A person with a background in philosophy ought to be able to make a good faith (hehe) argument that God is not benevolent in any capacity and is doing the same as a toddler in a sandbox.
I had a professor make that exact argument… or perhaps he was quoting an argument of one of the greats. Anyway, the argument goes like this:
if there is evil, and god has the power to stop it, but he doesnt due to his knowledge, then he is not omnicient
if there is evil, and god has the power to stop it, but he doesnt and he has all knowledge, then he is evil
if there is evil, and god does not have the power to stop it, then he is impotent
The first person then smugly smiles that they put God into a box and waits to hear the mental gymnastics from the Christian Philosopher.
The christian philosopher then brings up a few points that were straw manned:
incomplete understanding of whether what we are seeing is “evil”
the illusion of choice - are we simply clocks that were preprogrammed back when the big bang occured? Can a clock have “evil” within it?
moral agents with ability to make meaningful choices - The actions of the omnipotent being (God) are tied by pesky rules regarding choice because the being (God) could eliminate choice: the being could choose the perfect stimuli to create an exact copy of an ideal AI in a bio-mechanical body instead of moral agents who choose to be a dick or not. Therefore, if this fact pattern is reality, then there must be “something special” about being a moral agent and having a relationship albeit distant with an Omnipotent being.
The philosophers then keep asking questions to reduce the opponents argument until they conclude with the following question: “What is?” then they leave as friends.
A person with a background in philosophy ought to be able to make a good faith (hehe) argument that God is not benevolent in any capacity and is doing the same as a toddler in a sandbox.
I had a professor make that exact argument… or perhaps he was quoting an argument of one of the greats. Anyway, the argument goes like this:
The first person then smugly smiles that they put God into a box and waits to hear the mental gymnastics from the Christian Philosopher.
The christian philosopher then brings up a few points that were straw manned:
The philosophers then keep asking questions to reduce the opponents argument until they conclude with the following question: “What is?” then they leave as friends.