It's always interesting to ask who is liberal and who isn't?
John Loftus has posted the following quote.
If, as liberal theologians tell us, the “necessary” evils of this world are exactly what God would produce given his penchant for human free will and for physical “freedom” like the movement of tectonic plates, then would a nicer world disprove the God Hypothesis? Don’t hold your breath, for the nature of the God Hypothesis is that no observation could ever disprove it. That’s why it’s not scientific at all, and why religion and science will never find an amiable concordat. Link.
God exists. No beginning or ending to his existence. If you accept that this describes God, the idea of "necessary evil" seems to fail. The idea of many people is to try to absolve God of creating evil. I think that this is a mistake. God is very clear in the
Bible. Bad things sometimes happen to people of no fault of their own and sometimes people do not suffer for the evil they do in this life. And vice versa in varying combination. God has promised in the Bible that He would pay everyone for what he/she has done. Period. God expects us to accept that and trust Him although we don't always understand. My question would be "who told us we had free will? And who says that we must the world should look like anything different than what it looks like. If you accept that God has a purpose for everything that He allows and does and forget trying to hold God accountable for those choices. We can't. We don't know what the final design should look like. Instead We must trust God. We must know God for who He is and not what we think God should be. He isn't trying to meet our expectations. We must meet God's expectations.
We should consider: does everyththing have to be scientific, as Coyne has tried to define, in order to be true? As long at the answer is "No", we cannot fall for flawed logic like this.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jerry Coyne
