This subject has been spoken of before. But I would like to revisit it. What we know today as Epicurus' Riddle: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Is unanswerable by the world's big three monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). The same would apply to other religions also that believed in one or more Gods/Goddesses possessing the attributes of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence.
If God wants to prevent evil but is unable, he is not all powerful. If he is able but unwilling then he is evil. And if God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then where does evil even come from ? And the kicker; if God doesn't want to prevent evil, and is unable to anyway, then why even call him God ? The only answer I see is that an all powerful, all knowing, and all good God simply does not exist. As for a deist type God, such a Deity might as well not exist, since it is impersonal, doesn't intervene, and doesn't care. What are anyone else's thoughts ?
I think your answer is the logical one, Tony. God is pretend. God is imaginary.
Just today on the phone my longtime theist friend asked me personal questions like do I still believe in god? Do I ever talk to Jesus? He says he talks to Jesus daily and he has "personal favor" because "they are friends." When I was a child Casper the friendly ghost was my friend.
My childhood theist buddy is delusional and just like most of the rest of them today.
Two out of three is the best you get. Of course, we could take the shortcut of reading God's book: "I am a jealous God. My name is Jealous." Or "I bring evil into the world. I, the Lord, do all these things." Or "Have you considered my servant Job?" Then there's "But he could not drive out the people of the plain because they had chariots of iron."
Omniscient? Unfalsifiable. Omnipotent? False. Omnibenevolent? Somehow, I think not.
C'mon, Anthony. You know the answer, just like I do. There is no god. If there were and he/she/it were ultimately responsible for a mess of the size and scope which is this creation, he/she/it would hide his/her/its head in shame, and rightly so. Richard Dawkins had the Abrahamic god pegged years ago, and if such a deity had the chutzpah to show up now, said being could well be said to be the ultimate masochist for the abuse it would take.
As it is, the only thing we have to blame are the processes defined by the laws of physics, which made our lives possible in the first place, faults and all. They could wipe us out in a nanosecond (and they still can) and not feel a scintilla of remorse ... but then they don't feel ANYTHING, nor could they.
It is as Sarah Connor of Terminator fame once said: "There is no fate but what we make."
As well as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, "God" is, (supposedly), Eternal, and Unchanging.
And "God" "made" the heavens and the earth. "He" "made" the land and the waters and populated them with all of the animals and with Adam and Eve, of humankind, to whom he "gave majesty" over it all. "God" "looked" at it all, and "saw"that it was good. He was satisfied, and on the seventh day "God" "rested".
He trusted Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but they disobeyed and all of mankind, and animal-kind too, has been made to suffer since. And later, "God" saw that humans had misbehaved so, that he sent a global flood, so that all of life on earth could be extinguished, bar Noah, and his wife and family, and animals, two of each kind, which survived on an ark.
And so we see that "God" must have been blind, when "he" saw that all was good, when he rested, (ie. 'stayed "his" hand'), on the seventh or sabbath day.
Yet when "God" was "sore" with Adam, and Eve, and then later, the whole of mankind at the time of the great flood, he changed his mind, and meted out punishments. Thus was "God" not unchanging, but changed his mind and saw that all was not good.
So the supposed magnificent attributes of the supposed god, are tainted and flawed. Of course if all of the tales of "God" and "his doings" are just fantasies, manufactured in the minds of poorly-informed people, then it is not especially surprising that the concept of "God" is so fractured, for it all would be fictions!!!
P.S. I'm not quoting any Bible, or "holy" text, just paraphrasing.
Good job there, Gila Guerilla. Looks like bronze age people didn't understand ethics very well. Those wanting to blindly believe don't either.
There isn't one Tony. But if there was one, then he/she/it is horrible beyond belief...
Suppose that free will and freedom from evil are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other.
What if, by God's measure, free will is more benevolent than freedom from evil.
God can give one or the other to humanity.
Is the riddle still unsolved?