These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1C.

>>>...I will shift the focus to the two most important questions that my opponent is demanding I answer: Is God justified in wanting us to have free will, and why doesn't God do more to reduce suffering?<<< Agreed, since my opponent's argument focus on the FWD, I will refute his attempts at justifying the defense. =====Counterarguments===== >>>What qualifies as a "rational basis"?<<< It's quite obvious. One, in this case God, must make decisions with adequate reasons. God isn't irrational, and wouldn't do things on a "whim". >>>Axioms are not derived from any truth, but instead form the foundation of a system from which other statements can be derived.<<< All of logic trace back to the Law of Identity, or that A=A. This is because logic is supposed to reflect reality, and reality behaves consistently. There are only three identified axioms: Law of Identity, Consciousness, and that Existence Exists. An axiom is something we can't deny, because denying it would be using it's truth in the process of denying it. That's important to note when we come to what you call an "axiomatic will". >>>With this in mind, we can ask "Is God's desire for us to have free will an axiomatic will?" You could certainly make the case that it is: free will permeates every aspect of the Christian faith. The entire system of original sin and salvation is centered on it...However, I gave an alternate explanation, that free will is a necessary consequence of what may be the axiomatic will for God to have made man in his own image.<<< Yes, it can be seen that free will is a MAJOR foundation of the Christian theology. Concepts such as sin and salvation do center on it. However, do call free will an axiom is to abuse this term. An axiom is something we can't deny without at the same time using it's truth in the process. While free will may seem to be a major part of Christian theology, it's not a necessity. Just look at Calvinists. Secondly, you have no evidence or justified reason to believe that it was God's "axiomatic will" to make us in his image but in a "lite" version. An assertion at best. Thirdly, if free will is supposed to be something that can never be denied (the whole axiomatic will thing), then you have yet to rebuttal one of my arguments. It's been seen so many times in the Bible where God DOES interfere with free will. He kills entire towns, this conflicts with the free will of people (i.e. they want to LIVE). >>>It may or it may not be possible for God to have devised a formula which results in a universe where there are no natural disasters. It is completely impossible to argue one or the other, therefore if my opponent's argument depends on God being able to do this but unwilling to, then he must add that as a qualifier to his argument.<<< Either it is logically impossible, which you have not shown, or God does not desire for unnecessary suffering to go away, which you have not shown. Either those two, or you can attempt to argue that natural disasters are not unnecessary suffering, which you have also failed to do. >>>As long as there is suffering, there is "the worse suffering".<<< But there is something called UNNECESSARY suffering. >>>Therefore, if God were to stop earthquakes, floods, plagues, and other such major catastrophes, then our perception of what the worst suffering is would change.<<< Indeed, but in another world where there aren't any ND (natural disasters), will the total sum of suffering be less than the total suffering we would have in world WITH ND? In fact, can't God make it so that our perception of suffering would NOT change if ND's were to disappear? This world can definitely be actualized by God. >>>Pain, however, is a biological necessity.<<< A biological necessity is hardly a trouble for an omnipotent and omniscient being. Air is a biological necessity, but God can change that. Water is a biological necessity, but God can do away with that also. In place of pain God can simply leave the same auto response we have to pain, but remove the qualia or "subjective experience" of pain. >>>To eliminate pain would require a micro-managed universe, and this violates the principle of elegance (which I'm taking to be an axiomatic will.<<< To eliminate would not require a micro-managed universe for an omnipotent being, as would eliminating the need for water or air. The "principle of elegance" is hardly a principle at all. Something being elegant is only aesthetically pleasing. >>>...in no way does the statement "God loves Man" imply "God must maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain of Man".<<< Yes it would, unless you can show that God has another desire that trumps "maximizing and minimizing the pain of Man". You attempt to use the free will defense, and I am refuting it. >>>The problem with this is, again, there is no unambiguous definition for what the appropriate amount of pain is.<<< Anything that is not unnecessary. >>>...only that the suffering you'd feel would be nothing compared to the joy of Heaven.<<< I have refuted this argument, so I'm afraid I have to repeat myself. You bizarrely attempt to justify unnecessary suffering by saying the suffering we feel on this Earth isn't much compared to the pleasure in Heaven. This is ludicrous. Take an example of a father beating his son: Let's label X as an appropriate amount of suffering. If a father were to beat his son with X pain, and his son were to become disciplined and successful in life from it, then would we say that was the right thing? Yes, because the father had to teach his child. Now, in another family let's say a father beats his child also, but with X+1 pain. His son ALSO becomes disciplined and successful, but was the beating necessary? Not quite, since the extra amount of suffering was not needed. Apply this analogy to God. He does NOT need to give us unnecessary suffering. >>>Of course savalation hadn't even been implemented before the crucifixion so I'm not sure why he's bringing up Jesus' miracles as a counterexample.<<< The Bible has shown many instances of God interfering with free will to make people have certain beliefs. The examples should be plenty, with cities being destroyed to people being spoken by God. Obviously rational and sincere disbelief occurs (unless my opponent says otherwise, which is quite the burden to uphold). So even if God were to interfere in our free will if he were to expose the truth, then this still does not seem as an adequate reason to presuppose he values free will over our welfare and salvation. We as a people would benefit from this revelation; that we not only have salvation but that it will grant us comfort and hope. My opponent has not shown why God would refrain from doing such. In addition, there are many obstacles to free will in our present world (famine, mental retardation, grave diseases, premature death, etc.) and God does little or nothing to prevent them. >>>He is making a common logical fallacy that any analogy must be wrong if there is some fundemental difference between the analogy and the actual application of it.<<< It's a fallacy when an analogy is fundamentally different from what you're trying to compare it to? No. Trivial differences, yes those don't matter. But fundamental differences don't. >>>...a will can be foundational (an axiomatic will), or an indicator of another will. Hence, a teacher may want her students to score well on the test, but this is not a foundational will.<<< The analogy fails because if the teacher gave everyone 100%, she realizes that in the end the net benefit would probably be less if they actually studied and took the test (they would get smarter, more educated, etc.). You have not shown how God interfering with free will is bad (refer to my other response with God interfering with free will). =====Conclusion===== It's been great debating my opponent, but his FWD fail