Biblical descriptions of the nature of the Christian God and free will are contradictory.

I hope we can keep this wholesome and entertaining. "God is classically described as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving being that created everything and who reigns over all. " As a brief note, my opponent should remember that tradition =/= the Bible. Since my opponent is arguing against the God of the Bible, he must provide biblical definitions, not classical ones. ============= The Syllogism Refuted: ============= **Premise based on assumption** Premise (1) and (2), in accordance with the parameters of this debate, will not be disputed. My opponent labels his syllogism incorrectly, as his next point constitutes a premise and should therefore be labeled (3) not (1). I will refer to the premise "The Christian God created humans which are free-willing and capable of doing evil, and who have done and continue to do evil," as (3), and will number the following premises accordingly. I accept the first three premises as accurate representations of the Biblical God. My opponent's premise (4) is a non sequitur. He incorrectly assumes that "the Christian God maintains a dominion wherein everything is made to be the absolute best it can ever possibly be," by suggesting it logically follows from the attributes ascribed to God. This is far too presumptuous to be accepted as a sound premise. How does he know the intentions of an omni-excellent God? **Why God's response to Job was probably true** Contention: Limited Perspective My opponent does not possess the necessary knowledge to determine evil. Take for example a man who slowly awakes to find woman cutting his stomach. The man will rightly fuss that such an action is evil! But say he finds out that the woman is a doctor who is trying to remove a malignant mass that will ultimately kill him. Will he not then realize that what he perceived to be evil was not evil at all? Job could not control the events happening in his life, nor did he have proper perspective to label them as evil. However, for those who have read the entirety of Job, Job had the ability to respond to the situation. Free will is clearly seen in the story, and omnibenevolence cannot be refuted by it. What is left then? **Premise (4) is built on sand** "With the world being constantly maintained to provide the best results, even actions which we deem evil work to maintain the divinely guided path towards the ultimate good. " John Hick has pointed out the errant presupposition held by many propagators of the problem of evil (an assumption my opponent seems to hold) (1). They assume, like David Hume, that the purpose of an omni-excellent (this includes all three properties in question) God is to create a "hedonistic paradise. " Hick's analogy of their thinking is a human with a caged pet. In any respect that the animal's cage falls short of the veterinarian's ideal, then it is immediately attributed to a lack of benevolence, limited means, or both. David Hume talks of an architect that builds a home and if the economy of the home led to any discomfort or misfortune (e. g. noise, darkness, fatigue or etc. ) then we would not hesitate to blame the architect. And to argue that by changing a defect in the house would lead to more bad or less good would be in vain, as Hume said, "If the architect had had skill and good intentions, he might have formed such a plan of the whole, and might have adjusted the parts in such a manner, as would have remedied all or most of these inconveniences (2). " My opponent's observation would only be a valid one if his assumption that an omni-excellent God would want to create a hedonistic paradise on earth. But an alternative understanding would see earth not as what Heaven ought to be – an environment for perfected finite beings – but rather as an environment for finite beings who are in the process of being perfected. John Hick says it best when he writes: "For if our general conception of God's purpose is correct, the world is not intended to be a paradise, but rather the scene of a history in which human personality may be formed towards the pattern of Christ. Men are not to be thought of on the analogy of animal pets, whose life is to be made as agreeable as possible, but rather on the analogy of human children, who are to grow to adulthood in an environment whose primary and overriding purpose is not immediate pleasure but the realizing of the most valuable potentialities of human personality. " I certainly hope that my opponent does not suggests that a parent is a malevolent one if she wishes moral integrity, magnanimity, compassion, courage, humor, honesty, and the capacity for love as greater values than mere unalloyed pleasure. Certainly a parent will wish pleasure for their children, but is it morally deviant to see this NOT as the highest priority? ============= Conclusion: ============= My opponent hasn't actually offered anything substantive, though I'm sure he will in his upcoming round. He has merely stated that, because God works all things for good, that free will cannot actually exist. This is clearly a non sequitur and an unsupported one at that! Imagine a very large ship. The passenger's actions on board are expressions of personal choice. However, they have no control over the destination of the ship. This illustrates how one can have free will whilst still be led towards a certain destination.