"This is my response to the posted video.
"Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it."
The question is invalid for several reasons, in regard to the Abrahamic God, as it fails to address several of His attributes:
A1) The question assumes materialism, and since the Christian God defies Materialism, this question is unnecessarily limited. God is not material, and thus lifting a stone is irrelevant to His omnipotence.
A2) Addressing the obvious circumstance of the Advent, and Christ being both man and God, this question remains invalid. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Christ, in His physical body to lift? Yes and no. The determining factor? His desires. If He desires to create a stone so large that His human body cannot lift, then He has to simply choose not to bolster that physical body, rendering it unable to lift the stone. Alternatively, should He choose, he could create a stone of any size, then empower the body to lift it, or alter the structure of the stone, or alter gravity, or alter some other physical limitation. This then renders the question irrelevant, as the Christian God can both fulfill and defy the parameters.
"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Again, this sentence is logically valid. If a being is able to prevent innocent babies from being born with Leukemia, but is not willing, then this being is a malevolent, colossal prick."
B1) To make this objective statement, you would have to first establish a moral code that such a being could be held to, otherwise you are begging the question. The statement assumes both an objective sense of morality, and that that being is to be held to that moral standard, but without justifying these assertions, and thus does indeed beg the question. Referring to the Christian God, you must use His own standard to judge His actions, as the rebuttal is attempting to find internal inconsistencies, not to mention that His Being transcends our own level of awareness and moral understanding, and there is no principle or requirement to give aid in all cases. Thus, God is not morally required by His own standard to act, and is thus not in contradiction with Himself.
B2) One must establish that a disease is evil, or the allowance of a disease is evil. One would have to present an argument that, objectively, diseases are evil and that not stopping every instance of a disease is evil, and that this objective standard applies to such a being. Applying this to the Christian God, there is no established Christian principle that defines a disease as inherently evil, as evil requires intent and action on the part of a moral agent, neither of which apply to a disease. Following from the previously stated point that God is not required to act, this would mean that a disease is not an evil, and God is not required to stop it even if it were.
B3) The assumption of innocence of the child both assumes an objective moral standard, and that that child has not broken that objective moral standards, neither of which have been presented by the video."
I'm interested in your thoughts.
