Originally Posted by OrAclE

For god to claim something is good, he has to have a comparision.

Originally Posted by OrAclE

Or maybe the balance in the world between good and evil is what makes it 'good'. No domination of one side over another, just an overall neutral world which promotes the free will which God supports. That could be what makes the world 'good'.

For, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil... but this isn't true. Because, so long as it is even remotely possible that God might have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent.

Originally Posted by Deprived

I disagree - for god to claim something is good he must simply define good and evil. I believe that god can define something which does not exist - because he has knowledge of it without requiring it to exist in the first place. He can claim something to be good even when there is no contrast.



Which does not explain why he punishes people for choosing one side over the other and rewards the other side.

Originally Posted by OrAclE

To the first statement, anybody can define something they know nothing about, or might not even exist, but it doesn't mean they are right. Even an omnipotent, all knowing being cannot possible define something which has yet to exist accurately. And for God to come up with such an absolute upon creation, he would have to be absolutely sure of an existance of evil, or at the very least a neutrality (which still cannot exist without evil, as a middle ground only exists when there are two opposite sides). And if the world was his first creation there would of had to be a manifestation of something other than good somewhere within it for his statement to be the absolute that it is.

Originally Posted by OrAclE

To the second statement, just because you have free will does not mean God has to agree with your choices. The world is essentially isolated from God's judgement, he can see all you do but he will do nothing about it. It's only until you leave the world that God can reward you for your devotion or punish you for your sins. Compare it to this: suppose you have the choice to get drunk everyday and you do. You have the free will to decide whether or not to get drunk, but that does not mean you are exempt from the judgement of your peers. With God it is exactly the same scenario, except on a much larger scale and with greater consequences.

Originally Posted by OrAclE

To the first statement, anybody can define something they know nothing about, or might not even exist, but it doesn't mean they are right. Even an omnipotent, all knowing being cannot possible define something which has yet to exist accurately.

And if the world was his first creation there would of had to be a manifestation of something other than good somewhere within it for his statement to be the absolute that it is.

To the second statement, just because you have free will does not mean God has to agree with your choices. The world is essentially isolated from God's judgement, he can see all you do but he will do nothing about it. It's only until you leave the world that God can reward you for your devotion or punish you for your sins. Compare it to this: suppose you have the choice to get drunk everyday and you do. You have the free will to decide whether or not to get drunk, but that does not mean you are exempt from the judgement of your peers. With God it is exactly the same scenario, except on a much larger scale and with greater consequences.

Originally Posted by Deprived

But because he is all knowing he knows the future and all that will and can exist. Why does god need to wait for it to happen if he already knows all about it before defining it? This would mean that he has to create evil later, and then perhaps destroy it, but that's preferable to having evil for all of time.

But god knows all - even the future - and because he knows what will happen, only that can happen, thus free will is gone.

Originally Posted by Odlov

Firstly, what do you mean by "right"?
Then, people define things that don't exist in objective reality all the time.
We summon concepts out of thin air, and give them very definitive properties. For example, i just imagined and defined a 5000 pound sentient space cube which eats dark matter. It's just a concept and it most likely doesn't exist in objective reality, but hey. I defined it.

This rests on your above (imo erroneous) assumption.

How can we have free will when our every move is executing divine plan of omnipotent creator? Moreover, how can we have free will at all? Sentience and a decent ability to analyze the world doesn't mean we are not bound by the laws of causality to behave in a precisely certain way. That aside - god has no valid reason to punish me or anyone else because we are all exact manifestations of his imagination. We and all are actions are what he wanted to happen, assuming he is omnipotent and omniscient.

Originally Posted by OrAclE

Second statements, being predicted and being controlled are two different things. The ability to predict what you will do and the consequences of your actions does not mean he is controlling your actions, but merely foreseeing what you will do. To say that because he sees at the moment he looked into the future, that you would do such and such, that you are bound to do such and such when the time comes is just giving up on your free will.

Now on what Odlov says on right to judge, what valid reason then does God have to define what is good or evil if he has no right to judge you on your actions? If he has the right to define what is good and what is evil, why is it then he cannot judge you based on the principles defined? If he created you, does he not have the right to judge his work? Is the creator supposed to create his miracles, but never witness them?