| DarkWraith said: science has nothing to do with god, true enough logic does. a priori reasoning is exactly perfect for this task. if you define a being with certain attributes those then become true by definition for argument. these attributes can then be used as premises. for example: 1) God exists. 2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. 4) An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6) A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7) If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. 8) Evil exists (logical contradiction). this can be applied to any god concept to test for internal consistency and consistency with the observable world |
The flaws in your argument are 6 and 7. Your argument is tantamount to:
1) Parents love their children
2) Parents don't want their children to get hit by cars.
3) Parents know their children can get hit by cars if they leave the house.
4) Parents have the power to keep their children at home.
5) Parents who love their children don't let them leave the house.
Do you see the flaw there? You are making the assumption that if you have the motivation and the power, you can be lead to only a single conclusion.
God created us with free will. Does he want us to be evil? No. But if he created us without the ability to make bad decisions, we'd be without free will. Just like parents allow their children to leave the house, even though it's less safe than being at home, he has given us the ability to decide our own fates.
