If what you say is true then by all means it would support this idea but I object to it and in this case it would make that being evil by punishing someone not involved in the crime.
That doesn't make sense, for a classical monotheist, a human chooses to do evil, so a human is involved in the crime, and therefore punished. For them:
No to little sin = Saint.
If a god creates you, sure it might know that you would do evil things but that doesn't make the maker evil by doing so.
Well that's the whole argument for the free will defense, and the crux of the argument of evil which I presented. What is interesting is that you believe humans don't have free will, and the funny thing is, the free will defense doesn't mean a thing if humans don't have free will.
I don't believe any gods exist however; why couldn't the god create you with the intention of absolute freedom to act? Who says this god would be all knowing? Why couldn't a god be uncertain to what your actions would result in? Even if this god did know all actions it still would not make the maker evil just like the gun maker analogy.
For a classical monotheist, the concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings. Your analogy of the gun-maker is somewhat faulty, because a gun maker or gun manufacturer is a fundamentally different type of entity from omnipotent, omniscient deity. I call such ideas, the extreme stretch of analogies until they break.
Well I don't think we have free will. I think we have the illusion of free will but many things are determined already just by natural phenomina.
Free will is dependent on how you define it. This subject is such a large can of worms that I'll post an explanation as to what I mean in my next post.
Yeah I am familiar with the argument. I like it but I actually don't see any contradiction in it. I think people are refuting "properties" of this deity without actually "knowing" if the properties are real or not. Does a god necessarily need to be required to be all powerful? Or is this just another property that people impose on their god concept?
If only I knew, but I do know that Atheists sometimes suggest that an omni-God tend to be defined out of existence by their own increasing definitions, while the more finite deities are much more plausible due to their limitations producing fewer contradictions. As I said, Atheists love to make God as illogical as possible to prove God doesn't exist.
Or... a god could exist that is able to do evil things which then wouldn't contradict anything.
By the stated definition of God in the original argument, yes there will be a contradiction.
Well I see an underline absurdity. I mean you make two realms, one to test the product (humans) for quality assurance (acceptence) and the other to "reward" them or "punish" them for their choice? What was the point in letting them live out their lives if they were destined for the "punishment" their entire life? Why not just create them in the "punishment" realm to begin with since thats where you "knew" they would end up anyways.
That's funny, because it reminds of what my best friend who always used to tell missionaries who come knocking on his doors, to basically piss them off: God creates you, then cuts off all contact with you and expects you to fend for yourself because hey, the evil in the world isn't HIS problem, HE didn't make it... Then, the next time you see him, he's all pissed off at you for not living by his personal standards, despite the fact that he never spoke to you directly to teach them to you. God is an abusive father.
But to get to the point, a monotheist can argue that human violence and suffering should not be explained or excused by attributing them to God, he created us out of love. Furthermore, fanatics would argue something along the line that all pain and suffering is not from God. But God does allow it to happen if it helps to mold our free will towards His perfection. We are sinful people... that sin must be purified.
Everyone is agnostic, because no one has knowledge that a god exists.
But agnostics are indecisive unlike atheists. A person like me avoids making any clear decision about God, even though my life becomes worthwhile by making decisions.
It might be better off to just make a clear choice of either theism or atheism, and making a decision. And even if it is the wrong one, it might be better than remaining in a state of indecision. Only God can tell (Sorry for the pun).