I swear, Notre Dame must be heavy into omnipotence right now because the number of threads related to this have been off the charts in the last few days. Are all the theology students flocking to this website to discuss the abstractions they covered in their theology classes?

there are countless ways for God to help humans survive and thrive in society — Matthew724

I mean, how can this in any way be serious? Why would God even make it so people have to struggle to survive? This is nonsense. Tell me how your God cheers on the doctors trying to save children's lives through intricate surgeries. Just stands there, with mouth gaping, wishing them luck as a little girl's life hangs in the balance.

God aside, the OP confuses capitalism with competition. Capitalism is a system under which (among other things) market participation becomes a necessity for survival. Pre-capitalist systems are full of competition, just as they are full of markets, but market-competition is simply one aspect of economic life rather than its driving principle. There is nothing natural about capitalism, which is a distinct historical formation kept in place by distinct arrangements of politics and force.

"... And the lion will lie with the kid..."

Eventually all people and animals become herbavores, it seems. We might still fight for water and shrubbery, but there will be enough shrubberers (who sell shrubbery) for a while to keep up well supplied with shrubbery.

As the population of the world grows, the shurbbery prices will be driven up, which will mean a colossal economic collapse at one point, that will dwarve the Great Depression in monumental dimensions.

:up:

If the God of classical theism exists, then God is omnipotent (all-powerful). Given that God is all-powerful, would God set up the world in such a way where humans compete for resources? — Matthew724

Probably because in the historical moment when all the philosophy and theology developed in defending the existence of God, the economy, as it is currently structured, did not even exist as a concept. In fact, the structure of christian dogma is outdated in certain aspects, and in the economic aspect, this was not even thought of, but then, God doesn't care about our mundane problems. Economy wasn't his creation.

"... And the lion will lie with the kid..." — god must be atheist

However, the lion will sleep a lot better than the kid will.

You are assuming that God is not a fan of Darwinian selection. Actually God set up the world with vicious competition at its core to see what would happen after thousands of years of strong bastards crushing wimps.

Now we know, and so does God.

I mean, how can this in any way be serious? Why would God even make it so people have to struggle to survive? — JerseyFlight

God made the World in six days flat
On the seventh he said, I'll rest
So he let the thing into orbit swing
To give it a dry run test
A billion years went by
Then he took a look at the whirling blob
His spirits fell as he shrugged
Oh well, it was only a six-day job

Rhymes for the Irreverent - Chad Mitchell Trio

Omnipotence need not mean all-loving right? OP seems to be looking at a case for a loving God, while presenting Omnipotence as the driving force for the argument. It's not a question of can or cannot God carry out certain kinds of actions, but rather did not carry them out.
There's a lot going on in the argument that OP presents, and I'm not entirely sure that I follow. However, let's consider his premises for the argument, I can think of some problems with them. The shift from premise 1 and 2, seems to rely on a logical jump from a logical jump. There are possibly (on the face of it anyway) other alternatives in which such a situation may arise. Ones that could be explained within the context of the existence of God and even one in the context of a multiverse theory where our universe is just not well-designed in the way that classical theism speaks of it.

I do not understand why this assumption was taken for granted this is basically the equivalent of saying that this is how God created the world as is. Classical Theism even provides explanations for the injustice in the world, describing to some extent what God's final intent for humans was. I don't understand why we would disregard those reasons and step over them to accept premise 2. Any Classical Theism theorist, like Aquinas or Augustine all worked within the context of Scripture while theorizing and much of their explanations fall well within the confines of scripture; because that's the metaphysical background they working with. The argument here relies on an assumed falsification of scripture that was the fundamental basis for classical theism. While I may not necessarily disagree with the conclusions, I would really wonder from a purely argumentative perspective if this argument is valid in the sense of justifying discarding classical theism altogether.

So when you say that there is no reason to assume a world such as this on Classical Theism; I think all theorists at that time had plenty of reasons to give for why the world was imperfect and that people should work for their salvation. It never admitted the world was perfect; otherwise there would be no need for salvation. The entire premise of classical theism and religion is that we should be good people so that we go to heaven; in the absence of such a heaven there would be no practical case for religion and any argument made based on the imperfection of the world can't directly invalidate classical theism because classical theism was okay with it and in harmony with the idea. If you consider this, then I don't think that Naturalism has any greater value than classical theism.

On the second objection whether God needs competition to improve people's lives, that's a trivial point. The fact that God can do anything but chooses not to can't be used to invalidated classical theism because it's not certainly known what God would really ever do or should really ever do. This entire section of objections depends on an assumption that we've figured out some objective moral truth that even God would follow. But fact of the matter is, can you really justify such a moral obligation? Do you have objective knowledge that such a moral obligation should apply to even the most supreme being?

There are a lot of grey areas here which make me question the integrity of this argument. Would love to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

For the countless worldwide for whom there is/was naught to be thankful on Thanksgiving Day—nor any other day, for that matter …

GRACE
Pass me the holiday turkey, peas
and the delicious stuffing flanked
by buttered potatoes with gravy
since I’ve said grace with plenty ease,
for the good food received I’ve thanked
my Maker who’s found me worthy.
It seems that unlike the many of those
in the unlucky Third World nation,
I’ve been found by God deserving
to not have to endure the awful woes
and the stomach wrenching starvation
suffered by them with no dinner serving.
Therefore hand over to me the corn
the cranberry sauce, fresh baked bread
since for my grub I’ve praised the Lord,
yet I need not hear about those born
whose meal I’ve been granted instead,
as they receive naught of the grand hoard.