"..a world in which natural wills were exercised but had no reverberating effect on others, including those technically undeserving of that effect, would be an impossible one..."
This still fails to dismiss the negligent god case.
Review my example of allowing the kids to fall off the cliff
as you stand idly by and prevent the deadly trap.
An evil man created this trap to kill the children.
Another man, perceives the danger, sees the kids coming,
steps in the way, and yells "STOP!! Its a trap", thus preventing
the children from falling to their deaths.
Did this man just somehow NIX the evil mans free will?
Of course not.
God could do the VERY same thing.
If the good man was not around, and god appeared in front
of the doorway and yelled "STOP!! Its a trap", thus preventing
the children from falling to their deaths, this does not
somehow magically cause the evil mans free will to disappear.
God is playing the role of moral third person, just like the good man.
He did not CONTROL anyone's decision making process in any way.
Everyone involved STILL had free will. And yet, evil was still diverted.
If god, knowingly sits idly by in situations like these, where free
will is not affected, and innocents die, where he could easily
play the role of a third party, then I can only conclude that he
is not there or not moral, or powerless.
peace
axeman
Quote from darkhorse:
round and round she goes...
i think some of you guys are running into the same problem aquinas had... when you base assertions on single points of argument you can get yourself into trouble by accidentally equating the point you are trying to make with the argument you are using to make the point.... especially dangerous if the argument you are using as a foundation is flawed.
i'm becoming more and more convinced that beneficial debate- i.e. debate that enlightens both sides and allows each to see the other's point of view- requires time for the finer points to draw themselves out, and also requires that both sides show civility and a real desire to both make logical points and to really see the points made by the other side.
as soon as one person starts flinging mud or insults, emotion takes hold and pretty soon whatever value there was in the exchange has gone out the window. it's hard to share intelligently and openly with someone who is calling you stupid or shit for brains.
i think this baby thing has gone way off track... has anyone considered that God's sovereignty and benevolence is a question that applies to all men, regardless of age- if God revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus, then Paul can claim no more credit for his salvation than a newborn babe... to understand that God chooses who He reveals himself to answers the baby question because we are all helpless babes in the sense of requiring God to come to us... though of course that opens up the far larger can of worms in terms of understanding God's mercy and sovereignty as it applies to all of mankind
also in regards to babies being driven off a cliff or what have you... the question of God's benevolence has to be asked side by side with the consequences of human will... if man has the ability to act out his natural desires including those desires that are evil, how would he be able to do so without negatively impacting those around him... if i am an evil parent then my children will feel the repercussions of that... a world in which natural wills were exercised but had no reverberating effect on others, including those technically undeserving of that effect, would be an impossible one... we are authors of the world we live in and as miniature gods (in the sense that we are made in God's image) our actions have effect on those around us for good or ill
i'll probably regret stepping back into this but oh well... i really like hearing views from the atheist side when they are reasoned and articulate (as opposed to you're shit the bible is crap etc)
(Now be clear with this, that WAS a joke!!)