It seems that you are somewhat overambitious in calling this a face-palm, judging by your continual question-begging annotation. For example, you first comment on evil, without really defining it, says that we would never exist if evil did not exist. I take it, then, we don’t exist in heaven – it’s empty (d’oh, facepalm!).
Evil doesn't make it heaven (double facepalm). The point of Jesus dying on the cross and being born-again is to get rid of the evil in our souls. I also find it interesting that Johnny P didn't define evil. As a Christian, I can define it but without God I don't think anyone can define what evil is. It would be amusing to see Johnny P try. In case he responds to this (or anyone) I'll save my full definition. Instead let me explain what I am meant that without evil we would not exist. I wrote: This line of argumentation has never impressed me because who says that we can determine when God should deal with evil. The argument also fails to take account that if God destroyed all evil now, we would all be destroyed. If God had destroyed all evil at any time in the past, we would never exist. Instead God has a plan in mind and everything is in place to bring that plan to fruition - even evil. Because obviously Johnny P didn't understand, let's restate it. The statement was in reference to the evil and sin that permeates humanity. If God destroyed evil without cleaning evil from our lives, we would all be destroyed. When we say that God should get rid of evil and punish sin, we usually mean those people over there - apart from us and not recognizing that we are no better than they are. We deserve hell just like they do. You don't earn your way to heaven - it's by grace.
“I really wish that when people raise this objection would really argue without the arrogance of assuming that we know just how much suffering there should be in order to get the "best possible world". “
Er, I think you entirely miss the point. It’s not about what we know, it’s about the notion that God knows. And as such, in order to earn he title of omnibenevolent and perfect, this MUST be the most perfect world. It’s got nothing to do with what we know. We simply make evidential observations about the amount of suffering and people like you try and harmonise it with your God claiming that it is not gratuitous. This does, indeed, beg the question. It is logically possible, but this by no means that it is logically probable or plausible.
Johnny P missed the point I raised. God does know perfectly everything. And we don't. The Bible does not tell us that his world is perfect. It tells us that the world is decaying because of our sin and evil. I quoted Romans 8:19-25. Guess he missed it. Let me be clear. Johnny P's presumptions are wrong. Even if you don't think the Bible is correct, you have got to admit that he is making arguments based on claims that the Bible does not make.
“Why would we expect the universe and reality to be different?”
Well, for starters, I would be clever enough to create a life-sustaining planet that didn’t have plate tectonics that killed millions of people throughout history. I think that’s fairly obvious. Especially since no theodicy that you could offer says anything about the billions of animals and ecosystems destroyed in the 2004 tsunami.
I don't need to. Paul answered that: Romans 8. Also he ignored the rest of the argument. How do you know that the world would be better without plate tectonics, As far as we can tell, life as we know it is impossible without plate tectonics. No people. John Lennox discussed this really well. As for Tsunami, Jesus offered the best theodicy.
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5
Your next set of comments lead onto the larger argument over whether free will can be a potentiality only.
“Doing the maximally loving thing at all times is hardly limitation if you don't want to do anything otherwise”
If God can’t WANT to do anything else, then what the hell do you define as free will?
I didn't say "can't" I said "doesn't" and watch your language. .
I would say that this is simply determinism. To analogise, this would be exactly the same as espousing determinism in humans – we act because we are who we are, in our nature. If you studied free will (I have written a book on it) you would see that, if God was always to act in a particular way, you are denying the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.
What is the title of this book? According to the Bible telling us that we are hopelessly imprisoned in sin, terminated in total separation from God, I don't see how we have the ability to make choices free of sinful influence without God. That's not free will. I don't deny that there is such things as free will. I'm saying that only God has it. And yes, that mean there aren't alternate possibilities outside of what God has already "bound" or "loosed". (Matthew 16). God always acts in a particular way - the way he chooses.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-12
As for your criticism of my tax man analogy, you don’t really say much but a simple assertion that it is a bad analogy (it is a synopsis of a much longer analogy).
Maybe Johnny P missed it. I offered a different analogy. Here is again: It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your punishment of death as well.
“The problem is that we don't know that the maximally loving options are or even what "love" really is in all situations. We have an idea, but we don't really know exhaustively”
Exactly the same issues as mentioned before.
Which Johnny P again misses that giving our ignorance we don't know what the perfect world even looks like.
And your worst moment comes here:
“The Creation did not fall short of perfection before the fall.”
Oh dear, you believe in Original Sin. Too many criticisms of this to even begin.
Bring it.
“Again do you or anyone of know what the whole plan is? Do we know what the best for us in the world is? I don't. If you think you do, then you are really dishonest. If you don't know what maximally good and perfect are, how do you know that there is no purpose for the suffering we witness? You don't.”
Again, pretty poor reasoning. As I asked God in my last book:
If my child was to walk on the flowers in my garden, trampling them, it would be immoral to punish him without telling him what he had done wrong. This would communicate to my child his misdemeanour so that he would not do it again. What have we done wrong to deserve cancer, malaria, the tsunami, the Holocaust, disability, cholera etc., and is it right that you have not communicated to us why we have had these ‘punishments’?
God told us what we did to deserve all of this. The books of Job, Habakkuk, and most of the Bible deal with this. Johnny P said that he asked God this question in his last book as if God did not answer. He did..
The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death. - Proverbs 10:!6
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
You special plead God’s master plan on behalf of God, but any responsible and loving parent, teacher, society TELLS PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED. Whether it be tsunamis, malaria, cancer of whatever, The almighty God can’t be bothered to tell us why these things are necessary to make a better world, but instead relies on you to tell us through ad hoc, implausible reasoning! Outstanding. No, my friend, the facepalm is all yours.
Considering Johnny P fails to understand the answer given in the Bible or even offer and objection - I see two facepalms
And as for arrogance, you are attempting to speak for an almighty and all-loving God. I’m sure he could get off his throne and do it himself.
I'm not speaking for God out of pocket. I'm only saying what the Bible say. I didn't write it. If you don't believe it prove it wrong. Johnny P makes several assertions without a single basis. It's arrogant to criticize a design and not know the specs, which is all Johnny P had done. If you want to demonstrate arrogance on my part Johnny P has to do one of two things. Show how I have misrepresented what the Bible has said or show that the Bible is wrong. He has done neither.
"So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is."
This, again, is poor. My ideas about what God is follow necessarily from the rather arrogant and unsupported ideas of what his characteristics are. You circularly use the bible to maintain your opinions and then accuse others of misrepresenting your god when you ad hoc harmonise everything about your god.
Using the Bible is no circular reasoning. I maintain that the only way you can know much about who God is, is by revelation. The Bible gives us that revelation. Unless you can show that the Bible is wrong there is no reason to throw it out as a source of knowledge.
As for Middle Knowledge, I did not say that WAS the mechanism, so thanks for building the straw man. Go back and read the sentence.
I didn't say Johnny P did. I was saying that Johnny P seems to think that the Christian position is Middle Knowledge by default. I know Johnny P is an atheist and does not accept Middle Knowledge. Neither do all Christians. The straw man is his.
This was a logical argument that you have treated rather illogically.
Sim,ply[sp] put:
1) God is perfect
2) a perfect being cannot create imperfectly
C) this universe is a perfect creation.
What do you disagree with there? That was my argument, and it then follows that:
The Bible does not support your premise: "this is a perfect universe" You should agree. That's the point you are making. God did not create imperfectly. It was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned and our sin perpetuates the problems. Your premises fail.
1) this is a perfect universe
2) we have tsunamis, malaria, cancer etc
3) these things exist in a perfect world
C) these things must be necessary for a perfect world
It's not a perfect world (see Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible). Therefore Johnny P's conclusions are flawed because we don't know what the "perfect world" is. His argument is that if there was a perfect world things like tsunamis, malaria, cancer, and etc would not exist. God agrees. It's not perfect. The Bible does not tell us it is with sin running rampant. When God purges sin, and according to the Bible He will, then it will be perfect again.
All you have done in you 'critique' is waffle on about not much, and NOT address the argument!
Johnny P has been consistent in his inability to answer what God has said about the questions he raised. I did address the argument because God has addressed and it was put to rest 2000 years ago. Just read your Bible for a change. Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard. Revelation is need. And you can't argue against Christianity without understanding what the Bible says and Johnny P shows no understanding. Double FacePalm.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #129 - Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?
