The fawn burned. The reasons might be interesting. — tim wood

Yes, the fawn burned. And since we're going to assume that this is hard evidence for the problem of evil with respect to God, in as simple a case possibly stipulated, then no reasons for the goodness of God can be provided, can they?

Sure that's one ethos. Another would be the mantra associated with the dangers of dichotomization. Life is not like engineering where it's either A or B. But rather, the phenomenon of living life is usually A and B.

And so we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Accordingly, the book of Ecclesiastes is arguably the first formalized version of Existentialism. And is part of the OT Wisdom Books and quite thought-provoking.

Off topic but worth noting.

going to assume — Wallows

Assume, and you can demonstrate anything. Usually not worth the effort. There's a thread titled IRAC, about a way to rite posts, give the OP a read; it's not very long.

And why bother with fawns when you have the Holocaust, never mind the ministrations of Mao or Stalin or countless others. But those are human evils, yes? Ever occur to you that g/God cannot be evil, and if you have a problem with that, then it's your problem? - Or can h/He?!

Assume, and you can demonstrate anything. Usually not worth the effort. There's a thread titled IRAC, about a way to rite posts, give the OP a read; it's not very long. — tim wood

Not that I assumed you would agree; but, if this is the simplest case possible to demonstrate the problem of evil, if any such exist, then you can see why I would assume this to be one where I would want to present it to the public, for sake of clarity?

for sake of clarity? — Wallows

Whose clarity? I like clarity myself - and it cost me money to learn it. But here's a challenge: go back to your OP and try to see if anything in it is clear.

Btw, benevolence and power, each in itself, doesn't mix well with the other. Folks claiming g/God is both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent are unwittingly dealing in paradoxes that Christian thinkers worked out a long time ago. I.e., exhibiting ignorance.

Whose clarity? I like clarity myself - and it cost me money to learn it. But here's a challenge: go back to your OP and try to see if anything in it is clear. — tim wood

OK

Folks claiming g/God is both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent are unwittingly dealing in paradoxes that Christian thinkers worked out a long time ago. I.e., exhibiting ignorance. — tim wood

Then you got the point? Since the point is indefensible by definition, then what are we left to do?

Then you got the point? Since the point is indefensible by definition, then what are we left to do? — Wallows

Decide, leap. If g/God can burn the fawn, then you've got no guarantees. More fool you if you thought you did. Except for those you give yourself.

Decide, leap. If g/God can burn the fawn, then you've got no guarantees. More fool you if you thought you did. Except for those you give yourself. — tim wood

OK, so the point here is that God's actions are indefensible. So, then we plead ignorance or esoterics with regards to His character.

Otherwise, what should we abandon to make the situation less troublesome?

What is your response to the burning fawn scenario with respect to God? — Wallows

The universe wasn’t created for the fawn alone.

So, then we plead ignorance or esoterics with regards to His character. — Wallows

Whose character?

Whose character? — tim wood

God's character?

If we wind the clock back to before the notion of omnibenevolence but the existence of a god concept, there really is no contradiction is there? Gods before they were ever conceived of as benevolent, were nothing more than "humans" with enhanced powers. Modern-day super-heroes come very close to gods of such a time when goodness wasn't part of the definition of god.

That said, the fiery death of the hapless fawn and god's omnibenevolence make strange bedfellows. Is there any way we can reconcile the two? I can't think of any possible reason a good god would let a fawn burn to death.

However, notice that the problem here is a contradiction - a good god and the fawn's excruciating death. A contradiction is a logical problem and not a moral problem per se. I don't know how to best make this point but consider the situation that you're a sculptor and only possess a hammer as your tool. Your work will be shaped by the limits of your hammer and not the limits of the material you're working on: there are somethings your hammer will not allow you to do but that doesn't mean the material you're working on is itself limited in any way. Logic is like the hammer, limiting our appreciation of the material, here morality.

God's character? — Wallows

And what do you know about that?

A contradiction is a logical problem and not a moral problem per se. — TheMadFool

Is that always true?

And what do you know about that? — tim wood

Well, I know the main attribute being omni-everything. So, there's that.

If there is an 'almighty creator' and an afterlife, death and suffering are completely meaningless.

In what sense?

What meaning does death have if it doesn't end our existence?

Our sense of pain and suffering is supposed to alert us to threats to our life, but if an afterlife exists, there is nothing that can threaten our existence.

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't suppose there's an afterlife for the matter, or anyone or any being judging us after our stay on this rock.

Is that always true? — Wallows

I don't know. Contradictions are logically prohibited but notice that the key premise of morality, which I hope is your concern here, is a contradiction wherein an innately selfish being gets up and offers his comfortable seat to another in an act of altruism. When we start off on the wrong foot it's obvious that we'd get in trouble.

Think of it like this: every single living thing is god's offspring and like a good parent he shouldn't and wouldn't take sides in situations where interests of one party conflicts with the interests of another. God's child the poor fawn perishes in the fire but its body through decay will nourish maggots and bacteria, both also god's beloved creation. God's omnibenevolence stands

This seems more like trying to fit the characterization of God's omnibenevolence to the pertaining situation. One can always say, that God works in mysterious ways; but, that doesn't get us much afar, does it?

This seems more like trying to fit the characterization of God's omnibenevolence to the pertaining situation. One can always say, that God works in mysterious ways; but, that doesn't get us much afar, does it? — Wallows

I don't know. Did it fit?

The point is, you presume knowledge - one way or another - of something you absolutely have no knowledge of, and further, about that which a lot of smart people have concluded nothing can be known. And that's a problem.

What is your response to the burning fawn scenario with respect to God? — Wallows

My response is that there is a problem. It doesn't disprove God's existence. But there is a problem. I would be opposed to any deity that could not somehow convince me that this was necessary. And I don't think that would be easy to do, convince me that is.

I don't know. Did it fit? — TheMadFool

Not, really. The contradiction remains as stated. So, do we address the premises of the contradiction?

The point is, you presume knowledge - one way or another - of something you absolutely have no knowledge of, and further, about that which a lot of smart people have concluded nothing can be known. And that's a problem. — tim wood

But, the point is that is this some kind of joke we play on ourselves if God's omnibenevolence can be negated with such a simple example?

My response is that there is a problem. It doesn't disprove God's existence. But there is a problem. — Coben

Yes, well, what does that say about the mental gymnastics we play when presented with such things as God's omnibenevolence if we can come up with such examples as simple as this one?

Do you mean the gymnastics involved in explaining away such obvious problems?

Do you mean the gymnastics involved in explaining away such obvious problems? — Coben

Yes, I meant that sorry. Since this is an evidential claim, of a helpless fawn burning in a forest on fire, it seems that we're left with no recourse; but, to say that something is wrong with some of the attributes held by God.

but, to say that something is wrong with some of the attributes held by God. — Wallows

On what grounds?! You've got to stop making nonsense sometime. Or this, please list the attributes of g/God