Hmm. Could Mackie be just a little more condescending maybe? I don't think I've been unnecessarily insulted enough yet (maybe I've been jaded by some of our local jackholes); he should've piled it on a bit thicker.
The only one that "answers" my objection in any way, shape, or form is number 4, which really doen't answer it at all. When addressing the concept that God chooses not to control will to make only right decisions, all of his responses are either based on the previous 3 sections (all of which were about objections that I agree are fallacious) or he merely says that he doesn't understand why God would choose not to control everything so tightly, which does diddly-squat to counter the concept in question.
By the by, God could separate...um...Godself, I guess the word should be, into two beings, both parts of the same divinity, and suspend the strength of one God-part so that it is unable to lift a rock, while the other God-part remains all-powerful. For a real-life application of this example, see Jesus.
And if I could step just a tad off-topic & connect over to something Kargath quoted (Modest Mouse), there are other nonbelievers who don't understand why God does manipulate things. So we have one guy (in this case, Brock) asking why, and another (Mackie) asking why not, supposedly both to argue against the same idea. We have just entered The Twilight Zone.
And remember, "Imagine if you will..." |