Originally posted by 667joeThe Good Lord strokes Himself nice and smooth, up and down, up and down, to the sight of horrors upon the Earth of nigh every description. Syphilis, now, that's just one among a myriad of pratfalls in His cosmic Punch and Judy show.
So god approves of a man with a STD raping an innocent woman, infecting her with a STD, and causing an innocent baby to come into this world with an STD as well? Forgive me, but your thinking(?) does not add up!
-Removed-If God's not currently in control, then how can he be called 'omnipotent'?
How can an omniscient and omnipotent god EVER be 'elsewhere'? Can he not do more than one thing at the same time?
The one reasonable question you raise is "what if bad things are necessary?" Yes, we cannot be sure whether or not they are. However, consider the extreme nature of the claim that ALL bad events are necessary for a greater good. This means that not only was there NO other more morally correct means of bringing about that greater good, but also, in any large tragedy, if even ONE less person had not suffered and died, the world would somehow be less good. It's logically possible, but extremely unlikely, that every single painful death serves some higher purpose.
-Removed-Most Christians believe God is omnipotent.
If there really was 'no other morally possible way' to achieve the greater good in EVERY case of suffering, then aren't you saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Do you really believe that? I certainly don't.
When dealing with a god who forsees the future, why are we content that every bad thing gets 'paid for'? Shouldn't he have prevented most of it in the first place?
While Joe is not exactly famous for rigorous argumentation, it is also true that 'considering all the options and permutations' is what leads to the academia-looking posts you so loathe. The middle ground is to start with the basic argument and then flesh it out in discussion. However, this requires that both sides hold off on bashing until they are sure they are talking about the same things.
The argument from evil only works against a god who's omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If you don't believe god is all of those things, then you've nothing to be concerned about. This doesn't mean the argument from evil is 'piss poor', but only that it doesn't apply to your type of god.
For reference: Thread 158939
LemonJello clearly states:
16.If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
He is talking about a God as defined above. If you are talking about a different God, then it will look like a piss poor argument to you, but that is only your failure to realise what the argument is about, not some fault with the argument itself.
-Removed-
Who said god is omnipotent?In monotheistic religions that is the normal claim. In the old pagan religion Wodin was claimed to be almighty. I think the point is resolved by the notion that just because I can do something doesn't mean I must do it - I don't think this changes when the subject is omnipotent. Part of omnipotence would be the ability to give free will to the other entities in the universe.
Either we don't have free will in which case discussions of at least the Christian concept of God become incoherent, or we do have free will in which case resolving problems like suffering are our problem.
The alternative, of course, is that there is no God, but then it's still our problem.