Quote:
Originally Posted by USViking
I do not accept that God, if He exists, can be benevolent,
if He is also omniscient and omnipotent.
|
So, omniscience and omnipotence logically preclude benevolence? I've used a similar argument from time to time for why I think that the idea of "hell" is absurd, but that is predicated upon the idea of a God creating humans knowing that He would damn them. If we leave that part out, I'm curious as to your logic on this statement... will you elaborate?
Quote:
One can always claim there is a transcendent element to
God and His activity or inactivity, which excuses Him for
reasons we do not understand, or cannot understand.
I think this view is ad hoc and also rests on faith rather
than the evidence which seems to me to condemn Him
at least for acts of omission. I understand my own view
may to some extent rest on the "faith" that transcendence
is not real. So be it.
|
"Transcendent element" - meaning people who say "Well, God works in mysterious ways, and I believe that all good and all suffering are part of a plan that makes everything better" (more or less what I opined about in the story of my kitten, who is still sick, by the way
)? I presented this argument because I see no logical grounds that would make it false (though such speculation isn't rational, per se).
Now, it seems to me that you're saying "well, that
might be true, but Ockham's Razor would tell us that all this suffering exists because God can prevent it, but chooses not to, for whatever reason, and that reason is probably not altruistic." I suppose that's a fair argument. Either argument relies on faith (we must assume the existence of God in the first place), but I see on reason that one is more logical than another. In either case, we assume the existence of a being that is outside of the bounds of our logic, so accepting "Divine Plan" at that point seems to be a drop in the "faith bucket".
Linear Mode
