long winded fool

Okay, it's probably better to take this one step at a time anayway.

The choice must exist because the freedom to reject God exists. Be careful! You can't claim that it doesn't since it is a premise in your argument. (If God exists, then...) "God" is the god of the Bible correct? Therefore He has all the characteristics that are claimed in the Bible, including the claim that humans have the freedom to choose or reject Him. See? The choice must exist in the argument.

Furthermore, here you say suffering is not necessarily evil, BUT the second sentence of this paragraph you DEFINED suffering AS evil

Consistency is not your strong suit apparently. Of course it isn't a strong suit of the Bible either.


Suffering isn't evil. How's that?

I suggest you look up the phrase post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Suffering isn't evil. Some suffering comes from evil. Evil results in suffering. (Otherwise we wouldn't call it evil.) Suffering makes a thing evil, but suffering is not indicative of the presence of evil. Can you understand the logic behind these things?

No it cannot be a teaching tool since we have no way of knowing from whence the evil came, as you as much as state right here. and consequently:

You have achieved the very thing you sought to avoid just a few sentences before in the same paragraph! except that you always get the opposite consequences

So.... judging by your very scattered responses, we agree then that suffering must exist? Since we have brains, we can know what is evil and what isn't. Since certain things cause suffering, we ought to avoid them. I admit that suffering exists. I admit that evil results in suffering. I admit that suffering ought to be avoided if possible. Is that what you're looking for here? These are all compatible with, (and indeed implied in,) my argument you know. You don't seem to have thought your responses through here. You jump from one claim to another with seemingly no rational connection. Try relaxing and seeing what I say from an objective intellectual point of view instead of a fiery, subjective, "model atheist" point of view.

By the fact that many "evil" choices would not involve harming the innocent, that the harm, the consequences can and should be felt only by the transgressor And ONLY then could the evil be said to provide a learning mechanism, and ONLY then would the choices become distinguishable!

Why? Where do you get the assumption that the worst suffering should be felt by the one doing the evil? This is a false assumption. Don't you see that this necessarily takes away free will? If everything I do comes back immediately to me, then I have no free will do do something horrible and get away with it. I am physically prevented from doing bad things. This is good for humans to prevent crime and bad for God to prevent evil, remember? Humans can take away free will in a minor way, because we're not omnipotent. If God does it, we don't exist, or else we are automatons and love doesn't exist. Love is good, God is good, etc. Please reread my last post because it is all perfectly logical.

HOW can anyone reasonably choose to love an all-powerful god that allows innocents to suffer? The idea of reasoned choice to love pretty much revolves around respect and admiration for the good someone has done. God has demonstrated little to warrant that respect or admiration. So on what basis should people choose to love him again?

Aha. Here we're finally back to the thread. How can you love a God who allows innocents to suffer? I'll answer this question if you can answer this one. "How can a brother love his father if the father allows his daughter to steal and eat her brother's cupcake?" The father can physcially stop it and he doesn't. All he does is tell her not to do it. Her brother gets mad at her and she feels bad. The Father could have prevented the innocent son from suffering but he didn't. Is this love? Is the father wrong? This is all I need, by the way. These things are totally analogous if we are going by the Bible which we are. Suffering is trivial. Death is trivial. (as trivial as not getting to eat a cupcake in God's eyes.) Freedom to choose is all important. (As important as a father being mentally able to allow his children to not get what they want even if he has the power to give it.)

Umm people don't even have the ability to physically force anyone to think the way they think, so this argument is Moot.

LOL. Aren't we assuming that God does? Boy you are really dancing here!

For a human, yes. An omnimax god however could do it transparently, you wouldn't even know you were coerced.... We would feel no less free.
Besides where exactly do we find the clear, unambiguous good advice from God again? The Bible is NOT it.

As long as we don't know we're being coerced, then we are free?

Now you've changed your argument, BTW. You have officially resorted to a strawman. I am unaware of what god you are reffering to because the god I'm arguing about is the god mentioned in the op which is the biblical god. If you need to change this premise then you cannot refute my argument.

So God has that freedom too, yes? Apparently, Since all indications are that he has chosen NOT-love (assuming he exists)

Care to back this up with anything? If God is Love, can God choose not to love? Does He have this choice? If God is omnipotent, can He make himself not omnipotent? Does He have this power? You are confused about the difference between particular (human) and universal (God.) A universal cannot also be a particular.

On edit: This is in no way comprehensive, there are many other problems with the post that I did not take the time to dissect. For instance, I let the non-sequiters stand in persuit of the contradictions etc...

This is wise of you. You want to save face and I don't blame you, but once logic abandoned your argument it seems everyone else abandoned it too. Except you.

Llyricist

Excuse me, but this God is a premise of YOUR argument. My argument has only been to endlessly repeat the OP, that a Loving father, interventionist God would not allow his children (Christians) to hurt eachother.
OR
If Christians harm eachother THEN The loving father, interventionist, omnimax god does not exist.

The premise is Christians harming eachother, NOT the existence of a god.
I think YOU should look up post hoc ergo prompter hoc

Yes but I don't think you do. Going with this new definition (goal posts again!!!) your original claim of the Kingdom of God being a place without suffering is no longer valid.

No, only that it DOES exist.
I thought them through just fine, you just said a lot of word salad without once addressing the point that under the circumstances of suffering not being necessarily connected with evil, it cannot be a tool for learning.

Actually I am arguing that if there was a god that was anything like a loving father, that is how it WOULD be.
And a loving father allows his children to do horrible things and get away with it??? is that what you are saying???
As I have noted before, you have one wacked out idea of what love is.
I remember you making this assertion, but I never agreed to it.
LMAO!!! please re read Dr Rick's post, this makes exactly the same amount of sense.

For biological reasons of course, the brother doesn't have any choice, he hates what the father does but he can't help but love his father....... which is my ENTIRE point about this love NOT being a free choice.
Thank you for proving it further.
I'll re iterate the question, how can anyone reasonably choose to love an all-powerful god that allows innocents to suffer?

I notice you rephrased my question to escape the obvious implications of your own positing of free choice to love. Do you really think that your obfuscation and fallacious tactics aren't seen by all?
Wrong, it was all _I_ needed, thank you
Ahem, which YOU assert you are.
And if this is the case, he isn't much of a loving father.
No I'm saying right out that an Omnimax god WOULD have that ability. Sorry I can't hold a candle to your dancing ability, I'm stuck in the mud of ACTUAL logic, reason, evidence, and staying on point
Yep, we are coerced all the time by our own nature and desires whenever we make any choice, so what would be the difference if an omnimax god implanted the same sort of drives, only make them too powerful to ignore? (clue: those types of drives happen all the time in certain people, sometimes good, sometimes demonstrably bad)
ummm no, that isn't how it works. you can't load up your premise with "facts" in dispute, then insist that your opponent MUST accept the premise, then insist that if they don't, they can't refute it. Dayum I'm laughing so hard right now.....sigh...whew... I dunno if I can finish this....

Your opponent is allowed to dispute any of your premises, any of the logic you used to reach a conclusion, or even just the conclusion if it is contrary to the evidence.

In any case all I was saying was that an omnimax god COULD give us the drive to do right without us being aware of it.

And by the way... Where was that unambiguous, clear, good advice from god???

I didn't know you were a pantheist!!!! welcome fellow

Ummm you are mistaken, the Christian God is most definitely particular.
Besides you were arguing that love could not exist without the possibility of not love
Are you now saying that God is limited in his choice to love or not?

As for backing it up, I give you the condition of the world, if a god exists he is either not omnimax or not loving toward his "children"

Can you say delusional?