You're insinuating that god gives no alternative to playing in the street. Sorry I'm so late to the thread
The alternative given to the child in that scenario would be: "but if you don't play in the street, I'll buy you as much candy as you want."
...Why did you triplepost necro instead of editing?
You are correct and here is the corrected situation:
I have told my child to not play in the street. As an adult, they are about to play in the street anyway. I tell them "I will give you infinite candy forever if you don't play in the street, and if you are killed in the street, your stepbrother will torture you forever." They decide to do so anyway. I see a car coming that will hit them, and I have powerful psychic abilities to stop the car.
If I have the POWER to stop the car (with no impact to anyone else), and I do NOT stop it, how can I be seen as benevolent? And, with the
common* Christian assumption there is a Hell you are damned to for
eternity, how can I further be seen as benevolent for preventing an infinite punishment for an action I can see and stop?
I used this analogy because a common statement among Christians is "we are God's children, the sheep of his flock" - correctly connotating in the Christian mindset that we are limited in our knowledge. We are not capable of completely knowing what is good and are thus reliant on God's advice to do good - but the thing is, as "children"/"sheep", we are still obviously capable of following the "wrong" options. However, if the consequences are
infinite torture for disobedience,
that I have the power to stop, how can I be seen as omnibenevolent for allowing my
children to engage in these options even if it robs them of freedom of action?
I continue to maintain: all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good. Pick two. "Free will", assuming it does exist, does not handwave this fundamental contradiction.
*yes, not all christians believe that, but the majority do so it's a part of the Christian worldview