When you begin to "define" who and what God is it becomes necessary to state precisely in actual terms the nature of this person.
But, if the actions, activities, history of behavior (as recorded in a book attributed to him) contradicts those definitions what happens?
Nullifying proof has a "falsifying" effect.
God either IS or He ISN'T:
1.All-knowing
2.All-powerful
3.Eternal
4.Loving
5.Just
6.Wise
7.Purposeful
I would submit that the existence of destructive forces at work contrary to the stated purposes of such a personality as above described are prima facie evidence of "permission" .
To say that god desires that everyone should be saved and yet, to predict that only a relative few will be saved is to call into question His power to achieve His purpose.
For god to be unfailing in achievement is to make the end result perfectly correspond to His intentions. It cannot be otherwise.
If I want my little girl to cross the street without being hit by a car and yet I stand and watch it happen without exerting EVERY MEANS at my disposal to prevent her destruction, I am culpable.
God can be described as "calling out" for us to stop destructive behavior. But, if we don't heed his call or don't hear it or fail to understand the importance--should we be allowed our self-destruction? That is the way the Church frames the issue.
I repeat my above example. If my child defies my counsel and heads for the road--why wouldn't I let her go ahead and get hit by the car? Even if I could BRING HER BACK TO LIFE, would I, as a parent, ever in a million years consider it a good lesson to allow such an act to occur?
Then, how can I be kinder and a better parent than God?
No matter which way you turn the problem; God can only be considered in one of three modes toward humans:
1.Indifferent to suffering
2.Concerned and sympathetic but helpless
3.Concerned and sympathetic but unwilling to intervene
(I left out the option :
no God)
The idea that God needs to "prove" something to Satan or to weak and imperfect humans is laughable. Such an insecure God isn't much of a god at all.
If God isn't IN CHARGE of his creation, such a position in no way differs from being unable, unwilling or non-existent.
Freedom of choice is a ludicrous policy.
Why?
Let us take an example.
Hold a loaded gun to your head and put your finger on the trigger. What are the good choices vs the bad choices? (A wise choice would be to NEVER put the gun up to your head.)
1.Pull the trigger and die
2.Don't pull the trigger and live
Technically, mathematically there are 2 choices. But, survival-wise there aren't ANY choices. There can be NO consideration of the possibility of an action that causes the trigger to be pulled. Never!
So, what does that purport to prove?
The illusion of choice is a subterfuge, a non-issue.
By God giving mankind the built-in instinct to make right choices AUTOMATICALLY, God would have in no way limited humans in any way. By introducing "free will" into the equation what happens? The only possible "choice" is destructive. Mankind can NEVER BENEFIT from a "free choice" vs instinctual and automatic wise choice.
God cooked the books! He stacked the deck! He cheated the outcome!
There is only one conclusion we can arrive at in each of three considerations.
1.The state of the universe and particularly the condition of man and nature demonstrate no God is actively involved.
2.The way things are demonstrate that God is actively involved and he wants things TO BE EXACTLY the way they are.
3.God is unable, unwilling or unconcerned. We are God's video game; his reality TV; his amusement.
Take your pick!