by black_knight6 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:41 pm
False, you just admitted what I said and then violated it in the next sentence. You claim that our determination of someone as being "innocent" and being unable to exercise any free will as such...but that's not obvious at all - that's what I'm contesting.
On two levels. First, I suggested that our metric of what is 'innocent' isn't perfect. Second, it might be that the best of all possible worlds is only attained through the deaths of some such beings...so it's doubly unclear that even IF such a being was innocent and SEEMS to have suffered unjustly, it doesn't follow that it WAS unjust...innocent suffering may be just, for all we know...cuz we don't know/can't know God completely.