Greg from Poeticalcynic asked this question, here is my take on it Greg.
Friedrich Nietzsche said:
“A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?”
Plenty of problems there:
1. “A god …who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention”
I would question the validity of this statement, I would ask how is this alone tested and proved, Empiricism? That carries its own problems. What about his creatures who do understand?
2. “Could be a God of goodness”
That is a platonic view of God, God is not made up of goodness or badness. A more Thomistic approach would seriously challenge this notion. Anyway, its also wrong because it assumes God is good according to what we feel good. Can we not be wrong? How do we decide what is good? by vote?
What about people who do not have this complain against God? God doesn’t have goodness in him, he is goodness. Just like he doesn’t have lovely feelings for us, he is Love.