Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem of evil/free will

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 7:41:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

You seem to think "Good" means least harm to humans. Obviously as you define "good" it means God is not "good".
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 7:50:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:41:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

You seem to think "Good" means least harm to humans. Obviously as you define "good" it means God is not "good".

Not necessarily for the purpose of examining this free will defense, all I need is the premise that states when it comes to child rape torturer hacking of limbs God values the free will of that child rapist MORE than the well being of the child.

Let's say we granted that God is morally good even if it makes choices that don't result in the least harm.

You are still left with a free will defense that works off the assumption that God values the free will of that child rapist over the well being of the child.

You are still left with the believer who advocates such a free will greater good defense doesn't have a problem with such a free will be taking away by force to prevent such acts.

(I think we should have a talk on about what people mean when they say God is good since you bought up the connection or lack of between harm and moral goodness but id rather do that on a separate thread for this thread I want to examine this assumption about free will being a greater value then X and how it is or is not consistently applied.)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 8:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:50:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:41:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

You seem to think "Good" means least harm to humans. Obviously as you define "good" it means God is not "good".

Not necessarily for the purpose of examining this free will defense, all I need is the premise that states when it comes to child rape torturer hacking of limbs God values the free will of that child rapist MORE than the well being of the child.

Let's say we granted that God is morally good even if it makes choices that don't result in the least harm.

You are still left with a free will defense that works off the assumption that God values the free will of that child rapist over the well being of the child.

You are still left with the believer who advocates such a free will greater good defense doesn't have a problem with such a free will be taking away by force to prevent such acts.

(I think we should have a talk on about what people mean when they say God is good since you bought up the connection or lack of between harm and moral goodness but id rather do that on a separate thread for this thread I want to examine this assumption about free will being a greater value then X and how it is or is not consistently applied.)

Perhaps choice, free-will, is so important because it is the only thing god judges us on. It makes us participators in God's will, or agitators of it. He allows sin and bad choices to happen because to stop them would remove the ability for Us to have free will.

If I walked up to every option in my life and knew the sinful, or bad ones would be automatically stopped: 1. I wouldn't have to think about my choices 2. the world wouldn't appear very consistent or logical

I would say God values the opposites of 1+2
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 8:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:10:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:50:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:41:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

You seem to think "Good" means least harm to humans. Obviously as you define "good" it means God is not "good".

Not necessarily for the purpose of examining this free will defense, all I need is the premise that states when it comes to child rape torturer hacking of limbs God values the free will of that child rapist MORE than the well being of the child.

Let's say we granted that God is morally good even if it makes choices that don't result in the least harm.

You are still left with a free will defense that works off the assumption that God values the free will of that child rapist over the well being of the child.

You are still left with the believer who advocates such a free will greater good defense doesn't have a problem with such a free will be taking away by force to prevent such acts.

(I think we should have a talk on about what people mean when they say God is good since you bought up the connection or lack of between harm and moral goodness but id rather do that on a separate thread for this thread I want to examine this assumption about free will being a greater value then X and how it is or is not consistently applied.)

Perhaps choice, free-will, is so important because it is the only thing god judges us on. It makes us participators in God's will, or agitators of it. He allows sin and bad choices to happen because to stop them would remove the ability for Us to have free will.

But again this is just the God values free will of the rapist torture over the childs well being premise and it's a very questionable premise even on it's face.

Once again do you complain that such acts are prevented by force when done so by other humans ? nope. Do you lament that the child rapist was prevented from committing such an act using his free will ? Which goes to my second point this free will greater good at least in some cases is only used as a convenience to defend a religious belief not some thing that is put into practice.


If I walked up to every option in my life and knew the sinful, or bad ones would be automatically stopped:

1. I wouldn't have to think about my choices

False, even if you could only make "good" choices, you would still have to choose out of that subset.

2. the world wouldn't appear very consistent or logical

If your worried about logical consistency I would draw your attention to people who claim the existence of a free will that allows a person to rape and torture a child which is of a greater good than the child's well being to defend the belief in "God" while also showing no regard for this greater good of free will when using force to try and prevent such acts from happening.


I would say God values the opposites of 1+2
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:53:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

I wouldn't give you free will at all. It isn't pertinent to your question. The choices of the pedophile rapist killer are independent of God's choices. You are asking why doesn't God stop the rapist. So I wouldn't mention the free will of the rapist.

You though, would want me to, because you are aware that it isn't a reasonable answer to your question, and you want to go up against the unreasonable answer to your question rather than the reasonable answer.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Ta-Daa! Now that you've picked the theist's answer for him, you proceed to tell us the very intent of God Himself, deciding what He values, taking for granted that your value system is not only shared by all, but is also morally superior.

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

This is where you tell us that the answer you picked for the theist is not the right one. Wow, what a surprise! Really? Ok, how about letting the theist pick his own answer to your question? Too radical?

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Have you forgotten that the whole "greater value" thing was your assumption based on the "answer" you supplied for the theist? You are actually debating yourself here, and trying to make it appear that you are debating theists.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child.

Which is why it was offered by you for them. They would never offer what they didn't really believe. Thank God you were here to offer it for them!

They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

Does it follow then that God should stop such acts from happening?

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

I wouldn't be surprised when the answer an atheist supplied on my behalf turned out not to be popular with other atheists. But I would be surprised when the answer I thought was mine turned out to be from someone else, and an atheist no less! Perhaps that is where the confusion is.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

No. But we would like to hear about all those assumptions buried in your question. We aren't opposing your question mind you, we're just wondering if all the things you assume in your question are true.

My guess would be that you will not be interested in any theist answers not supplied by you.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:28:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:53:16 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

I wouldn't give you free will at all. It isn't pertinent to your question. The choices of the pedophile rapist killer are independent of God's choices. You are asking why doesn't God stop the rapist. So I wouldn't mention the free will of the rapist.

You though, would want me to, because you are aware that it isn't a reasonable answer to your question, and you want to go up against the unreasonable answer to your question rather than the reasonable answer.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Ta-Daa! Now that you've picked the theist's answer for him, you proceed to tell us the very intent of God Himself, deciding what He values, taking for granted that your value system is not only shared by all, but is also morally superior.

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

This is where you tell us that the answer you picked for the theist is not the right one. Wow, what a surprise! Really? Ok, how about letting the theist pick his own answer to your question? Too radical?

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Have you forgotten that the whole "greater value" thing was your assumption based on the "answer" you supplied for the theist? You are actually debating yourself here, and trying to make it appear that you are debating theists.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child.

Which is why it was offered by you for them. They would never offer what they didn't really believe. Thank God you were here to offer it for them!

They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

Does it follow then that God should stop such acts from happening?

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

I wouldn't be surprised when the answer an atheist supplied on my behalf turned out not to be popular with other atheists. But I would be surprised when the answer I thought was mine turned out to be from someone else, and an atheist no less! Perhaps that is where the confusion is.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

No. But we would like to hear about all those assumptions buried in your question. We aren't opposing your question mind you, we're just wondering if all the things you assume in your question are true.

My guess would be that you will not be interested in any theist answers not supplied by you.

C'mon ethan the free will defense is what is used time and time and time again, it's the go to move when a God believer is confronted with such evidence. The free will defense contains assumptions about the value/choices of such a God that need to be accepted as true for it to work, those assumptions are not beyond scrutiny.

If you want to flesh out some assumptions of mine here and/or the free will defense then by all means you do so.

I would remind you that, that part of the critic here was about how the people who themselves who use the free will defense for the belief in "God" don't consistently apply it. That is they have no problem trumping some one free will to prevent child torture.

Do you agree with the inconsistency objection I bought up here ? yes ? no ? if no then why not ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 9:42:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:28:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/2/2015 7:53:16 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

I wouldn't give you free will at all. It isn't pertinent to your question. The choices of the pedophile rapist killer are independent of God's choices. You are asking why doesn't God stop the rapist. So I wouldn't mention the free will of the rapist.

You though, would want me to, because you are aware that it isn't a reasonable answer to your question, and you want to go up against the unreasonable answer to your question rather than the reasonable answer.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Ta-Daa! Now that you've picked the theist's answer for him, you proceed to tell us the very intent of God Himself, deciding what He values, taking for granted that your value system is not only shared by all, but is also morally superior.

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

This is where you tell us that the answer you picked for the theist is not the right one. Wow, what a surprise! Really? Ok, how about letting the theist pick his own answer to your question? Too radical?

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Have you forgotten that the whole "greater value" thing was your assumption based on the "answer" you supplied for the theist? You are actually debating yourself here, and trying to make it appear that you are debating theists.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child.

Which is why it was offered by you for them. They would never offer what they didn't really believe. Thank God you were here to offer it for them!

They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

Does it follow then that God should stop such acts from happening?

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

I wouldn't be surprised when the answer an atheist supplied on my behalf turned out not to be popular with other atheists. But I would be surprised when the answer I thought was mine turned out to be from someone else, and an atheist no less! Perhaps that is where the confusion is.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

No. But we would like to hear about all those assumptions buried in your question. We aren't opposing your question mind you, we're just wondering if all the things you assume in your question are true.

My guess would be that you will not be interested in any theist answers not supplied by you.

C'mon ethan the free will defense is what is used time and time and time again, it's the go to move when a God believer is confronted with such evidence.

When presented with the POE, but your question is a little different from the POE. You aren't asking why God allows the rapist to act, you are asking why doesn't God act Himself. Yet you conveniently use the answer to the other question knowing that answer doesn't work well here.

The free will defense contains assumptions about the value/choices of such a God that need to be accepted as true for it to work, those assumptions are not beyond scrutiny.

Yes, but the free will defense is not the answer here. It's YOUR answer you've supplied for the theist, but it isn't the answer the theist would supply for himself.

If you want to flesh out some assumptions of mine here and/or the free will defense then by all means you do so.

Still insisting we use your supplied answer huh? I did predict that you wouldn't be interested in any theistic answer not supplied by you.

I would remind you that, that part of the critic here was about how the people who themselves who use the free will defense for the belief in "God" don't consistently apply it. That is they have no problem trumping some one free will to prevent child torture.

But that isn't logical because it doesn't take the entire picture into consideration. For example, a citizen could discourage me from voting for a certain candidate, but the government cannot. Not legally anyway. There are things it is "legal" for me to do that would not be legal for God to do. It has nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the nature of God. Who and what He is.

Do you agree with the inconsistency objection I bought up here ? yes ? no ? if no then why not ?

No, I do not agree because you are making an assumption that is not true. "If I should stop the rapist, God should too" That is not true. It sounds good because people tend not to think when claims sound intuitive.

So no. Your whole scenario is a set-up. A farce. God sometimes violates our free will, just not all the time. And not everything it is legal for me to do is also legal for God. And just because God has the power to do something, doesn't mean He should do it.

And finally, everything else bends to God's moral code, not the other way around. If you hate God and think He's evil because He doesn't go by your personal code, tough bananas. He's God. Why in the world would a flea expect God to abide by its code?

Atheist - Then saying God is good has no meaning because anything God does is good.
Theist - But God wont do just anything, so you're wrong.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:26:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The free will defense is usually embedded in claims about soul making (in which free will is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition); it's very rarely presented on it's own. I think if you considered that the problem point out isn't as myserious.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 9:42:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:28:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/2/2015 7:53:16 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

I wouldn't give you free will at all. It isn't pertinent to your question. The choices of the pedophile rapist killer are independent of God's choices. You are asking why doesn't God stop the rapist. So I wouldn't mention the free will of the rapist.

You though, would want me to, because you are aware that it isn't a reasonable answer to your question, and you want to go up against the unreasonable answer to your question rather than the reasonable answer.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Ta-Daa! Now that you've picked the theist's answer for him, you proceed to tell us the very intent of God Himself, deciding what He values, taking for granted that your value system is not only shared by all, but is also morally superior.

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

This is where you tell us that the answer you picked for the theist is not the right one. Wow, what a surprise! Really? Ok, how about letting the theist pick his own answer to your question? Too radical?

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Have you forgotten that the whole "greater value" thing was your assumption based on the "answer" you supplied for the theist? You are actually debating yourself here, and trying to make it appear that you are debating theists.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child.

Which is why it was offered by you for them. They would never offer what they didn't really believe. Thank God you were here to offer it for them!

They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

Does it follow then that God should stop such acts from happening?

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

I wouldn't be surprised when the answer an atheist supplied on my behalf turned out not to be popular with other atheists. But I would be surprised when the answer I thought was mine turned out to be from someone else, and an atheist no less! Perhaps that is where the confusion is.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

No. But we would like to hear about all those assumptions buried in your question. We aren't opposing your question mind you, we're just wondering if all the things you assume in your question are true.

My guess would be that you will not be interested in any theist answers not supplied by you.

C'mon ethan the free will defense is what is used time and time and time again, it's the go to move when a God believer is confronted with such evidence.

When presented with the POE, but your question is a little different from the POE. You aren't asking why God allows the rapist to act, you are asking why doesn't God act Himself. Yet you conveniently use the answer to the other question knowing that answer doesn't work well here.

The free will defense contains assumptions about the value/choices of such a God that need to be accepted as true for it to work, those assumptions are not beyond scrutiny.

Yes, but the free will defense is not the answer here. It's YOUR answer you've supplied for the theist, but it isn't the answer the theist would supply for himself.

If you want to flesh out some assumptions of mine here and/or the free will defense then by all means you do so.

Still insisting we use your supplied answer huh? I did predict that you wouldn't be interested in any theistic answer not supplied by you.

I would remind you that, that part of the critic here was about how the people who themselves who use the free will defense for the belief in "God" don't consistently apply it. That is they have no problem trumping some one free will to prevent child torture.

But that isn't logical because it doesn't take the entire picture into consideration. For example, a citizen could discourage me from voting for a certain candidate, but the government cannot. Not legally anyway. There are things it is "legal" for me to do that would not be legal for God to do. It has nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the nature of God. Who and what He is.

If you don't believe God "free will" is the issue concerning the child rapist may I ask what you think the issue is then ?


Do you agree with the inconsistency objection I bought up here ? yes ? no ? if no then why not ?

No, I do not agree because you are making an assumption that is not true. "If I should stop the rapist, God should too" That is not true. It sounds good because people tend not to think when claims sound intuitive.

I should stop the rapist God should too..............isn't the argument.

The objection here is how we are told about the higher value of free will hence why God does not stop act X yet the same people through their acts don't act on that assumption as true when supporting the prevention of act X by force.

As such your counter here has no purchase, try again.


So no. Your whole scenario is a set-up. A farce. God sometimes violates our free will, just not all the time. And not everything it is legal for me to do is also legal for God. And just because God has the power to do something, doesn't mean He should do it.


And finally, everything else bends to God's moral code, not the other way around. If you hate God and think He's evil because He doesn't go by your personal code, tough bananas. He's God. Why in the world would a flea expect God to abide by its code?

Some people when they feel threatened attack the person and go on rants. Grrrrr you hate God grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


Atheist - Then saying God is good has no meaning because anything God does is good.
Theist - But God wont do just anything, so you're wrong.

It's just not in that view what God does is good, but also what God doesn't do then that is also Good cause you know..............God is good.

But get this after a person puts forth that view we can put forth counters like well what if God did X or did not do X is that good too ? And sometimes a person will claim well God would not/could not do that.

Once you make that move how are you determining what an all powerful, all knowing God could and can't do ?

And I have been around long enough that those sorts of claims are just arbitrary.

It works both ways if one person can just claim well God would or would not do such a thing, then some one else can just claim well God wouldn't allow x, and since x did happen God does not exist.

I just thought I would point this out if you ever find you
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:23:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

But, the free will of child has been taken way by God as they get raped, tortured, etc. Hence, God only gives free will to rapists and murderers.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 9:39:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

But, the free will of child has been taken way by God as they get raped, tortured, etc. Hence, God only gives free will to rapists and murderers.

Oh yeah I forgot about that, the child has a will too, not to be raped and tortured. So where does this get us ? A God who allows a world where the rapist will here trumps the will of the child not to be raped.

Well that is interesting, and by interesting I mean f*cked up.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 11:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

- Although this whole argument is incoherent in itself, it doesn't work anyways in an Islamic Narrative, & so I am gonna pass.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 9:37:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 4:53:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/3/2015 9:42:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:

The free will defense contains assumptions about the value/choices of such a God that need to be accepted as true for it to work, those assumptions are not beyond scrutiny.

Yes, but the free will defense is not the answer here. It's YOUR answer you've supplied for the theist, but it isn't the answer the theist would supply for himself.

If you want to flesh out some assumptions of mine here and/or the free will defense then by all means you do so.

Still insisting we use your supplied answer huh? I did predict that you wouldn't be interested in any theistic answer not supplied by you.

I would remind you that, that part of the critic here was about how the people who themselves who use the free will defense for the belief in "God" don't consistently apply it. That is they have no problem trumping some one free will to prevent child torture.

But that isn't logical because it doesn't take the entire picture into consideration. For example, a citizen could discourage me from voting for a certain candidate, but the government cannot. Not legally anyway. There are things it is "legal" for me to do that would not be legal for God to do. It has nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the nature of God. Who and what He is.

If you don't believe God "free will" is the issue concerning the child rapist may I ask what you think the issue is then ?

You came up with the question (and answer) so I don't really know whats your issue. God has free will. Is your question, "Why doesn't he always do what He is capable of doing?" The answer to that is obvious.

Do you agree with the inconsistency objection I bought up here ? yes ? no ? if no then why not ?

No, I do not agree because you are making an assumption that is not true. "If I should stop the rapist, God should too" That is not true. It sounds good because people tend not to think when claims sound intuitive.

I should stop the rapist God should too..............isn't the argument.

You said people who would stop the rapist without a care to the free will of the rapist would then cite free will as the reason why God doesn't stop the rapist, and you called that as an inconsistency. Obviously then, God stopping the rapist also would eliminate the inconsistency, no?

The objection here is how we are told about the higher value of free will hence why God does not stop act X yet the same people through their acts don't act on that assumption as true when supporting the prevention of act X by force.

Hence, "I stopped the rapist, God should too" IS your argument.

First, as I told you, I know of no Christian who says God does not stop evil because He values free will higher than human suffering. That is simply the silly assumption atheists try to draw from the situation and then pretend that is the Christian position. Let the theist offer his own answer.

Second, your charge assumes that any action ok for me, should be ok for God. I haven't a clue where you get this assumption or why you think it is objectively true. If you think there is an inconsistency, say what it is and why it is an inconsistency. Don't expect us to assume along with you.

The fact is that God stops evil all the time. (God aborted rapes are mentioned in the Bible) He just does not stop ALL of them. Why should He? And if He did, would that be coherent?

As such your counter here has no purchase, try again.

lol. I'll consider trying again after you address my counter. Thanks.

So no. Your whole scenario is a set-up. A farce. God sometimes violates our free will, just not all the time. And not everything it is legal for me to do is also legal for God. And just because God has the power to do something, doesn't mean He should do it.

And finally, everything else bends to God's moral code, not the other way around. If you hate God and think He's evil because He doesn't go by your personal code, tough bananas. He's God. Why in the world would a flea expect God to abide by its code?

Some people when they feel threatened attack the person and go on rants. Grrrrr you hate God grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Sure, if that helps you dodge the points in my comment, go ahead. The points are still there. Why you think God should obey your personal moral code is a question you leave hanging, and the Gentle readers see it.

Atheist - Then saying God is good has no meaning because anything God does is good.
Theist - But God wont do just anything, so you're wrong.

It's just not in that view what God does is good, but also what God doesn't do then that is also Good cause you know..............God is good.

Objectively. Unlike your personal moral code.

But get this after a person puts forth that view we can put forth counters like well what if God did X or did not do X is that good too ? And sometimes a person will claim well God would not/could not do that.

It's not the person claiming, it is God Himself. There are also actions which are illogical to assume God would do if we also agree that He is God. Atheists are often surprised to find that the word actually means something. God being able to do anything doesn't equal God doing everything.

Once you make that move how are you determining what an all powerful, all knowing God could and can't do ?

He tells us. How else would a non-god determine that?

And I have been around long enough that those sorts of claims are just arbitrary.

What people say is arbitrary. The Bible isn't, and hasn't been for 2,000 years.

.....stop the rapist God should too.

Yet you can't tell us why.

Assume away. I have no issue with your personal tastes. just don't expect me to treat your personal tastes as if they are objective moral laws.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 10:21:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
When Adam exercised free will he was punished. Knowledge was evil in the eyes of God. God was threatened by the knowledge contained in a fruit that Adam took a bite of. This is how insecure the God of the bible is.
God continued to punish man till the Jews put Jesus to death. All the divine retributions ceased. Today we only see human atrocities which are not global in comparison.

A few extreme divine retributions.

1. God drowns the whole earth.
In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.
2. God kills half a million people.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.
In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing "men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites " men, women, children, infants, and their cattle " for something the Amalekites" ancestors had done 400 years earlier.
6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)
7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.
In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." About 3,000 people died.
8. The Amorites destroyed by sword and by God"s rocks.
In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
9. God burns two cities to death.
In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky. Then God kills Lot"s wife for looking back at her burning home.
10. God has 42 children mauled by bears.
In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears "maul" the children, but the original Hebrew, baqa, means "to tear apart.")
11. A tribe slaughtered and their virgins raped for not showing up at roll call.
In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.
12. 3,000 crushed to death.
In Judges 16:27-30, God gives Samson strength to bring down a building to crush 3,000 members of a rival tribe.
13. A concubine raped and dismembered.
In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master"s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.
14. Child sacrifice.
In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God"s favor in killing the Ammonites.
15. God helps Samson kill 30 men because he lost a bet.
In Judges 14:11-19, Samson loses a bet for 30 sets of clothes. The spirit of God comes upon him and he kills 30 men to steal their clothes and pay off the debt.
16. God demands you kill your wife and children for worshiping other gods.
In Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.
17. God incinerates 51 men to make a point.
In 2 Kings 1:9-10, Elijah gets God to burn 51 men with fire from heaven to prove he is God.
18. God kills a man for not impregnating his brother"s widow.
In Genesis 38:9-10, God kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother"s widow.
19. God threatens forced cannibalism.
In Leviticus 26:27-29 and Jeremiah 19:9, God threatens to punish the Israelites by making them eat their own children.
20. The coming slaughter.
According to Revelation 9:7-19, God"s got more evil coming. God will make horse-like locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months. Then some angels will kill a third of the earth"s population. If he came today, that would be 2 billion people.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 10:29:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 9:39:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

But, the free will of child has been taken way by God as they get raped, tortured, etc. Hence, God only gives free will to rapists and murderers.

Oh yeah I forgot about that, the child has a will too, not to be raped and tortured. So where does this get us ? A God who allows a world where the rapist will here trumps the will of the child not to be raped.

Well that is interesting, and by interesting I mean f*cked up.

God didn't take the child's freewill away.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 5:07:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mhykiel 4
If I walked up to every option in my life and knew the sinful, or bad ones would be automatically stopped: 1. I wouldn't have to think about my choices 2. the world wouldn't appear very consistent or logical
1. That doesn't follow. You might still have to think about some choices.
2. Perhaps, but I see no reason why it would appear less so than now.

- illegalcombatant 1
If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.
- ethang5 6
I wouldn't give you free will at all. It isn't pertinent to your question. The choices of the pedophile rapist killer are independent of God's choices.[1] You are asking why doesn't God stop the rapist. So I wouldn't mention the free will of the rapist.[2]
You though, would want me to, because you are aware that it isn't a reasonable answer to your question, and you want to go up against the unreasonable answer to your question rather than the reasonable answer. [3]
[1] If we were to assume God created the world (and some people claim he did) then the choices of the pedophile do depend on God's choice to create the world.
[2] Perhaps you wouldn't - in which case this OP does not address you - but some theists would.
[3] Indeed. Some theists provide unreasonable answers to the problem of evil. Have you already pointed that out to them ?

- illegalcombatant 1
What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.
- ethang5 6
Ta-Daa! Now that you've picked the theist's answer for him, you proceed to tell us the very intent of God Himself, deciding what He values, taking for granted that your value system is not only shared by all, but is also morally superior.
Would you ever pick the atheist's answer for him ?

- illegalcombatant 1
Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.
- ethang5 6
Have you forgotten that the whole "greater value" thing was your assumption based on the "answer" you supplied for the theist? You are actually debating yourself here, and trying to make it appear that you are debating theists.
You are mistaken. The whole 'greater value' thing was not an assumption, but an implication.

- illegalcombatant 1
But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.
- ethang5 6
This is where you tell us that the answer you picked for the theist is not the right one. Wow, what a surprise! Really? Ok, how about letting the theist pick his own answer to your question? Too radical?
What makes you think illegalcombatant prevents theists from providing their own answers ?

- illegalcombatant 1
Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child.
- ethang5 6
Which is why it was offered by you for them. They would never offer what they didn't really believe. Thank God you were here to offer it for them!
Can you prove that theists would never offer what they didn't really believe ?

- illegalcombatant 1
They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.
- ethang5 6
Does it follow then that God should stop such acts from happening?
No, but it does follow that he, in the absence of good excuses, would stop such acts from happening.

ethang5 6
I wouldn't be surprised when the answer an atheist supplied on my behalf turned out not to be popular with other atheists.
Christians supply bad arguments for atheists frequently.

- illegalcombatant 7
The free will defense contains assumptions about the value/choices of such a God that need to be accepted as true for it to work, those assumptions are not beyond scrutiny.
- ethang5 8
Yes, but the free will defense is not the answer here. It's YOUR answer you've supplied for the theist, but it isn't the answer the theist would supply for himself.
There is a theist in this thread who gave that answer. Illegalcombatant borrowed the answer from theists.
If you disagree with those theists, why are you in this thread arguing with someone else who also disagrees with those theists in stead of arguing with those theists themselves ?

- illegalcombatant 7
I would remind you that, that part of the critic here was about how the people who themselves who use the free will defense for the belief in "God" don't consistently apply it. That is they have no problem trumping some one free will to prevent child torture.
- ethang5 8
But that isn't logical because it doesn't take the entire picture into consideration. For example, a citizen could discourage me from voting for a certain candidate, but the government cannot. Not legally anyway. There are things it is "legal" for me to do that would not be legal for God to do. It has nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the nature of God. Who and what He is.
Is it illegal for God to prevent a rapist from raping and dismembering a child ? If so, who made such law ?

ethang5 8
And finally, everything else bends to God's moral code, not the other way around.[4] If you hate God and think He's evil because He doesn't go by your personal code, tough bananas. He's God. Why in the world would a flea expect God to abide by its code?
[4] Is that a fact or just God's personal opinion ?

popculturepooka 9
The free will defense is usually embedded in claims about soul making (in which free will is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition); it's very rarely presented on it's own. I think if you considered that the problem point out isn't as myserious.
Feel free to lift the fog from that mystery. There is no need to be shy for that is what this thread is about.

- illegalcombatant 10
The objection here is how we are told about the higher value of free will hence why God does not stop act X yet the same people through their acts don't act on that assumption as true when supporting the prevention of act X by force.
- ethang5 14
Hence, "I stopped the rapist, God should too" IS your argument.
No. I'll try to put the argument in standard form.

Definition : free will defense Christian (FWDC) : Christian that uses the free will defense against the PoE.

Argument by FWDCs :
P1. Free will is valuable to God.
P2. Preventing the rapist from raping and killing children would reduce his free will.
C1. God should not prevent rapists from raping and killing children.

Arguments from sceptics :
P3. FWDCs adopt God's values.
P4. Therefore free will is valuable to FWDCs. (from P1)
C2. Therefore FWDCs should not prevent rapists from raping and killing children. (from P2)

P5. FWDCs do try to prevent rapists from raping and killing children.
P6. The behaviour of FWDCs is inconsistent with their values. (from C2)
C3. The behaviour of FWDCs is inconsistent with their worldview.

ethang5 14
First, as I told you, I know of no Christian who says God does not stop evil because He values free will higher than human suffering. That is simply the silly assumption atheists try to draw from the situation and then pretend that is the Christian position. Let the theist offer his own answer.
Most Christians don't have a case, so their arguments are usually unintelligible. If their arguments were clear, it would be clear they are wrong. So when sceptics try to make sense of the some Christian arguments, they arrive at clearer formulations and conclusions that understandably Christians dislike.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 9:55:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 10:29:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 9:39:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

But, the free will of child has been taken way by God as they get raped, tortured, etc. Hence, God only gives free will to rapists and murderers.

Oh yeah I forgot about that, the child has a will too, not to be raped and tortured. So where does this get us ? A God who allows a world where the rapist will here trumps the will of the child not to be raped.

Well that is interesting, and by interesting I mean f*cked up.

God didn't take the child's freewill away.

Yeah, He did. Unless, you have another explanation?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:19:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 9:55:51 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/4/2015 10:29:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 9:39:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

But, the free will of child has been taken way by God as they get raped, tortured, etc. Hence, God only gives free will to rapists and murderers.

Oh yeah I forgot about that, the child has a will too, not to be raped and tortured. So where does this get us ? A God who allows a world where the rapist will here trumps the will of the child not to be raped.

Well that is interesting, and by interesting I mean f*cked up.

God didn't take the child's freewill away.

Yeah, He did. Unless, you have another explanation?

You sick bastards. Give the child a break and go flush your faces in the toilet.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:22:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

Realizing that this is about belief in God and His actions/lack of action. Let us remove God from the scenario, and create two other scenarios.

Scenario 1) A pedophile victimizes a child and is caught by the law. What is the likely outcome for the pedophile?

Scenario 2) A pedophile intends to victimize a child, but is stopped by the law. What is the likely outcome for the pedophile, who can deny he had any intention of victimizing the child, despite everyone knowing he clearly would have?

Remember, there is not God. So, in the first scenario, who took away the child's will not to be victimized?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:29:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ethang5 14
The fact is that God stops evil all the time.[5] (God aborted rapes are mentioned in the Bible) He just does not stop ALL of them. Why should He? And if He did, would that be coherent?
[5] Can you prove that fact ?

- illegalcombatant 10
But get this after a person puts forth that view we can put forth counters like well what if God did X or did not do X is that good too ? And sometimes a person will claim well God would not/could not do that.
- ethang5 14
It's not the person claiming, it is God Himself. There are also actions which are illogical to assume God would do if we also agree that He is God. Atheists are often surprised to find that the word actually means something. God being able to do anything doesn't equal God doing everything.
Your fallacy of choice is moving the goal posts : http://rationalwiki.org...
No atheist in this thread claimed that God being able to do anything equals God doing everything.

Mhykiel
God didn't take the child's freewill away.
Who said he did ?

Kyle_the_Heretic 20
Scenario 1) A pedophile victimizes a child and is caught by the law. What is the likely outcome for the pedophile?
The pedophile is incarcerated, so both the child and the pedophile lose.

Kyle_the_Heretic 20
Scenario 2) A pedophile intends to victimize a child, but is stopped by the law. What is the likely outcome for the pedophile, who can deny he had any intention of victimizing the child, despite everyone knowing he clearly would have?
The pedophile will probably be punished, but less than in scenario 1. The child remains unharmed.

Kyle_the_Heretic 20
Remember, there is not God. So, in the first scenario, who took away the child's will not to be victimized?
No one did, but the pedophile took away the child's right/freedom not the be victimized.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:38:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Kyle_the_Heretic 20
Scenario 1) A pedophile victimizes a child and is caught by the law. What is the likely outcome for the pedophile?
The pedophile is incarcerated, so both the child and the pedophile lose.

Kyle_the_Heretic 20
Scenario 2) A pedophile intends to victimize a child, but is stopped by the law. What is the likely outcome for the pedophile, who can deny he had any intention of victimizing the child, despite everyone knowing he clearly would have?
The pedophile will probably be punished, but less than in scenario 1. The child remains unharmed.

Kyle_the_Heretic 20
Remember, there is not God. So, in the first scenario, who took away the child's will not to be victimized?
No one did, but the pedophile took away the child's right/freedom not the be victimized.

Wow, I'd completely forgotten about this argument.

True, the victim remains a victim. But therapy can assist the victim, while the pedophile remains locked up, or added to a list that all can see.

Probably punished? When no crime was committed?

So the child's will not to be victimized remains intact regardless of being victimized. And that changes what?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:04:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Kyle_the_Heretic
True, the victim remains a victim. But therapy can assist the victim, while the pedophile remains locked up, or added to a list that all can see.
It is indeed a bad situation. It is bad for the victim, bad for society and bad for the perpetrator.

Kyle_the_Heretic
Probably punished? When no crime was committed?
Yes, at least in Belgium and I suspect we are not unique in that respect.

Kyle_the_Heretic
So the child's will not to be victimized remains intact regardless of being victimized. And that changes what?
If the child is victimized then its will not to be victimized may remain intact, but that will is then violated. Such probably would decrease the child's well-being.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If nobody minds, I would like to discuss this issue. First of all, I'm wondering if you, illegalcombatant, believe you have free will? Regardless, for the sake of everyone else reading, I'd like to explain why no man has free will and why this is the most Scriptural position.

Cause and Effect
There are many Laws that govern the universe. I'm sure nobody here would deny the Law of Gravity, Physics, Thermodynamics, and the most neglected, Cause and Effect. Theology denies Cause and Effect when they insist we have a free will. Atheist deny Cause and Effect when they say there is no God. Every Effect that has ever been was determined by a Cause. It's illogical, unscientific, unreasonable, and most importantly, unscriptural to believe otherwise. The Scriptures tell us that in the beginning, the first thing God said was "Let there be light". Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so at that moment, God set in motion the sequence of time, setting the universal speed limit to that of Light, so that if there should ever be an Effect without a Cause, the very fabric of Space and Time would collapse. God IS the Great Cause of all things.

God is Omniscient
God knows absolutely everything, including the future. If man had free will, he would be able to somehow thwart anything that God knows will happen. This of course is impossible. Neither our fabled free will, nor that pawn the Devil, can ever thwart the will of God. If we were to put a bowl of ice cream in front of a child and a bowl of brocoli, we know the child will choose the ice cream. When they do, we had no influence on the decision, even though we foreknew the outcome. That's the argument theology gives to reconcile God's omniscience with free will. However if we put ice cream and cake in front of the child, then even the child may have a hard time deciding, but I assure you that God knows all and the child will choose whichever God knows they will choose.

The Scriptures tell us man has no free will
Philippians 2:3 tells us "For it is God which worketh in you BOTH to WILL and to DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE." Man likes to puff himself up, to make himself more than he actually is, by saying "I'm not a robot". They are correct that they are not robots. We are so much less than that; we are pottery.

" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy ON WHOM I will have mercy, and I will have compassion ON WHOM I will have compassion.
So then it is NOT of him that WILLITH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth MERCY.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same PURPOSE have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy ON WHOM he will have mercy, and WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENED.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing FORMED say to him that FORMED it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the POTTER power over the CLAY, of the same lump to make one vessel unto HONOR, and another unto DISHONOR?
[What] (What is not in the original Greek. This is a statement not a question) IF God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the RICHES of his GLORY on the vessels of MERCY, which he had AFORE PREPARED unto glory" Romans 9:13

God chose every believer and every unbeliever before He created the earth. The Scriptures tell us this over and over again.

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" Romans 3:3

I'm running out of room so I'll go ahead and post this. There's so much more and if God wills it, I hope we can come to a logical agreement. God bless you friend.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:56:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?
Christians aren't terribly honest about this, IllegalCombatant. Their theology is changing and they're not keeping it transparent or accountable.

In mediaeval times, the Christian notion of God was highly interventionist -- not just intervening in times of prayer, but all the time. Apples dropped from trees only when God or God's angels told them to; clouds scudded across the sky because God's agents made them do so... and every agent was moral, except for Satan and his minions, who'd bring misfortune and temptation to people from time to time for historical reasons associated with reptiles, sex and fruit.

And because God was moral and highly involved in the world, all consequences were moral consequences. And if you said they weren't, then the Christians of the day would rebuke you, punish you or even kill you, cos that's how they rolled.

But in that cosmology, there's a coherent story of free will and evil. The world was basically moral and you should be moral too. And evil and misfortune are all moral tests and if you deal with them morally then you keep the world moral and work toward a perfect moral destiny; however if you become immoral or deal with tests immorally then you just make things worse, and really that's on you and your neighbours to keep each other in line.

That makes fine sense in a mediaeval world.

But since the Enlightenment, Christian belief in divine intervention has receded, and with it, claims that the world is a moral place. God shifted from making the clouds scud across the sky to creating man and largely leaving him to his own devices, and then to not even really creating man, but just omnisciently creating the conditions for man to eventually appear.

But this has left a moral gap. Our physical world is now no longer a moral world -- it's amoral; with Big Bangs and entropy, a gasping ecology, and an evolutionary fight for survival.

So what happens to free will in an amoral world? It's not necessarily rewarded for virtue, or punished for vice. In fact, there's now a vast chasm between moral choice and moral reflection -- and the chasm widens as we learn more about consequence: that it's not just personal, but interpersonal, transpersonal and intergenerational.

Some Christians blame secularism for creating the chasm, but alas, it didn't: it only pointed it out.

Christians have also striven mightily to try and fill that chasm with doctrinal guidance, but the truth is, written as it was by ancients with a very different world-view, the Bible was never constructed to do that job, and much of the gap has to be filled with secular morality, which, with a hand-wave and an appeal to love and the spirit of Jesus, Christians claim as their own -- without being able to explain how Jesus would actually have arrived at it, and why, if he knew about child psychology, economics, epidemiology, or ecology, he didn't say more on these critical moral matters.

In mediaeval times, Christian doctrine was pretty much the beginning and end of moral thought. But in modern times, secular moral reflection is doing the heavy lifting, and Christian theology is struggling to keep up.

This can be distressing for doctrinal Christians. Some find it hard to admit that Christianity is not offering moral leadership any more, while certain more sentimental Christians are trying to drag us back to mediaevalism, just so Christian morality can be the undisputed boss again.

My suggestion: don't ask doctrinal Christians about free will and evil any more. They're not coping with the environment we have, they don't have answers, and the only ones who think they do, are in near-psychotic denial.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 5:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
RuvDraba, you appear to be very knowledgeable about the history of Christianity, but I wonder if you have read the Scriptures. English translations of the bible rarely represent the beautiful Truth of God's Word, however there is so much that clearly point to the truth that a mistranslation is hardly an excuse (although I admit I am guilty of believing the blasphemy Fundamental Christianity teaches). I'm curious to know if you (as an Atheist I assume) believe you have free will?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 6:32:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 2:04:03 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
Kyle_the_Heretic
True, the victim remains a victim. But therapy can assist the victim, while the pedophile remains locked up, or added to a list that all can see.
It is indeed a bad situation. It is bad for the victim, bad for society and bad for the perpetrator.

It was bad for the victim. It does not have to remain that way. I speak from experience in that respect.

Kyle_the_Heretic
Probably punished? When no crime was committed?
Yes, at least in Belgium and I suspect we are not unique in that respect.

Punished on suspicion only? Guilty until proven innocent? May I ask how that is just?

Kyle_the_Heretic
So the child's will not to be victimized remains intact regardless of being victimized. And that changes what?
If the child is victimized then its will not to be victimized may remain intact, but that will is then violated. Such probably would decrease the child's well-being.

Agreed. No argument.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:23:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
anonymouswho 24
Cause and Effect
There are many Laws that govern the universe. I'm sure nobody here would deny the Law of Gravity, Physics, Thermodynamics, and the most neglected, Cause and Effect. Theology denies Cause and Effect when they insist we have a free will. Atheist deny Cause and Effect when they say there is no God.[4] Every Effect that has ever been was determined by a Cause. It's illogical, unscientific, unreasonable, and most importantly, unscriptural to believe otherwise. The Scriptures tell us that in the beginning, the first thing God said was "Let there be light". Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so at that moment, God set in motion the sequence of time, setting the universal speed limit to that of Light, so that if there should ever be an Effect without a Cause, the very fabric of Space and Time would collapse. God IS the Great Cause of all things.
[4] They do ? How ?

- Amoranemix 23
It is indeed a bad situation. It is bad for the victim, bad for society and bad for the perpetrator.
- Kyle_the_Heretic 27
It was bad for the victim. It does not have to remain that way. I speak from experience in that respect.
Even if in the long run it were not bad for the victim, which I doubt is the case on average, it still would be bad overall.
So scenario 2 is preferable : the child remains unharmed, the cost to society is lower and the would-be rapist is punished less.

- Amoranemix 23
Yes, at least in Belgium and I suspect we are not unique in that respect.
_ Kyle_the_Heretic 27
Punished on suspicion only? Guilty until proven innocent? May I ask how that is just?
People can only be punished on suspicion as there is no way to achieve 100% certainty. It is just if they are guilty and unjust if they are innocent.
Imagine the police rolled up a gang of terrorists before they executed their plans. What should justice do ? Let them go so that they can try again ? Police usually delays arrests in order to gather more evidence and identify more gang members. So they compromise between information gathering and risking the terrorists succeed in doing damage.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:40:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 10:23:16 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
anonymouswho 24
Cause and Effect
There are many Laws that govern the universe. I'm sure nobody here would deny the Law of Gravity, Physics, Thermodynamics, and the most neglected, Cause and Effect. Theology denies Cause and Effect when they insist we have a free will. Atheist deny Cause and Effect when they say there is no God.[4] Every Effect that has ever been was determined by a Cause. It's illogical, unscientific, unreasonable, and most importantly, unscriptural to believe otherwise. The Scriptures tell us that in the beginning, the first thing God said was "Let there be light". Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so at that moment, God set in motion the sequence of time, setting the universal speed limit to that of Light, so that if there should ever be an Effect without a Cause, the very fabric of Space and Time would collapse. God IS the Great Cause of all things.
[4] They do ? How ?

- Amoranemix 23
It is indeed a bad situation. It is bad for the victim, bad for society and bad for the perpetrator.
- Kyle_the_Heretic 27
It was bad for the victim. It does not have to remain that way. I speak from experience in that respect.
Even if in the long run it were not bad for the victim, which I doubt is the case on average, it still would be bad overall.
So scenario 2 is preferable : the child remains unharmed, the cost to society is lower and the would-be rapist is punished less.

- Amoranemix 23
Yes, at least in Belgium and I suspect we are not unique in that respect.
_ Kyle_the_Heretic 27
Punished on suspicion only? Guilty until proven innocent? May I ask how that is just?
People can only be punished on suspicion as there is no way to achieve 100% certainty. It is just if they are guilty and unjust if they are innocent.
Imagine the police rolled up a gang of terrorists before they executed their plans. What should justice do ? Let them go so that they can try again ? Police usually delays arrests in order to gather more evidence and identify more gang members. So they compromise between information gathering and risking the terrorists succeed in doing damage.

And so we reach the point where we express opinion on how things do or should work, with nothing being offered that anyone else would believe is ideal. That, and I can no longer remember where I was going with this when I posted the first response.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Rosco_P_Coletrain
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:27:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:10:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:50:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:41:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:32:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
God = All powerful, all knowing, morally good.

If you point out some horror of inflicted upon a child who is say raped, tortured and has a few limbs hacked off and use this as evidence to support the claim God does not exist chances are you will get........................free will. God has given free will.

What is being implied here is that God values free will over well being in some examples. In this case the free will of the child torture rapist to rape and hack off limbs.

Well that's an interesting choice alleged to have being made by a God and I could expand on that further but let's skip that.................

But here is the thing the same person who uses such a rationlization will most of the time also be of the view that we should stop such things from happening in the first place, even using force to stop such a child rapist.

Notice they don't complain about the greater value of free will of the child rapist being taken away when preventing such acts.

Cause deep down they don't really believe that free will value trumps the value of the well being of the child. They have zero problem preventing such acts from happening.

And if the believer can't even act consistent with the premise that free will is of greater value than child well being you act surprised that the non believer don't believe in it either when it is used to justify the existence of said God.

Do we still have to hear about the free will greater good defense ? seriously ?

You seem to think "Good" means least harm to humans. Obviously as you define "good" it means God is not "good".

Not necessarily for the purpose of examining this free will defense, all I need is the premise that states when it comes to child rape torturer hacking of limbs God values the free will of that child rapist MORE than the well being of the child.

Let's say we granted that God is morally good even if it makes choices that don't result in the least harm.

You are still left with a free will defense that works off the assumption that God values the free will of that child rapist over the well being of the child.

You are still left with the believer who advocates such a free will greater good defense doesn't have a problem with such a free will be taking away by force to prevent such acts.

(I think we should have a talk on about what people mean when they say God is good since you bought up the connection or lack of between harm and moral goodness but id rather do that on a separate thread for this thread I want to examine this assumption about free will being a greater value then X and how it is or is not consistently applied.)

Perhaps choice, free-will, is so important because it is the only thing god judges us on. It makes us participators in God's will, or agitators of it. He allows sin and bad choices to happen because to stop them would remove the ability for Us to have free will.

If I walked up to every option in my life and knew the sinful, or bad ones would be automatically stopped: 1. I wouldn't have to think about my choices 2. the world wouldn't appear very consistent or logical

I would say God values the opposites of 1+2

In observing your posts in other threads I have often thought to myself how commendable your reasoning is.

You do usually exhibit a higher standard of reasoning than many if not most of your contemporaries. But in this case I feel you have missed the vital point. And that is that there cannot be love apart from a freedom to exercise love's works and that requires decision making on our part.

I would revise your statement to read, "Perhaps choices within the scope of godly love or in violation of godly love, is what is so important because love or the lack there of is the only thing god judges us on. Love makes us participators in God's will, just as the lack of love makes us agitators of of his will. He allows sin and bad choices to happen because to stop them would remove the consequences from us of violating his love. If those consequences where removed we would not as clearly see or appreciate the need to learn and apply his love.

But of course I realize that one can only believe that if they do not get lost in the distortions of truth by Harikish's perception as he listed in his post #15. None of that he mentioned alters this reality. All he proved is that he, like so many others, does not understand.