Okay, the notion of God is a classic battle Good vs Evil, with God being ruler and the maker of the rules.
Lets look at this in terms of a board game. Now both sides vi for the devotion of Jo Bloggs and the difference between who wins this battle is life or death for this poor chap. So this is the most serious board game you can have.
But thankfully the game designer is the good guy, who believes in being fair etc. This is bound to be at the very least be a level playing field game.
But it isn't is it?
Evil has much greater scope and power than good. I can go up to anyone in the street and if I wanted to be more evil to him than good. In fact I could destroy his life but I could do very little to add to his life. The imbalance here could not be bigger.
The devil has a much bigger arsenal of weapons to use than god. The odds are stacked against the very creator of the game, this can't be right.
No one in their right mind would have made the game with these rules, especially not the greatest power in the Universe.
I know that people will argue freewill but there are some changes that God should have made that would not have gone against freewill. For example he could have made people truly monogamous. Or he could have limited our capacity for aggression. You find animals in nature that still have freewill and these traits.
Not only could he have altered us but also the material world to limit evil. For instance he could have changed the rules that allowed for the atomic bomb.
The odds are so far stacked against Jo Bloggs being a 'true' religious individual that this game could not have had a creator with ultimate powers. Unless he was a fool and was setting out to lose!
Woody Alan sums up this in a very simple quote "But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever".
Lets look at this in terms of a board game. Now both sides vi for the devotion of Jo Bloggs and the difference between who wins this battle is life or death for this poor chap. So this is the most serious board game you can have.
But thankfully the game designer is the good guy, who believes in being fair etc. This is bound to be at the very least be a level playing field game.
But it isn't is it?
Evil has much greater scope and power than good. I can go up to anyone in the street and if I wanted to be more evil to him than good. In fact I could destroy his life but I could do very little to add to his life. The imbalance here could not be bigger.
The devil has a much bigger arsenal of weapons to use than god. The odds are stacked against the very creator of the game, this can't be right.
No one in their right mind would have made the game with these rules, especially not the greatest power in the Universe.
I know that people will argue freewill but there are some changes that God should have made that would not have gone against freewill. For example he could have made people truly monogamous. Or he could have limited our capacity for aggression. You find animals in nature that still have freewill and these traits.
Not only could he have altered us but also the material world to limit evil. For instance he could have changed the rules that allowed for the atomic bomb.
The odds are so far stacked against Jo Bloggs being a 'true' religious individual that this game could not have had a creator with ultimate powers. Unless he was a fool and was setting out to lose!
Woody Alan sums up this in a very simple quote "But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever".