Dr Rick

You've been provided with a paradigm of how a good god wouldn't operate, gleaned from considerable thought. Whether you disagree with it is irrelevant. We can disagree about how a good God might operate, but you are refusing even to even consider why he should be constrained by the desire for free will in humans. Until you do, I will presume that is because you have failed to think it through, or to see that if God operated much differently, he would be reaonable, loving, and compassionate instead of illogical, arbitrary, and contradictory.

It's a simple, fair and sincere question which I would highly recommend you answer. I for one would find a good answer to it more compelling and thought provoking than all of your prostletyzing and ramblings put together.

You merely posted a false dichotomy, which is not at all convincing.

That's not the Christian god, so let's not.

Stephen T-B

Excuse me, but I did suggest a modus operandi.

I'll expand:
We start off with an all-powerful, all-knowing deity.
Can do ANYTHING it likes, right? Can make up all the rules? Set all the parameters? The only things is isn’t in control of are its need for unsolicited love and willing obedience?
(Seems weird to me, but I take it that’s the picture you’ve got?)
So why does it create relatively short-lived human beings and put them in a fragile environment prone to mishaps which every now and then wipe out a few hundred, or thousand, or hundred thousand of them, causing the survivors immense and terrible misery?
Why does it cause them to inherit instincts, needs and desires from an ancient ancestry which it then tells them (but only via intermediaries of sometimes-dubious provenance) they’ve to resist and reject because they’re “sinful,” and that if they don’t, they’re being disobedient and their souls will be punished for eternity?

Why does it give them extraordinarily complex psychological make-ups which can in particular circumstances generate a Hitler or a Saddam or a Stalin or an Elizabeth Fry or a Wilberforce or a Ghandi or a Nelson Mandela?

I mean, what’s all that about?

If it needs pets, what’s wrong with dogs?

Llyricist

Radorth, next time respond to the arguments rather than the jokes.

For the upteenth time there is no dilemma between freewill and evil. You COULD have free will and not be able to choose anything evil, just as you DO have free will and not be able to choose to do anything you aren't physically capable of. And if you say Gold doesn't have that level of control over how things work.... say bye bye to Omnimax.

And whatever the hell your ridiculous questuion was about would people choose to be born here..... it doesn't change the fact that there is NOTHING preventing an omnimax god from providing a world free of natural disasters, not even allowing freewill, no matter HOW you look at it.

Radorth

I don't. That's pure and simplistic assumption and he seems surprised at how evil the world became and wished he had not made us at one point.

No he can't. He can't allow free will and not. He can't be arbitrary and be "good." (although you can make an argument that he appears arbitrary). He can't violate the laws of physics in some cases and not others without being accused of being even more arbitrary. He can't remove authority we don't like and then expect us to obey authority. There are inviolable principles involved if God is to be called good, just, longsuffering and righteous. What is truly ironic is that a lot of atheists would demand he take out Bush and Saddam Hussein at the same time, because they can't even tell any difference.

In any case what it is most important is that he cannot force people to serve him, and then expect them to obey him willingly, or call him good and benevolent. He is far better off, if he ever hopes to have the evil man repent and serve him willingly, to leave them alone and let them repent freely. The efficacy of this appraoch is well demonstrated by those like John Newton, the scum of the earth by his own admission, who wrote the most popular hymn ever.

The fact is, nobody will serve him just because he works miracles. He bailed the Israelites out a hundred times, and they still rebelled. Even if you doubt the story there, you see it repeated by parents who kill themselves to make their kids happy, and only end up spoiling them. The Exodus story is not far fetched at all in that sense.

Precisely! The only way to achieve that is to do what he is doing, which is generally very little UNTIL one chooses to serve him. Most converts can look back and see God at work all through their lives. Even the doubtful Franklin admitted that.

And for the umpteenth time, if people are in any way restricted from doing evil, they do not have free will. But of course, I'm trying to get us off that, and onto a productive discussion.

So do tell us how God could get YOU to obey him willingly, and give us a chance to sit back and throw out assertions and critique your leaps of logic.

Rad

Llyricist

Back up your assertion if you want it to be productive. I already gave examples of why this is false, all you do is assert. In fact, all you EVER do is assert, misquote, fail to respond to actual arguments, and engage in every fallacy you are capable of, the only reason I am responding to you now is to keep the record straight and that you responded to ME.
What God?? LOL this is really too much, you want me to tell you how a nonexistant being could get me to obey him...... tooooo much.

Sorry but I really don't like feeding trolls even as much as I have here.

Radorth

I think it's clear to most people what I'm asking, and that you are simply avoiding some fair and reasonable questions, but let me rephase.

What kind of God would you serve and obey willingly, or at least acknowledge his righteousness and goodness? What would change in your life, for example, if you saw a bonafide miracle yourself? If he ended all natural disasters, how many people would really change just because he did that? Given how few people count their blessings, IMO the world would change very little in ways that count.

I suggest that we can find examples of the Christian God doing many of those benevolent acts which you might list, but we will also be able to point out that very few were much affected by them.

Rad

long winded fool

Here we go. I never claimed that healthy humans couldn't exist without evil. I make the claim that they can't be morally free without the possibility of evil. If all choices must always ultimately lead to A (goodness/absence of evil) then yes, we have the free will to choose anything we want, because everything we all will ever want will always be the same thing. This is the kind of "free choice" brainwashed cult members have.

"If God is all loving, why doesn't God make us all want the same things?" is the logical translation of "Why doesn't an all-loving God prevent evil?" If you can't understand how the variable of free will answers the second, I hope you can at least see that it answers the first. Your conclusion only follows if you assume that an omnipotent being can logically be illogical. "If he can do anything, he can do paradoxical stuff. Therefore, he ought to be able to allow us free will and physically prevent us from making wrong choices." I do not assume that an omnipotent being can contradict itself. If this is the case then I, for one, can no longer honestly speculate on the nature of an omnipotent being, and if you can you're a deeper thinker than I am.

Llyricist

wooooooooooooosh - and the goal posts take flight again. You realize this is the first time you said MORALLY free. A different proposition entirely, but no less ridiculous, for different reasons perhaps.

Just to be sure, this IS the same God that will fry you for eternity if you should choose evil right? And you call that morally free? with that logic, we are perfectly free to break any laws in the U.S. (nevermind the laws and penalties).
There you go again, asserting that all non-evil things that people may want are the same. This is just false on its face. They aren't even the same morally. Consider this; a Man at an Interstate Exit with a sign "WIll work for food" or some such...
Person A gives the man 5 dollars
Person B Gives the man a sandwich
Person C doesnt do anything
Person D helps the man get a job
Person E gives the man odd jobs around his house for one day and pays him 30 dollars....

on and on with DIFFERENT NON evil things people can do that would do varying amounts of good for the person. Hardly a bunch of automitons that you are trying to claim. (what is this.. falacy of the excluded middle???)

lpetrich

Radorth:
I asked who would choose not to be born and to live here if told by God that parts of earth were dangerous. ...

So there are lots of logically possible things that Radorth's God could not do even if he wanted to?

That's not the traditional Xian God, who is omnimax.

Let us say that God is not "omnimax" (a vague term really)

I have a picture of Radorth being dragged in front of some committee of theologians and asked to explain why he thinks that the Xian God is neither omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent.

but only powerful enough to create life on an earth with certain "faults."

Let's say what? For what reason?

What if he searched the entire universe, and earth was the most inhabitable?

Meaning that if there is a Heaven, then it would be just as nasty a place -- and not really worthy of the name "Heaven" at all.

If this was the Middle Ages, those theologians' thoughts would be drifting toward some big barbecue. Especially if Radorth acted toward them in fashions that he is known to act.

What would you guys tell him? "Well OK, I'll live there, but you are a bad God for making an earth with bad weather and earthquake faults."

I'd say: "What a wimp you are! An allegedly omnipotent being who can't do any better?"

Ridiculous, especially when people choose to rebuild in flood plains and over earthquake faults.

I wonder when this wise guy will tell us where they are supposed to live.

The major problems with the world are caused by human stubbornness, stupidity, selfishness, greed, disobedience, irresponsible parents and overpopulation, which show no signs at all of going away.

Hmmm... Radorth is saying that everything bad that happens to us is all our fault. So if an asteroid hits the Earth near him, and he survives, he will accept that it's his fault?

At least not until free will is removed altogether, which I suspect will set off a firestorm of atheist bitching, the likes of which the world has never seen.

Like how is that supposed to happen?

And is punishing crime taking away criminals' free will, and therefore evil?

Dr Rick

...yup, another series of fallacies and nonsense...

It's an unsubstatiated claim; a mere assertion no more valid than claiming that they can't be morally free without omnipotence.

Limits in the effects of choices is not absence of free will; humans have profound limits on the choices they make and what effects they will have, so if limiting choices equates with no free will, then humans have no free will despite the possibility of evil.

In our current state of affairs, we could all want the same thing and still have earthquakes and floods. Likewise, we could all want different things while an omnipotent god prevent harm. Your translation is just a fallacious strawman.

I hope you can see why it doesn't.

There is no contradiction in preventing evil and allowing free will. An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil, an omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil, and a omniscient god would know how to prevent evil.

Another strawman. What you assume is your conclusion: that free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil

Either provide a logical argument for your conclusion, or drop it. Don't just assume your desired conclusion that free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, and you will be on your way to becoming a deeper thinker.