/lit/ - Literature

>>16494414
Quite a few claims by theists have been made, I imagine, some more reasonable than others, but since that is not specific so the statement "mental gymnastics: the thread" is nearly meaningless.
>>16494481
I still don't understand why that matters. Why does God not care about our "subjective bads" since they are important to us if He is omnibenevolent?
>>16494641
So is the world wholly evil and wholly not good? I have not heard of that claim before or the one in your post. I don't understand how God could not prevent the worst evils and events without having to destroy the world.
>>16494941
That's not a reason to allow that to happen.
>>16494971
I assume you meant "qualitatively not free and no capacity for evil" unless you mean that what I said implied humans would still have a capacity for evil, and I guess you forgot to give a reason to believe. I don't exactly know, of course, because I don't know what it's like to have a different state of having free will (whether we have it or not, I don't know). If you go by the qualifiers I wrote, I do think it could be better.
>>16495003
>one cannot be free if some other force is preventing him from doing something or binding him to do something
If you give those constraints to free will, then humans already cannot be free.
>>16494985
If He doesn't, then He is not omnibenevolent.