AAFitz wrote:That is not necessarily true. If, in an afterlife, all said suffering and pain were somehow rewarded on and infinite level, and similarly all bad deeds were atoned, one could say that all is fair...theoretically.
What is the point of the kid suffering like this? I can see the argument being made for some kind of suffering that's supposed to teach you some lesson, but dying of hunger when you're 5 ?
Is god not able to keep that kid alive till he becomes a full person while also doing the whole afterlife shenanigans? Then, again, he is not omnipotent.
Funkyterrance wrote:I don't remember defending anything, that's pure projection on your part. Your seething bitterness regarding this subject seems to affect your ability to enter into it in a reasonable way.
Yes you were. BBS accused god for letting the guy die, you defended god cause "mysterious ways".
Funkyterrance wrote:BBS wrote:Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.
Ray Rider wrote:And you completely avoid the issue of free will, man being a free moral agent, love only being love if it is voluntary, the existence of evil in all of us, etc.
Lets assume omniscience and free will somehow weren't mutually exclusive. Can god not prevent that kid from dying without violating anyone's free will? Then he is not omnipotent.
----
also:
@ tgd: I also work in mysterious, dickish ways.
@ Fitz. Here's the musical accompaniament to that great post of yours.