I never got this. They say he is omnipotent, therefore he does not perceive time in a linear way like we do. He knows everything that ever was, is and will be all at once. So there is not much to test here. Either he does the things needed to make me a believer or he doesn't. It's his choice and not mine. Free will is meaningless here, even if it does exist, he does already knows my choice before I make it or he is not omnipotent.
You are an omniscient and all powerful God.
You create someone who is tortured and killed in a war at the age of 2.
You are a benevolent God because you helped that person experience the full spectrum of what life has to offer.
The 2 year old did not acknowledge your supreme authority because you did not give it a developed brain to grasp the concept and so they burn in hell for eternity, never able to fully comprehend what happened to them. Their entire existence is one of suffering and unexplainable agony.
You are a benevolent God.
Plus, he also knew you wouldn't accept him even before he created you.
I brought a question like this up in a church. It was not well received.
Stop judging me by how I play Rollercoaster Tycoon >:(
No, because you define "evil" as "against your will", and "good" as "anything you do".
He'S nOt EvIl, He SaVeS yOu!
if only it was just death by trolley... but no no.. ists actually burning for the eternity in a fiery pit of lava and ash, you know, love.
That's what happen when you make up some entity to be responsible for everything including suffering and shits
Is the real riddle about not being powerful enough or smart enough to spell omniscient correctly?
Here's my take.
Whether "God" is all good, all knowing, all capable, or all something else is an irrelevant question. It presumes "God" has motivation to demonstrate any of these "all"s in a way we could comprehend, and I'm not talking about the Futurama idea "when you're doing it right, they won't be sure you've done anything at all" deal.
I mean that "God" is gone. Packed their shit up and moved on, when exactly they'd have done this is up for debate, but for relatability's sake I'll say after the ascension of Jesus.
"Jesus died for our sins.", this phrase references Jesus's cleansing the human race of original sin, the frustrated children of young earth creationists accuse this notion of "God" forgiving humanity for trying to learn things, but since the Torah is intended as a metaphorical text, I take the meaning of what Jesus cleansed humanity of as "sins of the father."
Basically, "God" made humanity, and then left when humanity gained self awareness and individuality. The point of any religion they'd have placed on earth, or any messenger they'd have sent would be to model good behaviour for the people they appear to, and then to leave those people to learn to choose to behave themselves, not for fear of punishment or for promise of salvation, but because doing the right thing in a moment is just the right thing to do, and that alone merits doing it.
So the chain of development is "God" makes the world and the beginning stages of humanity, at some point "God" takes the training wheels off by making every individual responsible for their own actions rather than to be tied inextricably to some ancestor's will or legacy or crimes, "God" leaves to give humanity the free will to choose goodness for goodness' own sake rather than out of some command to do so.
In other words, if there's a great and powerful creator, they're obviously not here to intervene for their own law, and that'd probably be by design if their intention was for us to exercise our own free will in a moral manner.
Regardless of if the shoe fits or not mythologically, I feel like the "do right for right's own sake" is a proper enough "final imperative" in a free will model of the world.
The Christian solution to the Trolley Problem: "Don't worry, guys on the tracks! I'll pray for you!"
