Time and responsibility vs. the argument from evil...

[Mr. LongView]

I am thinking that most of the argument from evil can be pawned off on human responsibility and or a state of events that human technology will conquer in the future. (Or already has)
Does that effect the effectiveness of the argument?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 18 by Mr. LongView]

Biblicaly though it can be supported that god created evil..

Spiritually, there ia no good and perfect thing or idea that cannot be perverted by evil, including the contention that GOD is HOLY which has been falsely reworked to mean GOD created evil.

Isaiah 45:7- check it out

Check it out as if I never have -?- may I ask you to check out the meaning of the word evil in the KJV interpretation in Strong's concordance for your edification?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent all evil.
An omnipotent god could prevent all evil.
An omniscient god would know how to prevent all evil.

Therefore, if a tri-omni god existed, there would be no evil.

But many people believe a tri-omni god coexists with evil. That's a logical contradiction, an impossibility.

...

1. False premise: An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent all evil.
This is denied by the reason for creation and the nature of heaven.

GOD's goal of enjoying true loving and holy communion with HIS Church in the heavenly experience for ever necessitated the creation of a creature with free will. A creation without evil was within HIS power but not within HIS desire as only by free will are true love and true holiness created. Thus, bound by HIS goals HE gave us free will allowing the possibility of the creature created evil entering HS perfect creation.

Thus HIS benevolence could not include a creation without the possibility of evil, denying the truth of this premise, but must be focused upon doing the absolute best things for HIS creation before and after any choice to create evil ever happened, including ensuring everyone knew what the choice entailed (a true choice), ensuring that no one was forced by anything to choose a certain way (a free choice), the disposition of those who rejected HIS warnings about rejecting HIM thereby self creating themselves as reprobate, and HIS taking care to fulfill the promise of election in those of HIS elect who chose to be evil in HIS sight. This is the focus of HIS benevolence, not in the creation of a robotic sterile system with no love and no holiness.

2. An omnipotent god could prevent all evil is agreeable but only at the cost of free will or no creation at all.

3. An omniscient god would know how to prevent all evil. A given - but the creation of the possibility (with attenuating management of the possibility becoming a reality) of evil was obviously deemed to be of more importance than the creature creation of evil...

Your argument fails as a tri-omni GOD must allow the creation of evil as a possibility to create the heavenly experience we are told He has in store for us.

Please note: Nowhere in this explanation do I mention or imply that GOD needed evil for any purpose to fulfill HIS plan of the heavenly experience with us. GOD did not need evil. GOD did not create evil.

Peace, Ted