Well, that would have required God to have creatyed us all as robots, rather than human beings with freedom to choose. Is that what you would have preferred (by the way, we've been over this multiple times since I've been a member of the board, and neither you nor anyone else has managed to answer that question in a way that would allow God to have acted in any other way than he did 'in the first place'. It would also have required God to craete a planet that isn't dynamic, and therefore a planet that would necessarily fail to support life.
This desperate tripe is simply making a virtue out of necessity, i.e. retrofitting the notion of a god onto the planet as it is because you have to shore up the idea on no grounds whatever. A god both all-knowing and all-powerful would by definition
know and
be able to create a planet which is both "dynamic" yet does not create suffering. This stems from the very meanings of the terms
all-powerful and
all-knowing - which is to say, if you think otherwise, you're demonstrating that you don't actually understand what those terms
mean. Is this the sort of god you claim to believe in or not?
But for many of us, our very humanity is predicated on the existence of a loving and caring God; not simply on a 'theory of mind'. Seems to me that you are effectively replacing one theory with another.
How tragic.
And, by the way, a god is a hypothesis at the outside; theory of mind is supported by abundant evidence from sundry disciplines but the most important of them being psychology, ethology and primatology.
So giving his human creation the ability to think and choose their own future isn't 'good'? Sorry, I doubt whether you would accept that. Of course God knew that these would be the consequences of his creative action - he prefers to allow us to suffer the consequences of our choices (something that Floo is uber-hot on, by the way) than to make us as robots.
That's self-suffering based on one's own choices/actions. Where does the totally unjustified suffering of innocent parties come into this picture of yours? A raped child suffers on account of the actions of another, and has nothing to do with their own choices. Explain.
What a joke; Shakes. Just because you can't (or choose not to) understand the complexity of God, you have to make out that believers who try to understand that complexity but don't fully understand it are automatically slippery, etc.
I am stating as a matter of fact that
you are slimy, slippery and evasive when it comes to answering questions about what you take to be the attributes of the god you allege that you believe in.
Although I've posed the question before many, many times (indeed, I've just done so) and you have ignored it every time, I shall do so here once again for you to ignore yet again (which, of course, you will):
Is the god that you purport to believe in all-knowing, all-powerful (either literally so, taken at face value meaning able to do absolutely anything, or all-powerful within the limits of logic) and all good?
Not really, Shakes. I have simply learnt that if I was express it in as best a way I can, you would simply not understand it, and why repeaqt something that others don't understand - ad infinitum.?
How do you know that you understand it? Perhaps if you explain something to others that you claim to understand but they can't understand it, actually it's your "understanding" which is deficient.
I'd disagree with this highglighted statement, Shakes
Couldn't give two shiny ones about your disagreement. If, as are you implying, you think that free will has been shown to exist, provide the evidence from the credible and reputable sources where this has allegedly taken place.
Not that you will, obvs.
and would also suggest that the subsequent comment has little or no substance since (neuro)science doesn't deal in the areas that freewill acts in - namely the spiritual realm.
Something else never demonstrated to exist in itself, of course.
