So today I see this poll on the side of the screen that asks me a confounding question. If I were 'God', what 25 things would I prevent from happening?

I don't know that I can answer that without feeling terrible about myself.

I mean really, for all the things I would stop, what does that say about me for the things I would allow to pass? Is it a matter of why I would choose? It's all so terrible that I wonder what the repercussions could be. Yet there is the balance to consider.

If no one ever died, we would destroy our world from over-population. That's a given. So at some points people have to die from more than just old age. So wars are going to happen, and so are diseases.

What do I know about being something as omnipotent as God? Nothing. Anything I could change would have major consequences and you can't let those just slide.

Let's say I choose to abolish the existence of rape. The first consequence is that I've taken away the power of people to make their own choices. And how do you go about that exactly? Remove the drive and desire for sex perhaps? Where does that leave the human race? And by what definition of rape do I follow? Do I magically make it so people have to be a perfect chemical match before they are attracted to each other? Wouldn't I have to make attraction stronger then in both sides so it's wanted by both sides? How do you apply something like that? So I take away peoples choices when it comes to sexuality and they still have to live with the consequences. What have I actually done?

So I don't know that I could make such a series of choices like that. Maybe that's why I'm not God.

Very good point. Many agnostics or atheists want to accuse God of great wrongs for not intervening. Few if any apologists give a credible answer for God not intervening other than that God turns bad into good. this is a woeful answer that falls short of any logical or reasonable answer. My book "Come on MAN, Speak English to ME about GOD" gives 5 answers I believe for God not intervening. But your thoughts had some very good points. Good day!

Galaxy wrote:What do I know about being something as omnipotent as God?

If you could not prevent rape without leaving free will intact, then you by definition could not be omnipotent. There can be things impossible for us to do while we still have free will. Such as flying on a unicorn through space to Mars. Put rape in that category. Make it impossible for us, yet leave us with free will.

Creating a hypothetical that begins with pretending you arr omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent is kind of impossible for a cognitively limited creature.

in my opinion, it doesnt work.

Interbane that is not totally true. One can have a system where there are Free Will agents and a ALL POWERFUL God? Are you saying it is impossible to construct such an environment?

My book will prove that God constructed such a place where both things can happen at the same time! The proof of this is found in his book. That is the most that I want to explain at this time. Other than you can find it in the very first chapter of the Bible.

See this is the great quandary that has been so woefully left unanswered by apologists. My book proves 5 answers based on this passage that makes man more than comfortable with God not intervening, even though, God is ALL POWERFUL AND ALL KNOWING! Now we are getting somewhere to proving God's system is the best. And when a fool proof system is understood only proves the existence of God all the more!

Interbane wrote:

Galaxy wrote:What do I know about being something as omnipotent as God?

If you could not prevent rape without leaving free will intact, then you by definition could not be omnipotent. There can be things impossible for us to do while we still have free will. Such as flying on a unicorn through space to Mars. Put rape in that category. Make it impossible for us, yet leave us with free will.

My argument is not for the basis of how omnipotent I would be. Obviously, God is considered omnipotent yet these things still happen.

I'm saying, how can I as a mortal, make choices as if I were God? I can apply my imagination all I want, but there seems to be a reality that must be sated in some way. It's a balance if you will. I think, even God respects this balance, or perhaps wants us to respect it. Theories on theories there.

I think, wanting disease or crime, or violence to just go away will have repercussions that create new problems we will wish to go away.

It would bring repercussions if there was not disease, crime and violence on a nominal of full scale problem. Yes, the population would explode and famines would likely ensue. However, I would argue that you are looking at it from the wrong way. It is not what you would do in these situation? It is best asked "Why does God allow this to happen?" The answer is found in the first book of the Bible - chapter 1. This is the cornerstone to figure out the rest of the answers pertaining to this situation.

Obviously, God is considered omnipotent yet these things still happen.

Actually, that's logically impossible. Are you saying the concept of god is illogical?

Are you saying it is impossible to construct such an environment?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that eliminating rape does not violate free will.

If no one ever died, we would destroy our world from over-population. That's a given. So at some points people have to die from more than just old age. So wars are going to happen, and so are diseases.

No one is arguing for immorality. Eliminating the suffering of innocent youth is enough.

So Interbane this is a topic discussed in great depth. So YOU want to have innocent children to quit suffering. Ok let's take that one point on for size and see the merit of your argument.

1) What is the suffering of the youth? This is really vague - too vague.
2) Is it kids without food?
3) My autistic son not being teased, called four eyes, kept out from playing with other more skilled children. You could say not mocked, ostracized or demeaned.
4) Were you talking about Muslim kids being used to be human bombs.
5) How about Christian kids that were beheaded by Muslims? Or burned alive?
6) How about parents abusing their kids - my dad worked with kids that parents used pocket knives to slit the back of their kidneys or stick them in their thighs. How about putting cigarettes out on their body? Senseless beatings?
7) Rape of the young, male or female?
Kids having disease?
9) Kids dying in houses burnt down?
10) Car accidents that maim or kill them?
11) I guess according to your rules kids could not be deaf, dumb, blind, autistic, heart problems or or or or?
12) Kids wouldn't have to see their parents get divorced?
13) Kids wouldn't be procreated and aborted?
14) Kids wouldn't be procreated and not know who their parents are?
15) Kids wouldn't be allowed to have people scream at them? Or listen to their parents fight.

So I have just tipped the tip of the iceberg.

Now you could ask who would want this to be the only thing God intervened upon? Why not the suffering of parents? Grandparents. My neighbor I found out just has experience the loss of two of his young grand children that he raised for much of their life. Why not take away their suffering? What age does the suffering stop for these young people? 16, 17, 18, or?

Why not other matters should God not intervene in? Why not people that have their life savings ripped off by a Ponzi scheme or told about a horrendous investment or contractors that don't do their work?

The real problem is not to ask God to stop suffering? The real question is to ask why God has incorporated such a system? Is it the best for mankind to operate under the current system? Why is evil in the world? Who started evil God or man? I think we know that answer.

brother bob wrote:So Interbane this is a topic discussed in great depth. So YOU want to have innocent children to quit suffering. Ok let's take that one point on for size and see the merit of your argument.

Any one of your examples that doesn't violate free will will do. You say it's a slippery slope, that if we expect him to prevent suffering in one case, why not all? Let's say you're absolutely right. You're still forced to admit that god could stop suffering, yet doesn't. Sure, the reasons are great. But there's still an issue here. If god could stop suffering, yet doesn't, then he cannot possibly be omnibenevolent at the same time he's omnipotent. It's a logical contradiction. This conceptualization of god doesn't exist.

The real problem is not to ask God to stop suffering? The real question is to ask why God has incorporated such a system? Is it the best for mankind to operate under the current system? Why is evil in the world? Who started evil God or man? I think we know that answer.

This is the root of it. Would you agree there are people with different amounts of willpower? The person who walks past the donuts without buying one, and the person who can't resist? Yes, the ability to resist temptation is different between people, yet you'd still say these people have free will.

Or how about a salesman? Are there varying skill levels to salesmen? One who is much better at convincing another person to purchase a car than another? Yet the person who rejects one sales pitch only to accept another still has free will, right?

So you have this mythical garden of eden where god created adam and eve, and also created a serpent with the requisite sales ability to convince eve to eat the apple. Why not create Eve with a little more willpower, so she rejects the fruit rather than accepting it? Why not create the serpent to be a little less convincing? It's obvious this story doesn't work. Because when you really think about it, god must have created the characters with the exact traits required for mankind to fall. In other words, your story shows a god that set mankind up to suffer. If he could not have made the serpent less convincing, or could not have give eve more willpower, then he is not omnipotent. Another failure of the concept.