His reasoning is wrong. It's not because your able and not willing, that you're malevolent. There can be other reasons for not "willing" than being malevolent.
Lazy? I was rather thinking more like that he wants us to discover things for ourself. Like when you're a parent you're not gonna tell your children everytime what to do, and do everything for them etc etc.
the problem is for example if an innocent woman gets raped, what is there to discover? Nothing. What is there to learn? Nothing. Why doesn't god protect her then? Either he just doesn't want to, he's a sadist ( can you see the irony there? :o ) or there is just no god.
so basically you don't want free will? I'm pretty sure everyone would believe in God and be incredibly religious if the moment you do anything morally wrong you're struck with a lightning bolt
Hmm I guess you didn't get my point. On the one hand the one raping others has a free will. But on the other hand the ones you are getting raped don't have any. So where's god there? Showing how much of a free will you have getting raped without being able to do anything? So basically there is no god because everything that happens, happens because you and everybody else got their own wills :o
So basically, what you want is limited free will? That is not free will. You are anthropomorphizing God as a human being who would step in to prevent it, he isn't, if he chose to interrupt everything then there would be no chance to learn.
Did you even read what I said? Read up on degree's of perfection, the free will defense theory. Aquinas' theodicy claims that God's goodness is not the same as human goodness, and says that evil is part of the design gone wrong because man ate from the tree of knowledge, free will (eating the forbidden fruit) is what caused evil, not God, (which of course can be argued that it is not logical for something perfectly designed to go suddenly wrong). Irenaeus argued that humans need an epistemic distance from God, as without it we could not develop. This relies on the theory of life after death, because it puts the world in a position of "soul-making", to get into heaven. Without evil it would be impossible for us to grow or learn.
Imagine a parent who stops their child from coming into harm. The child will never learn not to do certain things and will persist in doing so until the parent lets them feel the pain/consequence of attempting it. If a parent was as protective as you want God to be, then a child would never learn how to walk, because they would be prevented from the pain of falling over after trying to walk.
And... why can't God co-exist with evil in the world? There are solutions to the the epicurean paradox/problem of evil that vindicate God of the blame for evil and suffering. It's impossible to argue 100% to either side really, there are lots of criticisms and solutions presented, and to say "evil exists so God can't exist" is just the most basic argument.
If you struggle in finding any responses to what I've written (believe me, there are many criticisms of what I just wrote (and also there are responses to those criticisms) then I might help you out and start replying for you with logical criticisms that go deeper than the epicurean paradox which is all that you are presenting right now.
So basically, what you want is limited free will? That is not free will. You are anthropomorphizing God as a human being who would step in to prevent it, he isn't, if he chose to interrupt everything then there would be no chance to learn.
Why do you need a god then if he doesn't prevent any evil and just does nothing? Just to believe in something "higher" so you may blame anything else or got the feeling to be saver? Then actually you don't need any religion but something you see as a higher being ( even a holy frog or something ). Please correct me if I'm wrong since religion is one of the things you can argue about for thousand of years ;>
I'm not a religious person, nor do I believe in a world creator/higher being. People who follow orthadox religions which were only founded for oppression and control are what bother me. I see no problem in somebody believing in a God or higher power, even if it is the Judeo-Christian God (God of christianity), it's just when people become fanatical about a certain religion. Belief in God does not require following a religion.
What your hinting at is pantheism, finding God in the world through animals, plants, etc.
So basically, what you want is limited free will? That is not free will. You are anthropomorphizing God as a human being who would step in to prevent it, he isn't, if he chose to interrupt everything then there would be no chance to learn.
Did you even read what I said? Read up on degree's of perfection, the free will defense theory. Aquinas' theodicy claims that God's goodness is not the same as human goodness, and says that evil is part of the design gone wrong because man ate from the tree of knowledge, free will (eating the forbidden fruit) is what caused evil, not God, (which of course can be argued that it is not logical for something perfectly designed to go suddenly wrong). Irenaeus argued that humans need an epistemic distance from God, as without it we could not develop. This relies on the theory of life after death, because it puts the world in a position of "soul-making", to get into heaven. Without evil it would be impossible for us to grow or learn.
Imagine a parent who stops their child from coming into harm. The child will never learn not to do certain things and will persist in doing so until the parent lets them feel the pain/consequence of attempting it. If a parent was as protective as you want God to be, then a child would never learn how to walk, because they would be prevented from the pain of falling over after trying to walk.
And... why can't God co-exist with evil in the world? There are solutions to the the epicurean paradox/problem of evil that vindicate God of the blame for evil and suffering. It's impossible to argue 100% to either side really, there are lots of criticisms and solutions presented, and to say "evil exists so God can't exist" is just the most basic argument.
If you struggle in finding any responses to what I've written (believe me, there are many criticisms of what I just wrote (and also there are responses to those criticisms) then I might help you out and start replying for you with logical criticisms that go deeper than the epicurean paradox which is all that you are presenting right now.
- Summer Glau
Why do you need a god then if he doesn't prevent any evil and just does nothing? Just to believe in something "higher" so you may blame anything else or got the feeling to be saver? Then actually you don't need any religion but something you see as a higher being ( even a holy frog or something ). Please correct me if I'm wrong since religion is one of the things you can argue about for thousand of years ;>
What your hinting at is pantheism, finding God in the world through animals, plants, etc.
Still:
INSIDE OUT > RATM
fuck yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh