Why did G-d make other creatures that appear to be so cruel, for example?I suppose it is something to do with ecology and balance of populations.
..and G-d knows best.
However, the evil of mankind is far greater. Ask David Attenborough.
That doesn't make sense if a deity is omnipotent and omniscient, since it need not be limited in any way as to what it creates.
Evil is a subjective perception, but since humans are evolved apes, and would have very limited choices in comparison to the concept of a deity with limitless intelligence and power, then it makes no rational sense to suggest humans are more culpable for their actions than that deity.
Any suggestions? Perhaps you think that creatures shouldn't die? Would that work?
Perhaps for once you could address what was actually said, in the context of your claim it was responding to, and leave the irrelevant straw men fallacies alone? It's simple enough, you tried to excuse suffering, or what you called the "creation of evil creatures", by claiming it must be to do with ecology and balance of populations. Firstly predatory species are not evil, that is a very stupidly facile idea on it's own. Secondly if a deity had limitless power and knowledge, then it need not be bound by any ecological or biological concerns. We needn't trouble ourselves about alternatives, as that has no relevance to the point. A point you clearly failed to understand, though it was hardly a very complex idea, and so ignored it and offered an irrelevant straw man. Suffering is ubiquitous in the world, it predates human evolution by hundreds of millions of years, thus if a deity with literally limitless choice created that world, ipso facto that deity would be culpable for that suffering.
Ah yes .. it must be G-d's fault if we sin, because He created us.
..how childish
Oh dear, the sheer boundless irony of your churlish response, while calling me childish, at least raised a wry smile. Since again a very simple point has escaped you, I will try an analogy.
If you took the time to selectively breed dogs, looking to breed the largest strongest and most aggressive dogs, the end result would be pretty predictable, now you let that dog loose, in a children's playground, and again the results are pretty predictable. Now it would be asinine to assert that the
dog would be more culpable for the result, than the person who bred it and let it loose, wouldn't you agree? As the dog has considerably less choice in the outcome than the dog breeder.
So how much more absurd it is to claim, that a deity with literally limitless power and knowledge is not at all culpable for any of the results of what it created?
Now see if you can muster something approaching a critical examination of that idea, and form a cogent and mature response.
No, it doesn't. In what way do you think a falsifiable scientific theory, based on copious amounts of evidence can be an affirming the consequent fallacy?
