Is God complicit in the sexual abuse of children

I look forward to a good discussion. I have two contentions to make.1. God's omniscience may not match our conception of it2. God may not be able to act or may be choosing the greater good by not actingContention #1 - God's omniscience may not match our conception of itThere are different views of God's sovereignty and God's omniscience within orthodox Christianity. Each lends different levels of support to theodicy. One of the weakest is Calvinism (which is probably the theological view that my opponent has come across); Arminianism is somewhere in the middle; and Molinism and open theism provide the strongest, in my opinion. Philosopher Alan Rhoda has provided this handy guide to the various forms of open theist thought: Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard espouses this position. Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker espouses this position. Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas espouses this position. Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they "will" obtain or that they "will not" obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they "might and might not" obtain. Greg Boyd (and yours truly) espouses this position. [1] Within the framework of some of these views, God's omniscience is retained but he has placed limits upon it to preserve the free will of humanity (essentially, it is an argument that foreknowledge can mean predestination in some cases). Within the framework of others, God does not and cannot know the future. Contention #2 - God may not be able to act or may be choosing the greater good by not actingHave you ever heard the argument that God cannot be all-powerful, because if he were he could create a stone to heavy for him to lift? This argument is fallacious because it confuses omnipotence with the ability to act against one's own nature or to defy the laws of logic. In a similar way, God may be barred by his nature from acting in certain circumstances, perhaps to preserve free will. That being said, allow me to quote Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at length:But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil. But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible. [2]Dr. Craig goes on to list some further contentions for why the problem of evil fails to disprove God:1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. [3]For all of these reasons, I contend that God is not guilty of being complicit in acts of child abuse. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal. Sources1. . http://www.alanrhoda.net...2. . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...3. Ibid.