"if God fails to act allowing evil to exist, by choice."

If evil is a part of perfection, destroying it would be quite evil.

It has always been the churches position that, as they sing in their Exsultet hymn, Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh's plan.

Nature agrees and we have to suffer the bit of evil imposed on us by evolution, in the name of the greater good of not going extinct.

There is no real problem of evil, as humans exhibit a lot more good than evil.

Check the stats and not the lying preachers. Not to downplay the real suffering out there and here.

Regards
DL

Why do you anthropomorphize? Please explain, thank you.

Such ad hoc argument by special pleading is the only way they can rescue their argument from Evil. Which is pretty strong when used against a Moral Agent so called "god". Theodicies all fail. Even the Free Will Theodicy. At best Skeptical Theism might rescue theodicies. But OTOH if yer God doesn't need a Theodicy in the first place because moral evaluation of said God is, given His Nature, rationally incoherent than it doesn't matter in the second place. Yer argument becomes a non-starter. It cannot be otherwise. The Gnu becomes as impotent as his equally lame brother Gnu who has an arsenal of brutal scientific critiques of so called "Scientific" Young Earth Creationism who comes face to face with a Theistic Evolutionist who agrees with those critiques! Non-starters strike again! At which point the Gnu further tries to argue ad hoc "The Bible can only be interpreted in a fundamentalist YEC way!". Hilarity ensues!

Thus the rational Classic Theist and or rational philosophically minded Atheist can safely conclude if it turns out no God of any sort exists the Gnus merely made a lucky guess. None of them got there by any rational processes. They might have just tossed a coin.

Finally moral goodness is solely the goodness done by rational creatures who are fulfilling their duty to rational principles which they are subordinate too. There is no uber rational principle compelling God to have obligations to His creatures as no rational principle can be greater than Him who is by definition metaphysically ultimate nor be equal and yer distinct from him for the same reason. God given the Classic Divine Nature can only be a Moral Law Unto Himself. So God not doing some specific good to creatures He could do, but doesn't, is not by defintion a moral failing. Animals who do good to other animals are not acting morally. An animal who helps another isn't rationally submitting to some code of honor. Some Dog or Cat Bushitto or code of chivalry. Animals cannot in principle or by definition perform acts of moral good. People who claim otherwise are just intellectual children.

Gnus need to learn to grow up and grow a brain stem. They need to abandon Gnu Atheism and embrace philosophical Atheism if they even hope to compete with Classic Theism. I won't hold my breath. As the pagan saying goes "Against stupidity even the gods themselves contend in vain".

Some people love stupidity which is a shame because they could be so much more.....

Is yer interpretation infallible? If not why should I believe it? At best it is equal to Pope Leo's interpretation so there is no reason to prefer yours over his. OTOH if Pope Leo has the objective authority to interpret it then by definition yer intepretation has no force.

God is not a moral agent ergo God doesn't need a theodicy. Father Brian Davies refutes all known theodicies in his works and I agree with him.

Yer whole argument for months has been to not argue with the God we all believe in but the "god" you wished we all believed in. Thus all yer objections are non-starters. Yer just not competent to make the case and you don't want to be. Also yer childish whining is tedious.

No "moral agent god" exists as far as I am concerned. So for you to succeed here requires you put on the hat of a Theistic Apologist and prove this "god" exists. I absolutely lack belief in such a god.
Good luck with that.

Sorry but you cannot argue by ad hoc redefining my God's nature. This is not rational argument this is question begging. BTW yer English here is still crap and yer writing is still incoherent gibberish.

> God is a moral agent if God fails to act

No what would make God a moral agent is if He was subject to a moral obligation greater than Himself. He is not as God is metaphysically ultimate and nothing is His equal by definition.

You cannot argue by redefining our beliefs to suit yer tastes. That is being silly.

>Cute, but we are not talking about God as a Bike Rider.

No we are talking about God as understood by Classic Theism and Scholasticism and Thomism. You want to argue against a "god" you made up oot of yer arse that nobody here believes in and or confesses because you lack the knowledge and competence to argue against the existence of such a God so you have spent months wasting everybody's time with non-starter objections. You repeat the same silly nonsense over and over and you have yet to make even one intelligent argument.

Let's face it WCB. You are arguing with the last fundamentalist Theistic Personalist Baptist you butted heads with and you have a clue how to argue against Catholicism other then to close yer eyes and pretend it is exactly like Fundamentalist Baptist Christianity just because there are a few similarities.

BTW quoting Bible verses about Predestination means nothing. Calvin interpreted these verses (Eph 1:11 etc) one way and Aquinas another and you still don't know the difference

Yer pathetic at this point. You could be better but you choose not to be.

You purposefully never answered the question. That is childish.

"Do you have evidence or a philosophical syllogism that you can offer me to support your claim of being God?"

I have more for reason than you have for your unreason.

Yes, I know you believe without evidence of proof.

That is the problem with the faith of fools who have lost their intelligence to supernatural thinking.

The logos I use will always trump the mythos you use.

If you want to start using logic and reason, I am here for you.

Otherwise, go find another child to chat with. I have put away the things of children and so should you.

Regards
DL

I believe in a creator God, and regardless of your straw misunderstandings, you are not Him. You present Him as evil, yet as a Gnostic, He could not be evil because He is immaterial. So it is a non-sequitur by either a Gnostic or CT understanding. Really it is just a meaningless provocative assertion.

Do you have evidence or a philosophical syllogism that you can offer me to support your claim of of being God?