It seems that this is hinging on God making sure we don't hurt each other by intervening in some way before the act is carried out....Let's say someone is going to kidnap a child. At what point does God stop them? Let's say this kidnapper had a bad childhood. (I'm using a real life example.) His brother sexually assaulted him many times, which means it probably happened to his brother, which means it probably happened to the person who did it to his brother etc...So on the day this man is driving around on the lookout for someone to take, he sees who he wants and runs out of gas. (God's intervetion) What does he do next? Are you saying that if he runs out of gas enough times he will eventually give up? If I follow this idea all the way to it's end, it seems that God would have to start with babies. But then what if the parents are just evil people? He should stop them from having children? It seems like what you are really saying is that God should just make us right to begin with so nothing will go wrong.Okay, this is worth responding to. Good questions and good point. Thank you. Since she may be speaking the thoughts of others, let me respond below:
There are three prior possibilities that you must first deal with before we should consider your questions. 1) I have argued here that God did not have a reason for creating anything at all, but even if he did so anyway, then 2) he could've and should've created a heavenly world with heavenly beings in the first place (I reject any notion that a being in the direct unmediated presence of an all powerful and perfectly loving God would ever under any circumstances rebel). And I also argue that 3) given the intense suffering in this world (both with animals and human beings) and the suffering of billions of people forever in hell, that God should not have given these creatures free will in the first place. It was an immoral decision of God’s by any standards we have to judge whether a good God exists or not, which are the same moral standards that Christians themselves use to judge the morality of any act. To those who want to maintain that free will is an overweighing good, I argue that free will is not such a good thing. Besides, we do not have abstract freedom anyway, able to do whatever we want to do. We are limited by our age, gender, physical strength and stamina, looks, finances, social status, era we live in, and where we live. Since this is so, further limiting our free choices when we already have limited freedom anyway is not a problem, especially when we see the Biblical God doing just that in several cases (Pharaoh’s hardened heart, planting thoughts (or dreams) into someone’s head (Paul’s visions), making a person insane (Nebuchadnezzar), and/or simply killing them (Herod, Uzzah, Ananias & Sapphira).
Hence the questions and points that you make are nonsensical until you first deal with these three prior possibilities.
If however, for no good reason at all (especially for no good moral reason) God created a fleshly world with free creatures in it, then and only then are we faced with the difficulties you point out, but they are not difficulties at all, especially for God. Let me explain.
Yes, there are generational moral deficiencies passed down through the ages. I simply say nip this in the bud at the very first person in the generational line to screw up. If Adam & Eve existed, start with them, and I’ve already argued this case here.
If a man is about to start a generational chain of molesters, stop him from molesting his first victim. It’s that simple. If he’s religious, try by planting thoughts into his head at an early age. Keep him from those experiences which will cause him to desire this, if possible. Start young in his life, and early as needed. I see no difficulty for this with an omniscient God who is reading his thoughts as he thinks them. If he continues to rebel, and I simply see no reason he would if God monitors his thought life and redirects it, then give him a heart attack the day he decides to do it. What exactly is the problem here, since as the author of life you will claim he can take it away? And this could be repeated for any heinous moral act down through the centuries. If you want to maintain we need some problems to challenge us, then God need not stop all “sinful” acts, only the most heinous ones. If you want to claim that for all you know he does stop many of them, there is no evidence that he does, and the number of sicko’s out there left to wreak havoc upon us means he doesn’t do enough.