Oh, humungous festering balls. We're not talking about the creatures within the system but the system itself, so there's no reason for any of the usual twaddle about "robots." You've neatly slipped from the "system" - I assume, given the lack of clear definition, you mean the way that the natural world on this planet operates: weather systems; plate tectonics, etc. - to creatures living in or on that system. Make up your mind which you mean. An omnimax god would want, would know, would be able to create a planet Earth which is "dynamic" but without causing suffering to sentient creatures. Yes or no? You believe in such a deity yet such a state of affairs patently does not exist, therefore it falls to you to explain why not.
Hold your horses, Shaker. This particular element of this thread started out from Floo's reference to 'the deity's ... 'nasty behaviour' (see Reply #15, iirc). I understood her to be referring to things like suffering, natural disasters, etc. I believe that all that has to do with the 'system', but that human intervention exacerbates it.
In response to you question "An omnimax god would
want, would
know,
would be able to create a planet Earth which is "dynamic" but without causing suffering to sentient creatures. Yes or No?" I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'sentient'. Do you mean beings that are able to 'perceive or feel things' (
www.oxforddictionaries.com), or do you mean beings that are able to understand and respond/react to what is happening around them (a definition I have seen used on some forums and in some written material)?
The latter definition implies a degree of freedom of thought and action (freewill?) which the other doesn't. No doubt God could produce the former situation, but I believe he chose to create the latter. Remember that the 'sentient being' is part and parcel of the system, not an external observer.
Your post is an all-too-familiar exercise in somebody claiming to know the mind and the intentions of the Creator of All That Is ("that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted humans who chose to have a relationship with their creator ...")
Yes, in a way I am claiming to know the mind of the Creator. After all, he tells us his intentions often enough within the pages of the Bible. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, or even a linguist, to understand that. I wouldn't want to claim that I understand the finer details of God's thinking, but large brushstroke pictures often tell the main story whilst the finer brushstrokes tell the details.
Of course I don't believe in such a thing as that would obviously be silly and I'm not silly, but you do claim to. The highlighted passage not even merely implies but explicitly states that you know what such an entity wanted/wants.
Do you know what the Government intend to do over the next 4 to 5 years? Of course you do. It was laid out in their manifesto. You may not know exactly, detail for detail, but you have a general picture. How does that differ from my having an 'outline' understanding of God's purposes and plans?
As my hero, the late and phenomenally great Hitch once observed, I've been called arrogant in my time and hope to be so labelled again, but claiming to be privy to the thoughts, wishes, desires, aversions and intentions of the supposed Creator is beyond even my conceit.
I wouldn't call you arrogant if you paid me. However, I would expect that you would be able to understand the difference between knowing an outline plan that is laid out in the euivalent of a manifesto and a detailed one that comes together over time and circumstance.
