal choice?
Is it not only robots that are programmed to follow what its maker embedded in it's system?

Consider a human being, for a moment. Let's forget the robot.
A human being develops their own character. It can be shaped by their environment, training, education, experience, etc. Agreed?

The human being has the choice to follow, or not follow any of these. In other words, they can choose to be molded by one side or the other... or in between - good, bad, semi-bad; black, white, grey; light, darkness, etc. Agreed?

Let's transfer this information to God's design - a human being - not a robot.
God's design could - the potential was there - develop the character that would be perfect... that is, like God - the way God wants them to be.
They could also go the opposite direction.
They had that choice. god gave them that choice. God made them that way because he wanted them to have the choice to develop love, develop compassion, humility, justice, etc.

Is that a flaw? I want to hear your response to that question. So, I'll pause.

No, I'm saying that if a piece of pottery had an air bubble in it, and it blows up in the kiln destroying other pieces of pottery, the blame lies with the potter.

Yes.

The form of the pot is a reflection of the skill of the potter.

When you say form, I assume you mean - minus any bubbles. Yes.

Remember that we're operating under the assumption that God does not want evil in his creation. If evil ends up in God's creation, then this is a reflection on God's ability as a creator. A creator whose creation doesn't match his vision is a deficient creator, either in terms of skill or care.

Nice. You can shake my hand. I enjoy conversing with people who can use illustrations - my favorite 'tool'.
Since you are using a potter, and his work in progress, and not the finished product...
When the potter is working on the clay, do bubbles develop?
Is it possible to not have bubbles during the process?
Does the potter then have to use his skill - use of techniques, his knowledge - what he knows about the clay and how the bubbles will form and what he needs to do (what technique is required) to remove those bubbles; how long he may have to wait...?

God is the potter. Mankind in the clay. On the potters wheel the process of shaping the vessel is taking place - the end of day 6, into the seventh. The finished product is yet to be seen.
So while you watch the potter at work, you will see bubbles, if your eye is that keen.
Removing the bubbles is still in progress. The potter is still skillfully at work.

The question is, do you focus on the clay in the process of being shaped, or is the finished product what you are interested in.
Every potter likes to see the finish, when it leaves the oven. Yes, they are proud of their skill, but that not where the beauty lies.
When it's glazed, it's even better.

Okay - so it was a misunderstanding. No worries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. Thanks very much for sharing your perspective.

This is what the Bible's says on the matter.
God did not exercise his power of foreknowledge to look into the future to see what would unfold, before he created. So God did not know what his intelligent creatures - both heavenly and earthly - woul do.

That sounds reckless or negligent to me. Still culpable. Careless at the very least.

You seem not to have a problem with it. Why not?

 

[ecco]

Surely you meant Moses condemned both.

Surely I meant Moses condoned both.

Numbers 31. You should take the time to read it.





ETA: I just noticed the @9-10ths_Penguin already pointed you to this yesterday. So I guess by now you would agree that Moses CONDONED murder and rape.

 

[ecco]

And when God eliminates evil, many of them say, God is evil. Can’t make them happy.

When has your god ever eliminated evil? Oh, wait. I know. When he horrifically drowned all men, women, children, infants, and fetuses. Ditto for all other animals. Yeah, you're right. That method of eliminating evil doesn't make me happy. I guess that little incident of genocide makes you happy though.

 

[ecco]

If an Atheist reads something as a fairy tale, and describes the character as he sees it. That's fine.

I'm an atheist. The stories in your Bible are fairy tales. I have described Moses as condoning murder and rape (numbers 31). I have described God in the form of The Holy Ghost as the rapist of the young virgin Mary. That's fine - right?

 

[SigurdReginson]

"What creating these things would do"? That's interesting.

This reads to me like, 'A tree is bad. An angel is bad. Don't make them. You are a bad God if you do.'
Was there something wrong with the tree?
Was there something wrong with the angel?

It reminds me of the parents that say, "We are not getting children because they might turn out bad." (not that I blame them. After all, they are only human. )

Errr... But this isn't where my point was directed. You're taking this down a road I'm not addressing. I'm not saying people should never have been made, I'm saying that they shouldn't have been set up to fail unless that was the intention from the very beginning.

Third, there was nothing wrong with the tree. It was a tree... one that God put restrictions on.
All that was required, was obedience, not touching the tree.
To say that God should not put the tree there, to me, is the equivalence of saying, the father who gives his child a bike, and tells the child to ride only in the yard is bad for giving the child the bike, because he knows the child will open the gate and go ride on the road.

A child can use the bike. Adam couldn't use the tree. This is a bad analogy.

Or, the parent that lets the child run and play, is bad, because he should know the child would fall and hurt themselves
Or the parent that had a window built in their teenager's bedroom, is bad, because that parent should know, the child would want to sneak out the house, and in the proceess of climbing out the window, fall and break her arm.

I think a better analogy is a parent who leaves a loaded gun on the kitchen table, tells his children that he's going away for a while, and that they shouldn't play with the gun.

These kids don't know anything about guns, death, or anything bad that happens in association with such a deadly thing. The only reference for guns they have are toy guns (other fruit) they play with (eat), and nothing bad happens when they play with those toy guns (nothing bad happens when they eat other fruit in the garden). It's just some object that dad says not to touch. Now, kids being curious and not understanding any better will play with the gun like they do with any other toy gun they've played with. It's there. They've never experienced anything terrible resulting from their actions before, so why would this be any different? They have no real frame of reference; they don't understand what "bad" or "death" even is.

Not only that, but the father allowed a convicted criminal with a bone to pick against him into the house to watch the kids! This convict wants to hurt the father, and what better way to do it than by hurting his children? For whatever reason, this father allowed this criminal to interact with his kids, and ofcourse this convict tells them that this is just a toy gun that the kids could play with like they always have done. These kids don't know this guy isn't trustworthy, and what he says reflects the reality they know. Like I said, they have no real frame of reference to work with.

If this scenario happened in real life, there's no way the father wouldn't be arrested. Everything about this seems sinister. There's no way this scenario could unfold without someone getting hurt. Everything seems intentionally laid out this way. Like I said, the dominoes are set up.

Fourth, there was nothing wrong with the angels. They were created with free will, or choice, because it was God's will for his creatures to freely express love for him, and by extension, others.
Does a robot care about a dog? Does it care about another robot? Will they have affection, feeling?
No. They are not made in God's image, to reflect God's fine qualities. God did not want robots.

And yet, everything evil originated with one angel. Why not just remove him from the equation? Problem solved. No serpent to tempt Adam and Eve into disobeying god, which didn't even enter their mind until he gave them that thought to think about. Good and Evil started with him. He was the lynchpin that started it all: the first domino.

Hope is the basis, or foundation, on which God subjected, or allowed humanity to go through a limited time of pain and suffering.

But this seems unreasonable. What use is hope for a being who knows what will happen? Hope does nothing to change anything that someone knows will unfold. I can hope I will win the lottery when I never play, and I know I will never win, but what good will hoping that I do is there? That just seems like self delusion.

 

[ecco]

God is omniscient. Just we might have a different understanding of that.

Do you agree with the following...
God knows everything that has happened, everything that is happening, everything that will happen.
A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[SigurdReginson]

The things were not responsible for man's downfall. We are the problem. Not God. We only have to look at the world, to see that


No. Why should he? Give me your best reason.


No. That's unbelievers. God is all powerful - omnipotent. What say you?


No. Why? What's wrong with them?

I feel like you are being purposefully obtuse.

These are excellent questions. Very very thoughtful questions.
Will those who go to heaven - not we, because nowhere in the Bible does it say we - that is, all who serve God, will go to heaven... but that's a whole new topic. If you want to discuss it, let me know. - have free will?
The Bible does not suggest otherwise. There is no reason why they would not. That's God's will for all his intelligent creature - to serve him from an appropriative heart. Appreciation does not exist without free will.

(Matthew 22:37) He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.. . .
(John 4:24) God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth. . .

(Romans 12:1) Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. . .
(2 Timothy 1:7) For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but one of power and of love and of soundness of mind.

Unlike robots - without a mind, or soul - all servants of God, anointed or otherwise - must have a sound mind, and a heart of love for God.

If those who go to heaven do have free will, why wouldn't there be suffering like there is here on earth?
The reason God has allowed time before he ends this system, is to settle the issues raised by Satan?
Once the issues are settled, there would be no reason to have to resettle them. There would have been settled once, and for all. Final.

To illustrate, a case may go to court. It may be a case that is settled in a number of courts, and may reach the supreme court.
Once the case is settled, any repeat of that case will be settled base on the judgement passed down by the previous case, because it's the final "judgment" that was settled.
There is no need to drag the case on again, or repeat it.
That's the reason for God allowing the limited time of suffering - in order to have a final settling of the matter "in the highest court".

Could god have just made things that way from the start? Why didn't he just do that?
"That way" I am assuming, means all people in heaven without suffering.
Contrary to what the "Christians" tell you, according to the Bible, God never intended for people to go to heaven. God's will was and still is, to have mankind dwell on the earth, in peace, with no suffering. Isaiah 45:18 ; Psalms 37:9-11 ; Revelation 21:3, 4 etc...

The reason people go to heaven, is to be a part of the arrangement God made to bring about his original purpose for his universal family. Matthew 6:9, 10 ; Daniel 2:44, 45 ; Ephesians 1:5-10 ; etc...


You will never meet a Christian who thinks God created hell. You will meet "Christians" who tell you that.
I hope you don't mind me being direct about this, but Jesus did not water down the truth, and his followers don't.
Have you ever researched the topic "Hell". I don't mean, have you researched, by listening to different viewpoints, but have you researched the usage of the word 'Hell" - its origin; Its meaning; etc.?

It would be worth while researching it.
Here are at least two encyclopedias that can get you started...
The Christian doctrine of hell derives from passages in the New Testament. The word hell does not appear in the Greek New Testament; instead one of three words is used: the Greek words Tartarus or Hades, or the Hebrew word Gehinnom.

In the Septuagint and New Testament, the authors used the Greek term Hades for the Hebrew Sheol, but often with Jewish rather than Greek concepts in mind. In the Jewish concept of Sheol, such as expressed in Ecclesiastes,[53] Sheol or Hades is a place where there is no activity. However, since Augustine, some[which?] Christians have believed that the souls of those who die either rest peacefully, in the case of Christians, or are afflicted, in the case of the damned, after death until the resurrection.

Hell
A word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew sheʼohlʹ and the Greek haiʹdes. In the King James Version the word “hell” is rendered from sheʼohlʹ 31 times and from haiʹdes 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since sheʼohlʹ is also translated 31 times “grave” and 3 times “pit.” In the Douay Version sheʼohlʹ is rendered “hell” 64 times, “pit” once, and “death” once.

In 1885, with the publication of the complete English Revised Version, the original word sheʼohlʹ was in many places transliterated into the English text of the Hebrew Scriptures, though, in most occurrences, “grave” and “pit” were used, and “hell” is found some 14 times. This was a point on which the American committee disagreed with the British revisers, and so, when producing the American Standard Version (1901) they transliterated sheʼohlʹ in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated haiʹdes in the Christian Greek Scriptures in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geʹen·na (English, “Gehenna”) is rendered “hell” throughout, as is true of many other modern translations.


The belief that there are "plains of existence" other than heaven and earth, is based on what one believes about the dead. So one would first have to determine if what they believe about the dead, is actually supported by scripture.
I'd be happy to discuss that with you on another thread. If you like, create a thread, and mention me, so that i know.


Are you sure? Why not do your research on those Greek words, including the one used in that verse, and perhaps come back and let me know if you see hell there.
Then I'll like to hear your explaination of Revelation 20:13-15 using those same words.
Is it not interesting that God gets rid of this so called hell.


Do you want me to create the thread to answer this question, or will you create it?
If you want me to create it, you will have to give me permission to quote your words here, in that thread, in keeping with RF's rules. Let me know.

If you wish to create the thread using my quotes, go for it! I do think your view of hell is definitely in the minority, though, and everyone will have different ideas.

 

[ecco]

Third, there was nothing wrong with the tree. It was a tree... one that God put restrictions on.
All that was required, was obedience, not touching the tree.

I'm giving you free will but I insist on utter obedience.

That's your belief about your God? Hmm.

Third, there was nothing wrong with the tree. It was a tree... one that God put restrictions on.
All that was required, was obedience, not touching the tree.

Most parents try to instill a sense of morals into their children. That is what leads to them being good humans. Parents insisting their children be obedient are not good parents.

Third, there was nothing wrong with the tree. It was a tree... one that God put restrictions on.
All that was required, was obedience, not touching the tree.

God created A&E to His exacting specifications.
If He did not instill a sense of morals into them, and then they disobeyed Him, whose fault is that?
When they disobeyed Him because He instilled no morals into them, He blamed them.

 

[SigurdReginson]

You know, I forgot to mention the mentally ill.
If someone does something while out of their right mind, we say they commited an evil act, not that they are necessarily evil.

Which still relies on the extra baggage of what exactly constitutes what qualifies as "evil."

However, we see things differently. I think people have gone away from the true God, to their own gods, and that may include themselves being their own god, so they get to decide their standards, while ignoring God's.

Hmmm... Do you recognize how many assumptions are going on in this second sentence? Does adding more assumptions on top of other assumptions get us closer to the truth?

Genesis 3:5
Whereas, God is the one who decides there is evil, and what constitute an evil act, or person.
That's what the Bible says. It's what I go by as the truth.

Well, that's all well and good. Like you say, we see things differently.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Surely I meant Moses condoned both.

Numbers 31. You should take the time to read it.





ETA: I just noticed the @9-10ths_Penguin already pointed you to this yesterday. So I guess by now you would agree that Moses CONDONED murder and rape.

I have read it. I totally disagree with your summary of what it means. When God returns maybe you will have a chance to argue with him about it.

 

[HonestJoe]

The illustration refutes the argument, because it is a fitting demonstration of a logical counterargument.

I thought you said we can't apply logic to God?

God is the artist... Figure out what the art work in it's initial stage is.

The problem with your illustration is that an omnipotent, omniscient God would be literally nothing like the metaphorical human artist. Such a God wouldn't be creating anything over time, there wouldn't be any kind of incomplete sketch or work in progress. The entirety of creation, everything in time and space, would just exist as it does and always has done. There is no way for us to observe the incomplete product, not least because there would never have been an incomplete product.

 

[nPeace]

It is clear to me that when an atheist -- who does not believe in God by definition -- uses the word God in a sentence it must always refer to "the God that has been described to me." But because that is very long, to use it over and over again would be tedious.

I am not in need of a treatise on the syllogism.

I did not intend a syllogism, which is obvious from the construction. It does not begin with a statement like "all...are..." Rather each is a self-contained argument. By describing the deity as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I argued that would prevent the existence of evil. If evil is not a good thing, then any being that desires all good and knows that evil exists (because it knows everything), and has the power to do anything, that deity would arrange for evil not to exist.

What you are arguing then is simply this... Everything must be white, and no black or grey should exist.
I'll explain that.

Darkness exists. Light can fill it. Before light fills it. Darkness existed. After light fills it, the darkness does not exist.
Do you disagree with that?

God is not obligated to light everything instantly.
God has chosen to gradually fill in the darkness.
In other words, the perfect world is a work in progress. God did not expect the perfect world when he created. That's the reason there was a test - the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.
God knows what he is doing. He is not a two year old who need a two footed "grasshopper" who barely understands the object he thinks with, to tell him what to do. A created being at that, who came from somewhere. Worst yet, he even imagines he came from stardust, out of some warm pool, as some microscopic "worm". ...and he is so knowledgeable.... so wise. Eh?

If one has a problem with God's work in progress, then that one can demonstrate that they have the ability to even create light.
Seems to me, the best they can do is draw a match, to light a dark room... Oh, this is the 21st century. They have flashlight, etc.

A process of gold refinery to remove impurities does not mean the impurities don't serve a useful purpose. However, they are unfit for pure gold.
Allowing evil for a time, serves a useful purpose. It will be remove by the process of refinery, to accomplish God's will / purpose / goal / gold.

As it stands, there is no validity to your argument.
Allowing evil for a limited time with a view to permanently removing it, is not a valid agreement against omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry - skipped over this:


Here you go:

Answering Atheists

Edit: and the reply you gave:

Answering Atheists

Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?

Your response

Can God create this "permanently lasting freedom from corruption" without allowing suffering?

- if yes, then the "freedom from corruption" doesn't excuse the suffering. God is not perfectly moral.

- if no, then there is at least one thing that's beyond God's power. God is not omnipotent.​

My response

Can God create this "permanently lasting freedom from corruption" without allowing suffering?
Yes, but that would mean that he is unwise.
In other words, it's like a man with great strength, who does not have much understanding.
He can lift a car off a woman, but he batters the same woman. Why? He does not have a "perfect" balance.
God has many qualities, all perfectly balanced. So because he is all powerful, he does not only use his power, and forget about wisdom.
One who is wise, knows how to act.
We humans on the other hand, we act, and then say, "Oh dear. What have I done. What can I do to correct this now?"
Climate chance is just one of those, on the board.

- if yes, then the "freedom from corruption" doesn't excuse the suffering. God is not perfectly moral.
Why not?

- if no, then there is at least one thing that's beyond God's power. God is not omnipotent.
God can do anything he wants. He just does not act like we do. Act and then panic.
God's creation testifies to his wisdom and love. He took care, and what he did, and how he did it. Do we?​

My response was... Could it also be resolved by my last two paragraphs in the OP?

Your response was ... No, I don't think so.
My response ... Why not?

So we basically went in a big circle for you to say, God is not perfectly moral because I say so?
That doesn't help, does it?
I'm asking you to explain why God is not perfectly moral. Your disagreeing with how God chose to do things, is not showing why you think he is immoral. Nor are you showing why the path he took is an immoral one.

 

[nPeace]

And when God eliminates evil, many of them say, God is evil. Can’t make them happy.

Good point.
Actually God couldn't make that rebellious angel, nor the others who followed, by anything he did, or did not do.
The reason some rebel and complain is because they simply want things their way.
That was the case with Satan, Adam, and all who follow the same rebellious course today... Of course, hat's many.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with your analogy.

You don't?

You said...
That's the whole point: if God can accomplish everything that he wills, then we can infer that everything we see - including all the evil and suffering in the world - is a reflection of God's will.


That's like me saying during an eating competition, the man can't finish his meal... because he hasn't finished... and he still has time to do so.
My inference is based on a bias... perhaps. Or, I just think I know what I don't know.

The big fat man sitting at the table, can eat the 200 burgers along the stretch of tables in front of him.
One of the onlookers 9-10ths_Penguin, makes an inference from all that he sees - the stretch of tables in front of the big fat man... perhaps the man "looks" a bit sluggish as he finishes 50... whatever the case... 9-10ths_Penguin says that this is a reflection that the big fat man has failed.

Got it?

Magic, as in "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

Okay thanks.
Does that fit God, or Christ, and his followers? No.
While some may think that these individuals "apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces", these individual were simply doing what they were / are capable of doing.

Think of it this way... a laser is used during an operation to cut cataracts.
One who does not know about lasers may think that some mysterious force is at work.
That's what they think.
The truth is, the surgeon is simply using a tool, some sort of technology, to do what might seem "impossible".

Likewise, when God, Jesus and he apostles perform powerful works, they were simply using the power of God (the tool) to accomplish "impossible" tasks.
Many called it magic, but that's not magic.

Magic is what the practicers of magic did.
(Exodus 7:11) Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and the magic-practicing priests of Egypt also did the same thing with their magic.
(Exodus 7:22) . . .the magic-practicing priests of Egypt did the same thing with their secret arts. . .


To Jehovah God the practice of magic is “detestable.” - Deuteronomy 18:10-12 He does not do magic.
He does not do "Abrakadabra".