Your post.
The thread has already covered why it is a strawman, why it is a sophism. So, as "food for thought" it is like offering a cabbage to a carnivore that has already feasted and is sated.
Is it wrong to judge the morality of God's actions?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
See? You thought about it.Your post.
The thread has already covered why it is a strawman, why it is a sophism. So, as "food for thought" it is like offering a cabbage to a carnivore that has already feasted and is sated.
See? You thought about it.
No more so than the carnivore might sniff the cabbage. At some point the carnivore might start thinking that the person offering the "food" is really just trying to antagonise and be a general nuisance.
Suppose you had godlike(even trumplike) powers to create and oversee a world or universe ,can you conceive of any such creation that would be more "moral
" than the one we actually do inhabit?
Isn't this the problem when we try to geo engineer the world because ,for example there is a fluffy creature (eg the koala bear) that is at the sharp end of climate change or avaricious human development?
If we devote our resources to our favourite species then other,equally worthy species suffer and the whole ecological equilibrium lies in our oh so reliable hands.
I am trying to make a point that the world we inhabit is both the best and the worst of all possible worlds and that it would be foolish to blame (or praise) any imagined God for it.
People do use the argument you have referenced in your caption to poo poo the belief in a god (eg Stephen Fry whom I respect) but I don't think it helps.
I might prefer the "Good Soldier Svejk's attitude of rolling with the punches and preserving his sanity for as long as possible in the face of the ridiculous.