There is an Evil God, irony of the God debate

[Serious]

Oh, don’t worry… I comprehended your argument: I just rejected it.

The so-called free will defense is: “The free will of humans is so valuable that God must put up with the evil actions of humans. He is unable to prevent these actions without violating the free will”.

Your proposition was: “It is not relevant if someone is able to act out his will; the freedom is not curtailed if the acting out the will is prevented”.

My reply: “If that is true, then God can can prevent the acting out the evil desires, without violating the free will”.

The logical conclusion is: “if one accepts your definition, then God could prevent the evil actions without violating the free will of humans”. As such you invalidated the “free will defense”.

Whether God allows us to make choices (as opposed to pre-determining everything) is the question of Free Will. Why God seemingly permits evil actions is a separate question: the question of Divine Justice. You’re conflating the two; and that’s something that you seem not to comprehend. The “question of evil” deals with both of these issues, but it’s important to distinguish between them in order to reach a rational conclusion…

Whatever that “divine justice” would be it has no place place in this line of thought. We are dealing here with the so called “free will defense” posited to the “problem of evil”.

 

[clem456]

No, we don’t agree. I do not respect my child’s “free will” of allowing him to poke a wire into a live power outlet, precisely because I love him. The society does not respect the “free will” of a criminal when the criminal is incarcerated. And it is not respected, because society wishes to protect the other members.

You still respect his free will to choose, you don’t take his free will away. He will be free to choose again in 5 minutes to irritate you or harm himself! You may interrupt him in an ill advised endeavor, and as you say,you do it out of love. Great observation.

 

[Gorgias]

The so-called free will defense is: “The free will of humans is so valuable that God must put up with the evil actions of humans. He is unable to prevent these actions without violating the free will”.

That is your formulation of a free will defense.

My reply: “If that is true, then God can can prevent the acting out the evil desires, without violating the free will”.

The logical conclusion is:

Hold on! You can’t go jumping to a conclusion without allowing for a discussion of your reply (unless, of course, you’re only interested in a monologue, or are asserting that you have the final say on these matters).

My response to your reply was that a world in which God prevents the acting out of evil desires is one in which free will cannot be said to exist: in such a world, humans are reduced to mindless lab rats, reacting to the whims of the lab master who pulls and twists at the world in which they exist.

C.S. Lewis makes an even more interesting rebuttal to your reply: in a world in which God prevents evil actions, it would follow that the thought of doing evil would itself be an evil act, and therefore, God would prevent even the thinking of evil-doing. Therefore, there would be no free will. That logical inconsistency means that your reply cannot hold, in the context of our discussion; therefore, your assertion that the free will defense is invalid, is itself invalid.

 

[Serious]

That is your formulation of a free will defense.

Really? Mine? I suggest to read it here: philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-problem-of-evil/the-argument-from-moral-evil/the-free-will-defence/ Here is a short quotation:

Theists almost invariably meet this question with the free-will defence. Moral evil is caused by the free choices of moral agents, they argue. Free agency, though, is a good thing; a world containing free agents is far better than either a world containing only automata or a world containing no conscious beings at all. An omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would therefore create a world containing free agents, and in doing so would run the risk of allowing moral evil to enter into the world.

My response to your reply was that a world in which God prevents the acting out of evil desires is one in which free will cannot be said to exist: in such a world, humans are reduced to mindless lab rats, reacting to the whims of the lab master who pulls and twists at the world in which they exist.

Wow, you sure changed your tune now. Up until you said that the ability to act out one’s will is irrelevant. One has “free will” if one can decide to select one course of action, and whether it is possible to actually do it, is not relevant.

Now you change it to the exact opposite? It is pretty impossible to have a conversation with someone, who changes his opinion as the wind blows.

C.S. Lewis makes an even more interesting rebuttal to your reply: in a world in which God prevents evil actions, it would follow that the thought of doing evil would itself be an evil act, and therefore, God would prevent even the thinking of evil-doing. Therefore, there would be no free will. That logical inconsistency means that your reply cannot hold, in the context of our discussion; therefore, your assertion that the free will defense is invalid, is itself invalid.

Only in 1984, where the concept of “thought-crime” exists. Big Brother is watching you, and he already knows what your thoughts are and judges you for your thoughts… the really sad thing is that someone would actually present this as an “example” of how God’s love works.

 

[Serious]

You still respect his free will to choose, you don’t take his free will away.

Actually I was doing it better. I made it physically impossible for my kid to poke into an outlet.

Do you still cling to the idea (presented by Gorgias) that the ability to carry out one’s will is not relevant? Even after he repudiated it recently and started to say the exact opposite?

 

[clem456]

Actually I was doing it better. I made it physically impossible for my kid to poke into an outlet.

Do you still cling to the idea (presented by Gorgias) that the ability to carry out one’s will is not relevant? Even after he repudiated it recently and started to say the exact opposite?

I am afraid you have lost me here. I never said the ability carry out one’s will is irrelevant. Maybe you are confusing me with one of the other posters I don’t know.

I’m not going to run round in circles with you. My only point in chiming in here was to respond to this assertion of yours:

“” And I agree that belief in a good God seems to be an emotional need - and I think you and I agree reality does not support the existence of a good God. “”

Reality shows us otherwise. To argue that Love does not win is absurd. The argument fails in the face of common sense and common experience, and exposes a pessimism. Its strongest argument is “Yea but people hurt each other and have accidents!!!”" etc… No kidding…I know people hurt each other with their free wills, gee how could God allow that. If you are going to limit your reasoning and decision making to such a small slice of reality, you are going to perceive a bad bad world with a mean mean God. I am sorry.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow, you sure changed your tune now. Up until you said that the ability to act out one’s will is irrelevant. One has “free will” if one can decide to select one course of action, and whether it is possible to actually do it, is not relevant.

Now you change it to the exact opposite? It is pretty impossible to have a conversation with someone, who changes his opinion as the wind blows.

Actually, this is the second time in this thread that I’d brought up this point. I might have been overly optimistic to presume that you’re actually reading what others say in response to you…

My suggestion is this: if people come to realize that it is impossible to actualize their free will choices – that God immediately puts the kibosh on anything that they attempt to do that clashes with God’s will (and, you have to admit, that would become obvious very quickly), then we’d become nothing more than lab rats, responding to the actions of the guys in lab coats, and we’d become conditioned to God’s will. In that way, we would learn that there is never the opportunity to express our free will through action, and would become conditioned to one set of choices. A god who offers this sort of ‘free will’ – a will that is by definition never actualizable – is no omnibenevelant god at all. Therefore, your construction doesn’t work. The ‘free will’ that it offers exists only as a mere technicality.

I still hold that the contrary to free will is determinism, not constrained action; yet, your construction is so oppressive, even its side-effects have the effect of quashing free will choices.

Only in 1984, where the concept of “thought-crime” exists. Big Brother is watching you, and he already knows what your thoughts are and judges you for your thoughts… the really sad thing is that someone would actually present this as an “example” of how God’s love works.

It’s meant as a counter-example: because God’s love doesn’t work this way (as you clearly admit), your example of a god who constrains actions (and therefore, thoughts) likewise doesn’t work. Lewis’ example demonstrates that your construction necessarily creates thought-crime…!

 

[Serious]

Actually, this is the second time in this thread that I’d brought up this point. I might have been overly optimistic to presume that you’re actually reading what others say in response to you…

If I overlooked it, I apologize. I have quite a few conversations going on, and sometimes I make a mistake.

My suggestion is this: if people come to realize that it is impossible to actualize their free will choices – that God immediately puts the kibosh on anything that they attempt to do that clashes with God’s will (and, you have to admit, that would become obvious very quickly),…

Why would it? There is no need to send down a lightning every time someone wishes to stick a knife into someone else. There is no need to interfere at all. All God needs to do is only create people who do not want to perform such acts. I am perfectly free to grab a knife an kill someone whom I don’t like. But I simply do not wish to do it. At this point some people will say: “but then you violate the free will”… if there are only good people and no bad ones, then there is no free will. Do you see how idiotic this argument is?

A god who offers this sort of ‘free will’ – a will that is by definition never actualizable – is no omnibenevelant god at all. Therefore, your construction doesn’t work. The ‘free will’ that it offers exists only as a mere technicality.

Of course it is actualizable. You want to do something in accordance with God’s will, and you can do it. You wish to do something that God does not care about, and you can do it. To do something that God does not want… simply does not cross your mind. And if one calls a God “benevolent” who actively performs or passively allows horrible atrocities, then that person is a lunatic.

I still hold that the contrary to free will is determinism…

So far I agree. It is obvious that in a fully deterministic world there is no freedom. But the opposite is not true. If we remove determinisim, that does not create “free will”. In the following examples there will be no determinsim.

Example #1: Person “A” can control person “B”, who will be forced to commit a murder. Did the act happen according to “B”-s free will? “A” imposed his will upon “B”, who does not want to commit the murder, but is weak to shake off the control. “B” has the urge, the desire, the will NOT to commit the act, but he is forced to do it. According to your original definition “B”-s free will was not curtailed.

Example #2: Person “A” cannot take over “B”-s mental capacities, but can use irresistible physical force and uses “B”-s fist to hold a hammer and to crash the skull of someone. “B” does not want to do it, but is powerless to resist the sheer power of “A”. According to your definition, “B” still retained his free will.

Example #3: Person “A” uses irresistible psychologial pressure on “B”, for example by kidnapping “B”-s family and threaten to torture “B”-s children if he does not comply with “A”-s demand. “B” does not want to comply, but is is unable to risk to have his children tortured and killed. Was his “free will” intact?

Obviously B-s free will was violated. He could have wished / willed / wanted / desired not to commit the act, but his will was overridden. Yet, his thoughts were not curtailed, he was not brainwashed. According to your definition, his free will was intact.

not constrained action; yet, your construction is so oppressive, even its side-effects have the effect of quashing free will choices.

Impossible. The thoughts cannot be touched except by brainwashing.

That is why the ability to carry out one’s choices is essential. And you accepted that.

It’s meant as a counter-example: because God’s love doesn’t work this way (as you clearly admit), your example of a god who constrains actions (and therefore, thoughts) likewise doesn’t work. Lewis’ example demonstrates that your construction necessarily creates thought-crime…!

It does nothing of the kind. Thoughts are not evil.

 

[Gorgias]

If I overlooked it, I apologize. I have quite a few conversations going on, and sometimes I make a mistake.

OK, thanks! Sorry for the presumption you were ignoring the responses…

Why would it? There is no need to send down a lightning every time someone wishes to stick a knife into someone else. There is no need to interfere at all. All God needs to do is only create people who do not want to perform such acts.

Two thoughts here: first, if you create people who might sin, then it will become obvious what the game is, if God is going to prevent the actualization of immoral acts. It wouldn’t take a person long to realize that their actions are being thwarted; don’t you agree?

Second, though: the thought that God might “only create people who do not want to perform such acts” is tantamount to determinism, isn’t it? In this construct, God has created people if and only if they will act in a certain way: therefore, it is pre-determined that all will act morally. This would invalidate the conditions we’re trying to think through…

I am perfectly free to grab a knife an kill someone whom I don’t like. But I simply do not wish to do it. At this point some people will say: “but then you violate the free will”… if there are only good people and no bad ones, then there is no free will. Do you see how idiotic this argument is?

No, since I’ve just argued for it, above! How would you distinguish between a world in which there is free will but no free will choices that intend immoral acts, and a world in which there is only determinism of the sort that prevents immoral acts? It seems to me that there is no distinction here! That being the case, you’re arguing for determinism, which is the absence of free will! QED…

Of course it is actualizable. You want to do something in accordance with God’s will, and you can do it. You wish to do something that God does not care about, and you can do it. To do something that God does not want… simply does not cross your mind.

Hmm… how could we argue for free will if we positively exclude a certain sub-class of willings? I’m sorry, but that seems to violate free will…

And if one calls a God “benevolent” who actively performs or passively allows horrible atrocities, then that person is a lunatic.

We’ve never claimed that God “actively performs” evil.

You make the assertion that a God who allows free moral agents to make choices (regardless of the moral content of those choices) is not benevolent; implicitly, you’re saying that free will is less important than freedom of action. Can you make a case for this assertion? That is, is it better to have free will, or is it better to have no sin? Is one purely “good” and the other purely “evil”? How would you substantiate that claim?

Gotta run for now… I’ll come back to the rest of your reply later…!

 

[Serious]

Two thoughts here: first, if you create people who might sin, then it will become obvious what the game is, if God is going to prevent the actualization of immoral acts. It wouldn’t take a person long to realize that their actions are being thwarted; don’t you agree?

But they are not thwarted, and that is the point. They can sin, there is no barrier, except that they do not want to sin.

Second, though: the thought that God might “only create people who do not want to perform such acts” is tantamount to determinism, isn’t it?

Not at all. No one forces them to behave as they do. They see the alternatives, they could do any of the alternatives, but they do not desire to do it. Their free will and their free actions are not curtailed by external forces and determinations. Of course they are limited by their own decisions, but that does not mean determination.

I will have to elaborate: as I said before, I am perfectly free to kill someone, but I do not want to do it. In a very good sense I limit myself. However, free will would only disappear if some extenal factor would impose ITS will upon mine. We need to consider the difference between “determined” and “very heavily influenced”. Due to my upringing I find it (almost) impossible to stay seated when an older person stands next to me on the bus or the metro. Not fully impossible, but the difference is so small that it is next to zilch. Now, the question is: “am I determined by my upbringing to give my seat away?” No, I am not determined. If I really wanted to, I could override my deeply ingrained habit, and stay seated (especially since I am already 66 years old ). But I will not do it, because I do not want to do it. The freedom is there, however.

How would you distinguish between a world in which there is free will but no free will choices that intend immoral acts, and a world in which there is only determinism of the sort that prevents immoral acts? It seems to me that there is no distinction here!

But there is. Not externally, but internally. The outside human observer cannot tell the difference, but God is supposed to know. Of course, in a very good sense it does not matter. If you would be in a traffic accident, and a doctor would come to treat your injuries, it would not matter to you, if he does it out of free compassion, or if he does it due to taking the Hyppocratic oath very seriously. Or suppose that there is an extremely advanced robot, who (not what) is programmed to help you, and has absolutely no choice in the matter, it would not matter to you. As Asimov wrote in “I Robot”: “the truth is that we cannot tell the difference between a robot, and an extremely good, loving, caring and compassionate human”. (The quote is not verbatim, but the gist is there.)

Hmm… how could we argue for free will if we positively exclude a certain sub-class of willings? I’m sorry, but that seems to violate free will…

That is an error. Free will, just like freedom of action is never “absolute”. By taking out some “sub-class” you limit the freedom, but do not destroy it. This is again the usual “black-and-white” approach of theists. Everything, or nothing! No grey areas. Either good or evil.

You make the assertion that a God who allows free moral agents to make choices (regardless of the moral content of those choices) is not benevolent; implicitly, you’re saying that free will is less important than freedom of action.

I don’t say it just implictly, I say it explicitly. Freedom to will something is irrelevant if you cannot carry out your will.

Can you make a case for this assertion? That is, is it better to have free will, or is it better to have no sin?

Since it is possible to reconcile the two, I do not need to choose.

But, if you are interested, I will give a short reply. When a goal orinted designer / constructor plans and creates a system, he has certain results in mind. He wishes the system to perform according to his desires or specifications. There are three possible courses of creating that system:

1. fully deterministic. Everything works as planned, there is no discrepancy, there are no errors, no unforeseen and unplanned events. This is how a good and conscientious constructor works.
2. partially deterministic. Not everything is pre-determined, but there are built in limits of tolerance. Within those tolerance limits there is freedom in the system. But the fluctuations are never too wide to create an unwanted and unplanned action or event. This is how a decent, but somewhat lazy constructor operates.
3. undeterministic. There is a lot of freedom built into the system, so much so, that actions and events can happen that the designer definitely does not want. He could fix them, but only after they happened, but usually too lazy to do it. Instead of doing a thorough job of putting tolerance limits, he issues “commandments” which try to influence the free agents to stay within the desired parameters. The result is a disaster. The agents do not perform as desired. Seeing this, the creator fabricates a reward / penal system, but then messes that one up as well. Instead of giving rewards or meting out punishments when the agents could learn from them, he does it when there is no chance to learn any more. As such there is no correction built into the punishment, it becomes sheer revenge.

To add insult to injury, he even demands worship and adoration from his ill-designed and lousily executed, flawed creation. Needless to say this is how an incompetent, lazy and tyrannical designer works.
If you see a parallel between this mini-essay and christianity, it is not a coincidence. Seriously.

 

[clem456]

But, if you are interested, I will give a short reply. When a goal orinted designer / constructor plans and creates a system, he has certain results in mind. He wishes the system to perform according to his desires or specifications. There are three possible courses of creating that system:

1. fully deterministic. Everything works as planned, there is no discrepancy, there are no errors, no unforeseen and unplanned events. This is how a good and conscientious constructor works.
2. partially deterministic. Not everything is pre-determined, but there are built in limits of tolerance. Within those tolerance limits there is freedom in the system. But the fluctuations are never too wide to create an unwanted and unplanned action or event. This is how a decent, but somewhat lazy constructor operates.
3. undeterministic. There is a lot of freedom built into the system, so much so, that actions and events can happen that the designer definitely does not want. He could fix them, but only after they happened, but usually too lazy to do it. Instead of doing a thorough job of putting tolerance limits, he issues “commandments” which try to influence the free agents to stay within the desired parameters. The result is a disaster. The agents do not perform as desired. Seeing this, the creator fabricates a reward / penal system, but then messes that one up as well. Instead of giving rewards or meting out punishments when the agents could learn from them, he does it when there is no chance to learn any more. As such there is no correction built into the punishment, it becomes sheer revenge.

To add insult to injury, he even demands worship and adoration from his ill-designed and lousily executed, flawed creation. Needless to say this is how an incompetent, lazy and tyrannical designer works.
If you see a parallel between this mini-essay and christianity, it is not a coincidence. Seriously.

I find it interesting that people will go through all sorts of convoluted logic regarding their own existence and the existence of God, trying to prove things about God (who can’t be directly seen or proven), debate the issue to the point of absurdity, assign various motivations and actions to God as we see above^^^^, and the only scenario not to be considered is that God is the loving creator of a free people. People can’t be free and also be loved? Such a small and limited view of who God could be. And on the flip side, how does the individual see himself, the importance of his own thoughts and constructs? Maybe the pyramid is slightly inverted.

 

[Serious]

… and the only scenario not to be considered is that God is the loving creator of a free people.

Where is the evidence for this? Especially the “loving” part. Do not waste time on arguing that “existence” is better than nonexistence - and that God created us out of “love”. If God would love us, then he would DO something that benefits us. Since there is no sign of that, the word “love” is just an empty word. If one simply looks at the existing state of affairs, then God is (at best) a deadbeat dad.

 

[clem456]

Where is the evidence for this? Especially the “loving” part. Do not waste time on arguing that “existence” is better than nonexistence - and that God created us out of “love”. If God would love us, then he would DO something that benefits us. Since there is no sign of that, the word “love” is just an empty word. If one simply looks at the existing state of affairs, then God is (at best) a deadbeat dad.

I can’t give you scientific evidence for a loving God. No one can.The Shroud of Turin is not going to pop up in your mailbox tomorrow with certified carbon dating etc… I can testify to Love, I can witness to it, but I can’t send it to you or give you it’s chemical composition. We chase our tails when we want definitive proof. It can’t be seen, but then, we know that we can’t see our complete existence, right?

How do I know God loves? My life and the lives of others are transformed because of it. Love has lifted me up out of the evil you want to deify (freely chosen evil I inflicted on others, and done to me by others). God does indeed do something,he allows me to accept Love and be in relationship with Him. All I have to do is accept the gift, it is not forced on me against my will. If you debate these issues outside the context of realtionship, it’s pointless, you get the discussion you are having with people right now. God is relationship, not simply power and authority or logical constructs, although all those things also.

What does a man use (JP2) to help transform a people (Poland), bring them out of tyranny, without picking up a gun to thwart the free will of his opponents? Does he do that of his own willfullness,his own brute strength? I would suggest to you an unseeable power is at work that is overwhelming, a freely accepted power.JP2 and others testify to it’s existence, and propose to others it’s existence, the goodness of it, the power ot it, when freely accepted. The evidence you are looking for may not be the kind you want, but it is there.

 

[Serious]

I can’t give you scientific evidence for a loving God. No one can.

Actually, God could. Nice witnessing, but that is not evidence. “Love” in my opinion is visible. It is to feed the hungry, to cure the sick, to protect the victims, to help the suffering… moreover, that would not cost anything to God. It would not inconvenience him in the least… yet he does not move even his “pinky” to express his “love”. So, while I read what your wrote, it is just a bunch of empty words. God could make his love visible, could make is possible to experience it, and … does not. And it cannot be “explained away”.

 

[clem456]

Actually, God could. Nice witnessing, but that is not evidence. “Love” in my opinion is visible. It is to feed the hungry, to cure the sick, to protect the victims, to help the suffering… moreover, that would not cost anything to God. It would not inconvenience him in the least… yet he does not move even his “pinky” to express his “love”. So, while I read what your wrote, it is just a bunch of empty words. God could make his love visible, could make is possible to experience it, and … does not. And it cannot be “explained away”.

Again, the world you construct is small… Hunger and sickness are temporal. The soul and the Love that create it are eternal, and transcend evil. I’ve seen sick people die joyfully. Love lifts them out of evil, and they freely choose it despite the suffering they endured against their wishes. The power is real, it is evident, just not scientifically evident. God is not a vending machine full of temporal results, but a relationship of limitless possibility.

 

[Serious]

Again, the world you construct is small… Hunger and sickness are temporal. The soul and the Love that create it are eternal, and transcend evil. I’ve seen sick people die joyfully. Love lifts them out of evil, and they freely choose it despite the suffering they endured against their wishes.

This leads nowhere. You keep dragging in new unsuppoted ideas, like “soul” and “eternal”. The effects of love would be visible here and now if existed. Love does not say: “I will give you good things when you die”, real love gives the good things both here and now, and in the hereafter (if there is such a thing). Real love is not aloof among the clouds, it would be visible every day. Now you are going to bring up “excuses” why it ain’t so. Don’t bother. You can say nothing that I have not heard thousands of time before.

The power is real, it is evident, just not scientifically evident. God is not a vending machine full of temporal results, but a relationship of limitless possibility.

This is called “looking for excuses”. What does it mean: “evident but not scientifically evident”? If one takes the words of Jesus seriously, then you “ask and you will be given”, “knock on the door and it will be opened”. Yes, in this sense God is PROMISED to be a “vending machine”. The really funny part is that these are the answers I keep getting when I express by desire to find God (which I would really like to find). The apologists insist that I keep asking, keep knocking, and SURELY I will get my answer. When I ask “when”… guess what, a new evasion comes up: “in God’s time”. So, according to you, God is a vending machine… except he is a broken vending machine. You keep on throwing in the divine currency (prayer) or keep on pounding on that (non-existent) door, and the “machine” does not work.

Face it, buddy. None of you has ever come up with anything but evasion, lame excuses and empty promises.

 

[attofishpi]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

You are on the money. I know God toooo personally. I can tell you that the Catholic notion of the all loving God is way off the mark.
What i went through i actually prayed that i be nailed to a crucifix and get it over with in 48 hrs rather than proceed the ‘test’ that God put me through.
And yet i remain a Christian. Forming logic from the chaos of a primordial universe perhaps it the greatest suffering of all…

www.androcies.com

 

[clem456]

This leads nowhere. You keep dragging in new unsuppoted ideas, like “soul” and “eternal”. The effects of love would be visible here and now if existed. Love does not say: “I will give you good things when you die”, real love gives the good things both here and now, and in the hereafter (if there is such a thing). Real love is not aloof among the clouds, it would be visible every day. Now you are going to bring up “excuses” why it ain’t so. Don’t bother. You can say nothing that I have not heard thousands of time before.

This is called “looking for excuses”. What does it mean: “evident but not scientifically evident”? If one takes the words of Jesus seriously, then you “ask and you will be given”, “knock on the door and it will be opened”. Yes, in this sense God is PROMISED to be a “vending machine”. The really funny part is that these are the answers I keep getting when I express by desire to find God (which I would really like to find). The apologists insist that I keep asking, keep knocking, and SURELY I will get my answer. When I ask “when”… guess what, a new evasion comes up: “in God’s time”. So, according to you, God is a vending machine… except he is a broken vending machine. You keep on throwing in the divine currency (prayer) or keep on pounding on that (non-existent) door, and the “machine” does not work.

Face it, buddy. None of you has ever come up with anything but evasion, lame excuses and empty promises.

Sometimes we construct and see the world according to our wishes, according to our will. That’s not a relationship. And you won’t hear -the other- (God) under those conditions. You can ask all you want, you may be getting a reply, but because you want things the way you want them, you won’t hear the reply, or you’ll reject it. It’s your free choice, God will not force.

Ask and you shall receive?? I’ve been asking my wife for thrice-weekly sex for 22 years, and I do receive an answer, but I can’t really hear it, I’m a little deaf in that regard. I hear what I WANT to hear. It can be a very one sided thing then, and it becomes very partial, very small. The relationship with her can be huge, but I will choose to focus on the results I want. There’s a whole slice of reality that I miss, because I limit the realtionship to what I want.

So, am I evading you really? Making excuses? Or am I simply carrying on a discussion with you involving something you don’t want to hear?

 

[vsedriver]

Only an idiot would allow something that he does not want to happen, and has the power to prevent it. Since he allows it, it is his preference… or he is an idiot, or maybe he is impotent to prevent it. Your choice.

again you miss the point of the gift of free will. God gives us the choice to choose good or evil. He does this out of love. We are not pets in a cage. We are to be his children.

You can’t have it both ways. God does not have to take away their “free will”, he could simply prevent them from carrying out their will. According to your (and Gorgias’s) definition, it is not necessary to be able to carry out their desire. This nonsense definition that “will” can be separated from “carrying out that will” paints you into a corner. If the ability to act upon your will is not important, then God can remove all the evils actions without affecting our “free will”. Gorgias did not seem to comprehend this. Do you?

The minute God prevents someone from acting on their free will he has taken their free will away. That is determinism. We become unable to love freely. There can be no free will without the ability to chose to act for good or evil.

Not even God can change the past. Not even God has an “undo” command.

Yes, God does have an undo command. God can heal perfectly. All those who suffer from injustice will be comforted and receive justice.

 

[vsedriver]

Intelligence is enough. If someone does not want me, then I do not want him (or her). If she would not want to desire to be with me, then I would not force her, because I would not want to desire to be with her… simple quid pro quo. BUT! I certainly would not throw her into an everlasting torture chamber like the “loving” God does…

but the relationship we have with God is one of parent and child. If your child rejects you would you in turn reject that child? Or would you still desire to reconnect? And you would not be throwing your child into everlasting torture. Your child chooses to go there of their own free will.

God keeps his promises and will respect our choice to love or not love him. What greater torture or hell can you imagine than one where you stand in the presence of God at your judgement only to be sent away forever?