John F

Think of our choices and the consequences of our choices in terms of driving a vehicle. When driving, we have the option to go many different ways with different consequences -- a clear example of free choice. But contrast bumper car driving with driving a real car. When we drive bumper cars, no one is ever hurt by our directional choice; when we drive real cars, there can be disastrous consequences.

So, in the vain hope that theists will understand this metaphor, why didn't God create a world with choices like the choices we have when driving bumper cars, where our free choices never cause pain or tragedy to others?

The standard theist reply to the problem of evil has been: "God allowed evil because it wanted to create free will", or "God's reasons are beyond our understanding".

But, what could God have not created without simultaneously creating evil? Is God incapable of creating a universe with free will that has no evil?

Haven't been around for a while (I hate the new format o.0), but curious if there is still a theist crowd here that participates in debates. Seeing mostly atheist answers, which I obviously appreciate, but want to know if atheists ended up winning the majority opinion here.

Or non-faith.

(Potentially debating a friend about this, so I'd appreciate knowing the Christian stance on this.)

Imagine that I'm a hard-line egoist (I refuse to act in any other way than to benefit myself). God makes these moral laws, and I refuse to follow them. Other than punishment or rewards (that I would choose for my own benefit, negating the "moral" aspect of my choices), what does God have that logically obligates/could compel me to follow moral laws?

If no, then why isn't Satan attacking us more often, creating more misery in our lives (see: Job)?

If yes, then why is God willing to protect us from Satan, but not natural disasters?

Obviously gonna come under fire from the right here, but I'm curious.

Do conservatives know that the Republican party strategy right now is simply: don't let anything get done under Obama, so for the following election it looks like Obama couldn't get things done?

Do conservatives know that hundreds of their House and Senate members have signed a pledge to Norquist to not vote for tax increases or eliminating tax loopholes under any circumstances?

Do conservatives know that the Bush administration had a document labeled "foreign suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts" in March 2001? You can even see the document here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/oldsite/IraqOilFrgnSu...

Do conservatives agree with the "anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-hpv vaccine" stance of some of the most prominent candidates?

I can understand being conservative about some policies, and I can understand being frustrated with government. But how do you justify supporting this political party?

how do you form moral beliefs on issues the Bible doesn't talk about? Like the immorality of rape? Torture? Slavery?

If some new moral issue comes up, do you have to look up the Bible to see what it says or do you form an opinion and assume God supports it?

An example: X has the desire to kill Y, and tries to but is prevented from being successful. Doesn't X have the same level of moral blame as a murderer, as him being unsuccessful was not his choice?

Where I am going with this: Why do some Christians try to outlaw "immoral actions" that have no victims (other than maybe the people themselves who do them)? For example, why outlaw gay marriage when people will be gay and have gay desires regardless of whether or not they fulfill the marriage desire?

I understand outlawing murder, obviously, as preventing the action has a benefit other than preventing a sin (preventing someone from being killed). But, if there is no external victim, what benefit is there to stop the action of sin whilst doing nothing to stop the sinful desire?

Imagine that, due to some weird circumstances, your child/spouse/family would only go to heaven if you renounced God and went to hell yourself. Would you do it?

(Yes, this is an odd scenario. But please answer the question, as I am curious. Answers that aren't yes/no in some form aren't actually answers)

Imagine that Islam became the majority religion in America (or whatever country you're in). Extreme islamic conservatives claim that the christian church is immoral and against the true god. They then make laws that prohibit any marriages in christian churches on the basis that the "true religion" says that that's immoral.

How would you feel? Would you consider the laws stopping you from marrying in a christian church justified? Why not?

Especially when it comes to evolution? Shouldn't it bother Christians that the vast majority of scientists claim that evolution is fact?

Also to an extent global warming. Why has it become popular to be against the common conclusion of the scientific community?

(I acknowledge that many Christians and right-wingers are not against science. Which makes it weirder since that somewhat proves that the facts are not incompatible with those beliefs)

In logic terms, here's what each side would require to be proven wrong:

Atheist side-a sufficient condition for God's existence (so if ____ happens, then God exists)

Theist side-a necessary condition for God's existence (so if ____ doesn't happen, then God does not exist)

As an atheist, I can offer up "God showing his existence beyond any logical doubt" as a sufficient condition for his existence. If that happens, then we lose the argument.

What can the theist side offer up as a necessary condition? As of now, no one has put up any necessary conditions so we're stuck in the "can't prove a negative" situation. It's intellectually dishonest to have no proof/conditions needed, so I'm looking for one.

Imagine you're God. You could show yourself to everyone in a way you know will prove your existence to them (as you know exactly what it would take). You also really want everyone to go to heaven, and you know that the only way to heaven is for people to believe in you (or Jesus, if you want to prove yourself in that form).

So, what could possibly stop you from proving yourself to everyone? What do you value higher than everyone's salvation? Do you want them to figure it out themselves, like a game? Is that game worth more than everyone's savlation?

When I speak of free will, I'm specifically talking about the definition of the principle of alternate possibilities:

You have free will if and only if in any given decision, all options are metaphysically possible for you to do.

Normally, this definition is used to disprove compatibilism, or the idea that free will is possible in a deterministic universe (where every action is determined by the initial state of the universe and the laws of physics).

So, at the initial state of the universe, God must know everything that will ever happen. At least, that's what the common definition of omniscience requires.

Imagine your decision whether or not to answer this question. God, at the initial state, knew which option you would do. Unless God could be wrong, there is no metaphysical possibility that you choose the option God did not foresee.

So, what do you deny? Can we have free will even though we cannot possibly do anything different than what God has already foreseen? Or, does God not always get it right?

If something gives pleasure and nothing else, is it good or bad morally speaking?

If good, then what does it take for a pleasuring activity to be bad? Is it the secular idea that there needs to be a third party victim, or something else?

If bad, why?

The very concept of it is odd. An excuse, in simple terms, is a reason why a less than ideal situation happened. The reason is, by default, going to be one of two things: there was some shortcoming that prevented the ideal from happening, or what happened is in fact, contrary to what you think, ideal.

So giving an excuse for God means: God couldn't bring about what would be ideal, or what exists is in fact ideal.

My question: which is it? Is the universe as it is ideal? Or can you think of ways that God could've made things more ideal?

I'll try to keep this as simple as possible:

If God wants some end "x", will he ever need to meet some requirements before he can achieve "x" (for example, humans need food in order to achieve the end of not being hungry)? Or, could God bring about any "x" by itself?

If there is any "x" that God could not bring about by itself, then how can he be omnipotent? If there isn't any "x" that God could not bring about by itself, then why does God need pain, death, natural disasters, hell, the possibilty of evil choices, the devil, etc to exist?

I've heard many times how God has to enact "perfect justice" and that he has to punish us for sins due to this. Going against it would be against this "perfect justice", and God cannot do that.

But then, who created justice? Is it objectively established outside of God, or did God create justice (a similar question to the Euthyphro dilemma)?

If God created all standards of justice, which I believe most theists would argue, why is he limited by it? Why did God create justice in the first place, if he knew full well that it would require him to deal out horrible punishments?

Jesus coming to talk to me, even if he didn't physically appear, could convince me of his existence. Why can't I ask that in order for me to believe in him? It doesn't affect my free will, I can still choose to ignore his talking for whatever reason. Is the Christian faith really reliant on faith without any evidence?