No it isn’t.
For serious. There are people burning to death right now who are suffering way, way fucking more than J-dizzle.
Yes, it isn’t because, not grel, to fly, with balgus in sympathy on frell, nonse.
Bizzle-bop.
I can’t argue with that logic.
Ultimately no, but can allow evil to exist for a time for a purpose, such as having His children learn, because that would be for a greater good and thus negate the evil, so the evil never existed. But it sure seems like it does when the children are learning.
A being possessing highly advance technology would go beyond what is logically possible given our current level of technology. You don’t need a omnipotent God for that.
If your daughter was about to be raped by a Somali war band, or get bone cancer, or fall ten meters into a pit of rusty metal, or be carried off by a tsunami, would you stop it? If stopping it cost you literally no effort?
God could stop it. It would cost God, literally no effort. God doesn’t love your daughter as much as you do. Therefore, He’s not omni-benevolent or omnipotent or both.
No one learns anything by being shredded by wolves. The fact that those kinds of natural evils exist prove God is either too weak to stop it, or too indifferent or most likely, not here at all.
Now do you realize that you’re speaking nonsense when you say that God can have conflicting attributes?
Don’t appeal to logic if you have no intention of following it.
Our eternal life is not of this body, but of the soul/spirit which will live forever. Therefor anything can be done to the physical body and not touch one hair on the child’s eternal soul, though the child will learn.
One aspect she may learn in being ripped apart by wolves is that when she becomes a goddess of her own world she may not want to create a wolf in it’s current state because that would cause pain for other animal beings, having learned empathy.
You should go to pediatric cancer wards and tell the children that they aren’t really suffering. I bet you’d get a lot of thanks for that.
That is an assertion. It’s not a fact. It’s not something that is supported by anything but your imaginings.
Down here in fact-world we’re still sticking with the idea that the problem of evil is a problem for omnipotent and omni-benevolent Gods. Thanks.
This was from your assertion, your imaginary universe where you have defined what God can not be, which is a illogical starting premise.
By your own “reasoning”, what she should learn is a complete and utter lack of empathy since according to you nothing that happens to anyone actually matters. If she wants to flay people alive, set them on fire and watch them writhe, why not? It’s just a learning experience, nothing compared to “eternal life”.
You are essentially arguing for complete and utter sociopathy.
Where did I say they were not suffering? I claimed they are learning, perhaps learning what suffering is, perhaps learning what it is to suffer without any explanation, seems like a good thing for a god to know, and all without any harm to their eternal soul.
A position that demonstrates why belief in souls is not harmless, but actively destructive. It renders believers a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
What you are missing is the absolute law of God ‘you reap what you sow’, sometimes called karma. This child will not be given her eternal existence body, but will keep getting disposable ones till she learns. So yes she can do those things, and may be a powerful tyrant here on earth, but her reign of terror will end one day and she will find herself on the receiving end.
That’s fear talking, fear of a people living without legal restrictions or consequences but living by their hearts, living to love and be loved.
Ahem:
So do you just make up stuff immediately? I assumed you had a coherent theory of mystical hooey that you referred to.
A God who is omnipotent has no need of suffering. He could make a universe without it. He didn’t because either He isn’t omnipotent (meaning he didn’t have a choice or had limited choices on how to make our universe), He isn’t omni-benevolent (meaning He’s okay with needless suffering, perhaps for His ultimate ends) or He doesn’t exist (which is of course what every intelligent person should assume, until the day that some evidence is put forward for His existence).
:rolleyes: Free to enslave, slaughter and torture, more likely. People who buy your proposed view of the world are hardly likely to be benevolent.
Yes; I am afraid of anyone completely lacking in compassion or empathy, someone who would dismiss me burning alive as a “learning experience”.
Ever seen Weekend at Bernie’s?
How does harm to a temporary body but not any harm to the eternal soul equate to harming of the eternal soul?
Again you are defining God, and in such a way that you have decided He can not exist in our world.
Teaching children to be gods could be the very reason why there is a need for suffering.
Or it is the best way to teach His children
Again you are defining what you would like to be, which supports your point, circular argument.