>>19634779>the world does not follow God's intentions.A necessary part of exempting god from blame this way is to assert that he's not all powerful, so this is not outside the bounds of the problem of evil. It's easy to solve the problem of evil by just giving up one of the premises, but of course that's the point of the premises, religions want to keep all of them.
>Even then, the things we perceive as good are not the same as what God perceives as good.This is the reasoning of a slave. If the only justification you can give for why something that's obviously evil is allowed to happen is
>Well the Lord lets it happen so it must be good in some way I can't perceivethen you are a slave. You have forfeited entirely your moral capacity as a human being and will accept whatever you are given is moral and just. Might as well be a moral relativist then; if it happens, it must be good, because it happened. Why make moral distinctions?
Harlequinn babies now can live past infancy sometimes (thanks to scientific inquiry and achievement), but not too long ago these babies died within a few days of being born. There's really no rationale for why this is good that doesn't also prompt the question of why bother letting them be born at all. If you're to scoop them out of existence after a few days of time where they can't make any decisions, what was the point of them being born?
The all-loving all-powerful god is a story for children.
