Mr. X: "God, how can you do this to us despite being omnibenevolent and omnipotent?"
God: "My omnibenevolent plan involves you suffering for a graham's number to the factoral number of eons."
Mr. X: "But couldn't you use your omnipotence to implement the plan without this suffering?"
God: "I could, but I'm using my omnipotence to make it so that everyone suffers for a graham's number to the factoral number of eons without contradicting my omnibenevolence."
Mr. X: "But..."
God: "I got omnipotence, biyatch!"
Euthyphro's Dilemma is a shit-sucker as it is, but if you believe in omnipotence at all -- well, or at least a reasonably close facsimile that isn't inherently contradictory, anyway -- you're forced to accept it by definition.
I'm not contesting the non-omnibenevolent part, I'm contesting the 'still not evil' part. Unless you're saying that this being's resources are limited in such a way that they're unaware or unable to help humans at all without compromising the greater good. Whereupon I would have a hard time wondering why you would even call this entity 'god' in the context of this thread since their power doesn't even rise to that of a Star Trek captain unless you have some very specific special pleading in mind.Schleiermacher wrote:I'm not sure why you quoted me there, both because you took my first sentence out of context and because I pretty clearly said "non-omnibenevolent".
Regardless, that was the point of the quote. Any sufficiently opaque motivation that results in unexplained yet supposedly preventable suffering (whether by commission or omission) is indistinguishable from malice.