A similar topic was recently brought up in another forum I go to.
Basically there are some people that believe that since "God" is omnipotent and omniscient he must know what the future would bring, therefore he must approve of pain and suffering since he apparently does nothing to curtail human suffering.
My view is that if there is a God, he would be closest to the Diest version.
He created all, set the rules, put the ball in play, then backed off to let it do what it's going to do while he watches (or he may not even care to watch).
He would still be omnipotent.
The ability to control all does not imply the necessity or obligation to do so.
I could invent a board game.
I would know all the rules.
I would know how to cheat.
I would choose to abide by the rules I created.
The game does not have power over me, I chose to follow the constraints I invented.
The rules are imbedded into the game already.
The laws of physics.
There are no other unbreakable rules.
We can't break them, not because God is watching and will squash us with his thumb if we do, like the Tower of Babel or something.
We can't break them simply because they are integral to the design of the system.
I can kill you right now.
If God were "good" and enforced Biblical morality, I wouldn't be able to do that.
Since God created me with free will, I have the choice to kill you.
He CAN do something about it, but he doesn't because he is abiding by the rules of non-interference that he made for himself.
However, I can't fly to the moon right now under the power of the magic wings I tuck under my shirt while I am at work.
Not because God is watching me, but because it is a rule built into the game.
Allowing "evil" to happen to people does not make God malevolent himself.
He does not perpetrate the evil.
Abstention of interference does not imply malevolence.
Especially if "Heaven" exists.
The petty little woes that humans suffer on earth are but a speck of sand in eternity.
That is like saying if you mother cared about you she wouldn't let you get a hangnail.
Besides, the VAST majority of suffering humans go through is caused by other humans.
Maybe he is watching and saying, "You deserve it you shallow, self-absorbed, arrogant little fucks!"
Who's to say?
The point, however (believe it or not, I do have a point buried in here somewhere), is that someone could very well be omnipotent, but not interfere.
If he IS omnipotent, he has the power to turn his back if he wishes.
Omniscient means all-knowing.
Omnipotent means all-powerful.
A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.
Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... Unknowable by anyone.
If there is a "God" that designed this system, he very well could have designed it so the future can not be known nor entirely predictable.
Plus, as I said earlier, even if he DID have the ability to see into the future, he could simply choose not to.
Even if God does exist, what makes humans so arrogant to think that he would give a shit about the absurdly petty troubles and wishes of ANY of us, nevermind ALL of us.
If he cared even in the least about us, what would compel him to intervene in any way, nevermind orchestrate every least detail of everone's lives?
Even if he cared enough to intervene on some level, what makes us say that he would want life to be easy and happy for all?
If there is such thing as heaven, shangri-la, paradise, nibbana, etc, existence there, by account of all the major religions, is without trouble, difficulty, pain, strife...
If anything, life here would be a diversion from that, and the risks faced during your earthly lifetime is what would give this whiole existence any appeal to someone in a "paradise".
Don't you think?
