Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[CG Didymus]

This thread can't be done with yet,can it? Because I need an answer. If God is 100% good, and he created everything that exists, where did evil come from? Did we create it? Did the devil? Did he create us with the capacity to do evil? All the time knowing we would choose to do evil?

 

[Meow Mix]

This thread can't be done with yet,can it? Because I need an answer. If God is 100% good, and he created everything that exists, where did evil come from? Did we create it? Did the devil? Did he create us with the capacity to do evil? All the time knowing we would choose to do evil?

"Good" can be a difficult term to nail down exhaustively. A better way to look at it would be to put it in terms of suffering: rather than asking if God is "good," we could instead simply ask if God is malevolent -- that is, does God ever knowingly and intentionally share culpability for gratuitous suffering by a) potentiating it, b) causing it through action, or c) allowing it through negligence?

Many monotheists have the intution (or some say support from holy texts, or whatever) that the deity is at least not malevolent -- this is usually entailed by being "perfectly good," but we can avoid hairy definitions by just focusing on God being "never-malevolent."

Given the deity is omnipotent (has the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs by fiat), omniscient (at least knows all possible truths and believes no falsities), created the cosmos and all of its apparent contingencies, and that the deity is never malevolent; then there is a contradiction with the existence of suffering in the actual world due to God being culpable for it in terms of (a), (b), or (c) listed above.

Here's why, if we assume the deity has the properties listed above:

--------------------
a) Culpability through potentiating

What I mean by "potentiating" is this: the actual, existing world -- this one, according to the premises the one that God deliberately created -- has what appear to be contingencies that could have been otherwise. For instance, while there could never logically be a Euclidean square-circle, there is no apparent contradiction with a possible world where gravity repels instead of attracts: God could have made such an anti-gravity cosmos, but instead ostensibly to create a universe where gravity attracts. Just as a silly example.

The way this relates to culpability for suffering is because if God is omniscient, then God knows all different iterations of all possible worlds (all different arrangements of logically possible contingencies), and in order to actually create one of them (as, according to the premises, God did -- this one), it must be the case that God is culpable for the ramifications of its choice of contingencies since, being omniscient, God knowingly chose that specific set to make real rather than any of the other possible ones.

A simple analogy is a carpenter who could build a house for someone who depends on him -- he has a choice among an infinite number of possible blueprints. Some are mansions, some are shacks, some don't have doors or windows, others are weirder still. Now let's say the family is totally dependent on the carpenter for their living space for some reason -- they have no other choice other than to live in whatever the carpenter builds, and the carpenter up and decides to build a house without a roof.

Is the carpenter culpable for the family getting sick or wet and miserable when it rains, given that the carpenter knows they have no other option than to live in the home he builds, and given that the carpenter knows that by leaving out a roof he has condemned them to unnecessary pain? Yes. The carpenter has potentiated their suffering by causing to exist a capacity for it in the very nature of their surroundings as a creative being, where there are otherwise other options which avoid said suffering (such as choosing blueprints with a roof).

So, back to God being the omnipotent, omniscient, never-malevolent creator of the cosmos. Consider something like... oh I don't know, hurricanes, or tornados, or simple discomfort from the cold, or leukemia. It's logically possible for there to be a world where these things don't happen, yet in which people could otherwise live out their lives just fine. This is essentially God neglecting to build a roof over the house it built for us, and so God is culpable for potentiating suffering.

(This is also the case for violence and most other "free will" attributable sources of suffering -- God still shares some culpability in that. However, that's a more convoluted argument, and for now it's sufficient to just understand what it means for God to be culpable through potentiating.)

--------------------
b) Culpability through action

Obviously a being is at least sometimes malevolent (and thus not "never-malevolent") if said being directly causes or sets in motion sources of suffering knowing full well that they would entail such. I don't see (b) being very controversial for that reason: if the theist simply shrugs and says "yeah, God is vengeful and wrathful etc." then they're simply implicitly dropping the original presupposition that God isn't malevolent.

--------------------
c) Culpability through negligence

This is tied pretty closely to (a), since in order for God to negligently allow suffering, it must first be potentiated in the first place. Thus any negligence attributable to the deity is something of a "double whammy" of culpability for the suffering in question.

Another silly analogy time: consider that the universe hypothetically consists of two rooms filled with people going about their business. Assume these two rooms are paradises such that there are no sources of suffering created in either of them. Now let's say I drop by one of them and place a loaded pistol in the middle of the room somehow, safety off.

First, note that I have just potentiated suffering already where previously there was none, and where otherwise none needed to exist. In one sense, I'm already guilty -- already culpable at least in part for anything that happens.

Secondly, since I know full well what could happen if someone were to pick it up and have an accident or get angry in an argument or something -- yet I left it there anyway -- I'm culpable in part for the suffering again through my negligence.

Now consider the contrast between the two rooms: one has a loaded pistol, the other does not. One has potentiated suffering (even if no one has picked up the gun yet, now there is the potential for it due to my actions) whereas the other does not.

Why on earth would any sane, rational, non-malevolent being up and decide to potentiate suffering when it otherwise doesn't have to be potentiated?

--------------------

Thus, given the premises, it's inescapable without engaging in fallacy that there is a contradiction with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the cosmos, never-malevolent, AND that suffering of various types are for some reason potentiated in the actual world by a being which ostensibly otherwise could have chosen not to potentiate them.

 

[adi2d]

Great post kitty.

 

[CG Didymus]

"Good" can be a difficult term to nail down exhaustively. A better way to look at it would be to put it in terms of suffering: rather than asking if God is "good," we could instead simply ask if God is malevolent -- that is, does God ever knowingly and intentionally share culpability for gratuitous suffering by a) potentiating it, b) causing it through action, or c) allowing it through negligence?

Many monotheists have the intution (or some say support from holy texts, or whatever) that the deity is at least not malevolent -- this is usually entailed by being "perfectly good," but we can avoid hairy definitions by just focusing on God being "never-malevolent."

Given the deity is omnipotent (has the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs by fiat), omniscient (at least knows all possible truths and believes no falsities), created the cosmos and all of its apparent contingencies, and that the deity is never malevolent; then there is a contradiction with the existence of suffering in the actual world due to God being culpable for it in terms of (a), (b), or (c) listed above.

It's heading toward 11pm. That's as far as I've read so far, and I agree, great post your Royal Kittyness.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"Good" can be a difficult term to nail down exhaustively. A better way to look at it would be to put it in terms of suffering: rather than asking if God is "good," we could instead simply ask if God is malevolent -- that is, does God ever knowingly and intentionally share culpability for gratuitous suffering by a) potentiating it, b) causing it through action, or c) allowing it through negligence?

Many monotheists have the intution (or some say support from holy texts, or whatever) that the deity is at least not malevolent -- this is usually entailed by being "perfectly good," but we can avoid hairy definitions by just focusing on God being "never-malevolent."

Given the deity is omnipotent (has the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs by fiat), omniscient (at least knows all possible truths and believes no falsities), created the cosmos and all of its apparent contingencies, and that the deity is never malevolent; then there is a contradiction with the existence of suffering in the actual world due to God being culpable for it in terms of (a), (b), or (c) listed above.

Here's why, if we assume the deity has the properties listed above:

--------------------
a) Culpability through potentiating

What I mean by "potentiating" is this: the actual, existing world -- this one, according to the premises the one that God deliberately created -- has what appear to be contingencies that could have been otherwise. For instance, while there could never logically be a Euclidean square-circle, there is no apparent contradiction with a possible world where gravity repels instead of attracts: God could have made such an anti-gravity cosmos, but instead ostensibly to create a universe where gravity attracts. Just as a silly example.

The way this relates to culpability for suffering is because if God is omniscient, then God knows all different iterations of all possible worlds (all different arrangements of logically possible contingencies), and in order to actually create one of them (as, according to the premises, God did -- this one), it must be the case that God is culpable for the ramifications of its choice of contingencies since, being omniscient, God knowingly chose that specific set to make real rather than any of the other possible ones.

A simple analogy is a carpenter who could build a house for someone who depends on him -- he has a choice among an infinite number of possible blueprints. Some are mansions, some are shacks, some don't have doors or windows, others are weirder still. Now let's say the family is totally dependent on the carpenter for their living space for some reason -- they have no other choice other than to live in whatever the carpenter builds, and the carpenter up and decides to build a house without a roof.

Is the carpenter culpable for the family getting sick or wet and miserable when it rains, given that the carpenter knows they have no other option than to live in the home he builds, and given that the carpenter knows that by leaving out a roof he has condemned them to unnecessary pain? Yes. The carpenter has potentiated their suffering by causing to exist a capacity for it in the very nature of their surroundings as a creative being, where there are otherwise other options which avoid said suffering (such as choosing blueprints with a roof).

So, back to God being the omnipotent, omniscient, never-malevolent creator of the cosmos. Consider something like... oh I don't know, hurricanes, or tornados, or simple discomfort from the cold, or leukemia. It's logically possible for there to be a world where these things don't happen, yet in which people could otherwise live out their lives just fine. This is essentially God neglecting to build a roof over the house it built for us, and so God is culpable for potentiating suffering.

(This is also the case for violence and most other "free will" attributable sources of suffering -- God still shares some culpability in that. However, that's a more convoluted argument, and for now it's sufficient to just understand what it means for God to be culpable through potentiating.)

--------------------
b) Culpability through action

Obviously a being is at least sometimes malevolent (and thus not "never-malevolent") if said being directly causes or sets in motion sources of suffering knowing full well that they would entail such. I don't see (b) being very controversial for that reason: if the theist simply shrugs and says "yeah, God is vengeful and wrathful etc." then they're simply implicitly dropping the original presupposition that God isn't malevolent.

--------------------
c) Culpability through negligence

This is tied pretty closely to (a), since in order for God to negligently allow suffering, it must first be potentiated in the first place. Thus any negligence attributable to the deity is something of a "double whammy" of culpability for the suffering in question.

Another silly analogy time: consider that the universe hypothetically consists of two rooms filled with people going about their business. Assume these two rooms are paradises such that there are no sources of suffering created in either of them. Now let's say I drop by one of them and place a loaded pistol in the middle of the room somehow, safety off.

First, note that I have just potentiated suffering already where previously there was none, and where otherwise none needed to exist. In one sense, I'm already guilty -- already culpable at least in part for anything that happens.

Secondly, since I know full well what could happen if someone were to pick it up and have an accident or get angry in an argument or something -- yet I left it there anyway -- I'm culpable in part for the suffering again through my negligence.

Now consider the contrast between the two rooms: one has a loaded pistol, the other does not. One has potentiated suffering (even if no one has picked up the gun yet, now there is the potential for it due to my actions) whereas the other does not.

Why on earth would any sane, rational, non-malevolent being up and decide to potentiate suffering when it otherwise doesn't have to be potentiated?

--------------------

Thus, given the premises, it's inescapable without engaging in fallacy that there is a contradiction with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the cosmos, never-malevolent, AND that suffering of various types are for some reason potentiated in the actual world by a being which ostensibly otherwise could have chosen not to potentiate them.

I assume that you're talking about the Christian God? In which case is (if you take it to be the same as the Jewish God) quite prone to malevolent acts, jealousy, wrath, anger, and all other goodies that would be considered malevolent...at least throughout the Hebrew Bible (though in that case the law was for the Jews to live by, the rest of the world was allowed to do its own thing).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours?

Such beliefs can be very comforting to people.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I'm going to try to tackle this argument in my usual neutral way (this assumes of course the existence of God to work).

First we need to consider by what standard are we calling God Evil?

It would not necessarily be our own, but rather Gods. For instance we say Murder is wrong...why? Obviously we have some standard accepted by Society that we agree on for what constitutes a murder and what does not, but there is something internally in us even as babies that deems murder as in some way shape or form "unfair" by unfair I mean that murder is systematically runs contrary to a persons autonomy. Meaning that we sense that there is no right for another person to take away the life of another without undue cause. Hence you'll hear people say "By what write do you have to take a persons life" and even in the case of suicide "what right do you have to take your life?'

The idea being that we did not create ourselves or others and hence have no standing to deprive them of life. However God is taking as an Omnipotent, Omniscience, Omnipresent creator. Meaning that by virtue of God being the one to create, God can also destroy.

However this leads to a problem, destruction is not mutually exclusive to suffering. Meaning that while God has the right to destroy, does God have the right to make people suffer? If we posit the Omni-Max deity, than yes God can do whatever God chooses.

This seems strange to us, because we come from a culture and society that advocates "democracy" to a point that the people have a voice, and the creed "no one is above the law" even those who make it. However ancient cultures did not necessarily have such a creed, though it was internalized to some degree. We see the idea of a ruling figure who determines life and death by virtue of their own standards to be unfair.

Why? Because by nature we seek what maximizes not only our own individual well being but societies as well (one of the reasons why we rage against cigarette companies, yet still feel people should have the right to smoke).

So God can be evil or malevolent at least, not because God can destroy or create, but because God allows suffering when it is not a necessity. Meaning that if one displeases God, God can destroy the individual without needing to add suffering to it. It goes even further when the suffering induced involves the destruction of "innocent" bystanders. Take for example the story of David and Bethsheba. While David had sinned it is not he who dies or grows ill and sick, but it is the child who he had who pays the price. Interestingly enough, while the Child is sick, we see that David is also suffering a great internal mental anguish, it is when the Child dies does David stop mourning.

But this only works when looking at the Omni-Max God.

God is also given other qualities, qualities such as Benevolence, Mercy, Justice, and Fairness. God is even posited as the best thing possible. Given the prior criteria we can certainly imagine something better than the situation than under criteria God cannot be malevolent...TBC

 

[1robin]

I assume that you're talking about the Christian God? In which case is (if you take it to be the same as the Jewish God) quite prone to malevolent acts, jealousy, wrath, anger, and all other goodies that would be considered malevolent...at least throughout the Hebrew Bible (though in that case the law was for the Jews to live by, the rest of the world was allowed to do its own thing).

Is wrath malevolent when aimed at those that deserve it? Is anger? If someone harms your family and no one is wrathful or angry towards them for doing so I would imagine you would not like it. Sin usually is determined by circumstances. Killing to protect and defend is ok. Killing to steal their food is murder. Cutting an arm of in an alley is immoral, cutting an arm off in a hospital is ok.

You must show that God did not have morally justified reasons for his wrath and anger before you can use the "malevolent" term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't tell: are you arguing that might makes right, or that morality is a human invention, so God doesn't need to care?

- if the former, please justify your position.
- if the latter, then as I pointed out in the thread earlier, minimizing the importance of morality does not somehow make God moral. "God doesn't need to care that he's immoral" does not equal "God is moral".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is wrath malevolent when aimed at those that deserve it? Is anger? If someone harms your family and no one is wrathful or angry towards them for doing so I would imagine you would not like it. Sin usual is determined by circumstances. Killing to protect and defend is ok. Killing to steal their food is murder. Cutting an arm of in an alley is immoral, cutting an arm off in a hospital is ok.

You must show that God did not have morally justified reasons for his wrath and anger before you can use the "malevolent" term.

If a being with perfect foresight didn't care enough to prevent some offensive act in the first place, why would he get all angry and wrathful after the fact?

And if I found out that someone knew ahead of time that a murderer was coming to kill my family and could have warned them but didn't, I'd be much madder about that than their lack of anger at the killing.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I can't tell: are you arguing that might makes right, or that morality is a human invention, so God doesn't need to care?

- if the former, please justify your position.
- if the latter, then as I pointed out in the thread earlier, minimizing the importance of morality does not somehow make God moral. "God doesn't need to care that he's immoral" does not equal "God is moral".

Well I'm first examining God on the basic level Just the classic 3 Omni Max traits. Next I'm going to examine God with the traits that are usually attributed to God.

Then I'll state what I think. Essentially I'm looking at the different perceptions people have of God and how they rationalize Gods actions.

 

[1robin]

I can't tell: are you arguing that might makes right, or that morality is a human invention, so God doesn't need to care?

- if the former, please justify your position.
- if the latter, then as I pointed out in the thread earlier, minimizing the importance of morality does not somehow make God moral. "God doesn't need to care that he's immoral" does not equal "God is moral".

Was this aimed at me or someone else?

 

[1robin]

If a being with perfect foresight didn't care enough to prevent some offensive act in the first place, why would he get all angry and wrathful after the fact?

By this logic God is not allowed (by a faulty and finite human being of all things) to make any non-optimal beings. That would mean he must only make exact copies of himself. Now that is logic for you. You nor I either one can determine if God should have been angry or not. How would you even go about that? I can easily accept anger against actions that harm others or his creation. When freewill is involved it will be used to harm others and defy God. If anything is more deserving of wrath I do not know what is.

Why do I only find you in God sucks threads?

And if I found out that someone knew ahead of time that a murderer was coming to kill my family and could have warned them but didn't, I'd be much madder about that than their lack of anger at the killing.

We are not talking about your neighbor. Why are you drawing comparisons between two infinitely un-equal things. Your fellow human is not the creator who was betrayed and told to get lost. He could have killed us all at anytime and not compromised his goodness not justness. He didn't, he gave us exactly what we asked for. He took his hand of creation and let it operate by blind law and human choice. He had to step in every once in a while to keep us from destroying the whole thing but by and large we don't want him and so we do not have him. I can keep drawing out this doctrinal stuff but it will not help. You can't draw comparisons between your fellow man and the omnipotent, omniscient, and creator of the universe. God does what God does. He is not bound by any standard you possess. He is not accountable to you, a finite cannot judge an infinite objectively, your attempts at morality do not have the capacity to determine his character objectively. We can't run our own lives morally, yet think we can judge God. It did not work out well for Job, and it never will. The only capacity you have is to personally reject God (which is what the problem was to begin with), judging him objectively is just not within our power. Creation is not here for your happiness, approval, or amusement, this is serious business, sin brings wrath as it should and whether you like that or not is not really a meaningful criteria.

 

[Magic Man]

You nor I either one can determine if God should have been angry or not. How would you even go about that?

By figuring out what we'd expect from a human being. Your god is an anthropomorphic being, so we'd expect that when we assign human emotions or ideas to him, they'd follow the same rules as they do for regular humans. If you want to call God benevolent or loving, or even angry are wrathful, then you have to accept that he can be held to the same standard as humans.

 

[1robin]

By figuring out what we'd expect from a human being. Your god is an anthropomorphic being, so we'd expect that when we assign human emotions or ideas to him, they'd follow the same rules as they do for regular humans. If you want to call God benevolent or loving, or even angry are wrathful, then you have to accept that he can be held to the same standard as humans.

That is a reasonable point but is not actually accurate. When God man in his image it means we are intentional, personal, free moral agents. It does not mean God gets angry when he should not be as we do, nor that God is proud as we can be, or that his emotions rule him at times in exclusion to cold rationality as happens so often to us. Yes there is a similarity but also an infinite gulf. Assigning God our faults and uncertainty will never produce a meaningful result.

The things I find in all these atheistic God is evil arguments that make no sense are: This is a general claim and not directed at you or anyone in particular.

1. You must first have a God before you can call him evil.
2. You must have a standard beyond God which to determine this. One does not exist.
3. You must show that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to do X.
4. You must your self be capable of judging rightly once 1 - 3 have been accomplished. If history shows nothing else, it shows our lack of moral capacity to even judge ourselves correctly.
5. However the biggest irony of them all is this. I will use an example to illustrate the point. I have had women claim they can kill another human life that is innocent for their actions because they have rights to their bodies. Forget that their is no basis for that right without God. Forget that they are demanding the exact same rights for their body they are denying to the fetus' body. The real problem is they grant the right to kill the innocent to a fallible creature who actions caused the problem to begin with and have only a fraction of the knowledge to make the decision on. We may have killed the guy who would have cured cancer by now. Yet they deny the right to take life for an all knowing being, who created the life, has complete sovereignty over that life, has 100% of the knowledge base to make the decision on and who can place those souls in heaven if taken early in life.

It is not even possible to intentionally craft a more self refuting, inconsistent, and hypocritical theoretical argument than this. It lends much credence to the Bible's clams that without God we are morally insane to a certain extent and are wondering around in the dark, inventing morality by opinion and preference, making self indulgent hypocritical claims, and calling the only eternal hope man has evil. It is appalling to behold. Atheistic arguments being false always produces ironic falsehoods and logical paradoxes if followed to long enough. Again that was not aimed at you specifically.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

Of course not. He just doesn't particularly care about the existence of human babies, one way or the other. It's pathetically arrogant to think that a god would even find the existence of human beings worth noticing.

 

[Magic Man]

That is a reasonable point but is not actually accurate. When God man in his image it means we are intentional, personal, free moral agents. It does not mean God gets angry when he should not be as we do, nor that God is proud as we can be, or that his emotions rule him at times in exclusion to cold rationality as happens so often to us. Yes there is a similarity but also an infinite gulf. Assigning God our faults and uncertainty will never produce a meaningful result.

Assigning human qualities to God means he can be held to at least the standards for any other human.

The things I find in all these atheistic God is evil arguments that make no sense are: This is a general claim and not directed at you or anyone in particular.

1. You must first have a God before you can call him evil.

Correct, which is why this is all hypothetical. If your god exists as you say he does, then...

2. You must have a standard beyond God which to determine this. One does not exist.

What is a "standard beyond God"? You mean like something aside from God to compare him to? How does that not exist?

3. You must show that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to do X.

Yup, and in most cases we can do just that.

4. You must your self be capable of judging rightly once 1 - 3 have been accomplished. If history shows nothing else, it shows our lack of moral capacity to even judge ourselves correctly.

I've never seen that.

5. However the biggest irony of them all is this. I will use an example to illustrate the point. I have had women claim they can kill another human life that is innocent for their actions because they have rights to their bodies. Forget that their is no basis for that right without God. Forget that they are demanding the exact same rights for their body they are denying to the fetus' body. The real problem is they grant the right to kill the innocent to a fallible creature who actions caused the problem to begin with and have only a fraction of the knowledge to make the decision on. We may have killed the guy who would have cured cancer by now. Yet they deny the right to take life for an all knowing being, who created the life, has complete sovereignty over that life, has 100% of the knowledge base to make the decision on and who can place those souls in heaven if taken early in life.

Abortion? Really? I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything. No one is saying humans are perfect. We're saying God is supposed to be, and so shouldn't have the faults of humans, even though he's shown to have just that.

It is not even possible to intentionally craft a more self refuting, inconsistent, and hypocritical theoretical argument than this. It lends much credence to the Bible's clams that without God we are morally insane to a certain extent and are wondering around in the dark, inventing morality by opinion and preference, making self indulgent hypocritical claims, and calling the only eternal hope man has evil. It is appalling to behold. Atheistic arguments being false always produces ironic falsehoods and logical paradoxes if followed to long enough. Again that was not aimed at you specifically.

 

[1robin]

Assigning human qualities to God means he can be held to at least the standards for any other human.

So all those statements about God's arm for instance mean that he can curl maybe 100 lbs, is composed of matter in muscle and bone, is slowed by nerve conduction, feels pain, and must be supplied by a blood system. Since that of course is non-sense why would you think he is bound by our faulty relationship with our emotions. We did not assign human qualities to God. He put a tiny fragment of himself into us. He is personal, we are personal, He is a moral agent, we are as well, etc.. However he has a few tiny differences that might need to be allowed for. He knows everything, we know squat, he is perfect, we are imperfect, he is just, we are unjust, he is independent of time, space, and matter, we are confined and bound by all three. There exists no argument what so ever that God can be judged by standards that humans apply to anything.

Correct, which is why this is all hypothetical. If your god exists as you say he does, then...

It does not work as a hypothetical any better. The only place that logic works is for a person who thinks God does not exist but just to make sure hates him if he does, and justifies that belief at all costs. Including logic and reason.

What is a "standard beyond God"? You mean like something aside from God to compare him to? How does that not exist?

Find me a standard which is sufficient to indicate when God actually did something wrong. God does not tell us about moral truths he found. His nature defines morality to begin with. He does not chose morality, he is morality. Exactly what standard has the capacity to judge him? Where did you get it? How does it exceed the authority of God? It is an exercise in futility.

Yup, and in most cases we can do just that.

No one capable of even attempting it until you first provide the standard in number two. I don't think a person could then either, but since it is impossible for that standard to exist it will never matter. Not even close, instead what is provided is some dislike of something without any sufficient access to almost all relevant information in the first place, no standard capable of transcending God, no capacity to master that impossible standard if it did exist and even if you knew about it given it existed. This is going to get too long to fast.

Instead tell me how you can demonstrate that God has ever done anything of any type that is wrong? It was your claim and your burden anyway.

I've never seen that.

So we have enough weapons aimed at each other to wipe out life as well know it, are morally insane to the point we have almost done it at least twice that I know of, in 5000 plus years of history about 300 have been peaceful, we kill human lives in the womb by the tens of millions because for our own mistakes (we do this on right we demand for ourselves but deny the fetus), many of us demand the right to endanger the rest of humanity so they can gratify sexual lust in ways nature nor God intended, then demand others should pay when it goes horribly wrong, we have constructed enough weapon grade chemicals and germs to eradicate life on the planet for a millennium and some have even used it in primitive forms, currently secularism has taken power from Christianity in the last great nation of history, drug abuse is up, teen pregnancy is up, our debt is up, and our school system once no.1 is now far lower and is full of gangs, drugs, and teachers having sex with students. You look at all this and the hundred thousand things I did not mention like the great atheistic utopias that killed tens of millions, and even race supremacy regimes using Darwin who killed 50 million and say everything is great, a success, a moral paradigm of excellence? I have no idea what to say next.

Abortion? Really? I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything. No one is saying humans are perfect. We're saying God is supposed to be, and so shouldn't have the faults of humans, even though he's shown to have just that.

So the people that judge a God that created life, has all the information possible on that life, has complete sovereignty over all life, and places the children immediately in heaven as evil, and are the exact same people that demand the almost sacred right to deny life to innocent unborn human beings as a moral god and you do not see the problem with it or the relevance of it. Again I do not know what to say that. Killing innocent lives in the womb by the millions for convenience is not imperfect it is moral bankruptcy.

Whatever happened to the Nietzsche's and Hume's. Atheists at one point had rational arguments? Where have they gone?

 

[McBell]

Find me a standard which is sufficient to indicate when God actually did something wrong.

 

[McBell]

Let the gymnastics begin!!