Re-upload: God is illogical

You say: “God has allowed humans to not be capable of saving. ” Standard theology states everyone can have eternal life, If they want. The ‘eternal life’ option was open to Hitler and Stalin, Though they obviously chose death and destruction rather than life. You say: “Parents will not allow the free will of the child to be used to do bad” If a three year old is trying to touch fire, The parent will stop them. But, The parent is training the child to be wise. So, When the child is grown to a 40 year old, If the adult tries to touch fire, The parent cannot stop them. It would be illegal for the parent to chain them down to stop them. All they can do is tell them it is not wise, And hope they choose well. You say: “I argue stopping evil matters more then having free will. That doesn't mean I am against freedom but as a civilised society we create laws to be civil with one another. ” The life of a happy automaton is worse than the life of a free person with help/harm in their life. Perhaps you disagree. But then I ask what would you rather: the free will to sleep around, Knowing harm to people will come, Or God forcing sexual ethics onto people? I think most would prefer the free will to develop their own sexual ethics. On the second point, God also made laws so we would be civil. Sometimes people break those laws, As people break the laws of the nation. The nation does not brainwash away free will in order to stop people from harm. Rather, The nation tries to teach wisdom, And exact consequences for rule violation. God does the same. You say: “Life is a power struggle” For those without power, That may be important. But, God has power, So that could not be what God is striving for. You say: “Why does God carry on existing? ” The fact that God enjoys existing without being in a power struggle shows that the purpose of life is not just a power struggle. I would suggest your view that life is a power struggle only captures a small percentage of the purpose of life. What about apprehension of beauty, Raising a family, Finding love, Intellectual development, Spiritual maturity, Giving one’s life away, Enjoying fine wine, Etc… Most people who strive for power only do so for the sake of a deeper purpose. That is, They want power so they can maximize their freedom, Or their happiness, Or their ability to be charitable. Power is not the end goal. You say: “God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. ” Yes, God has attained perfection. But, The point is not only the struggle towards perfection, But existing in and acting out perfection as well. This argument dates back to Aristotle. Let us say you want to be a perfect soccer player. Does it make sense to have this attitude: my purpose is to learn to pass, And dribble and shoot, But I never want to play once I’m perfect at it. No. That attitude takes the purpose out of the learning as well: since the end goal is meaningless, The journey there is meaningless as well. Rather, We try to learn soccer so much just so we can play all day on a sunny day, To our peak ability. Acting out perfection is the purpose, And the well-being in our soul while we are doing it is the proof that this is what we were made for. You say: “If God is sinless God would not need or require affections of humans”. God doesn’t need affections from humans, That is an Ancient Greek way of thinking about love. The Biblical model says God bestows value onto people. God only wants humans to love Him since God knows the best life for a human is to love God. You say: “Why did God create life? ” God made life so there wasn’t something to shine on. Why do humans have babies? So they have something to love for their entire lives. You say: "You accept my definition of omnipresent and yet you change it” Imagine that the universe was a computer game that some future teenager is playing on his set top box. The human knows everything that is happening inside the game, But is not inside the game. This is similar to God. God made the universe, And knows everything about it, But is outside the universe. You say:” If God is not physical how does God exist? ” Well, You are assuming all that exists is physical. I don’t agree. I have given you a number of other examples of things that exist, But are not physical. If you only believe in the existence of what is physical, You would have to reject the existence of numbers, Logic, Your own consciousness, Other minds, Moral values, Aesthetic properties, Laws of nature, Math, Etc… Or, You can try to show how that is physical, As many have tried. But, Why cut reality in half, Only seeing one part? Reality is clearly not only particles in a void, Why wish it to be that way, Why think it is that way? You say: “I am supposed to assume either God is not capable of being everywhere” I agree, God is omnipresent. I’m just defining it in a way that makes sense for God. God’s presence is not ‘physical presence’, But ‘mental presence’, Which just means awareness. For example, If you are ‘present to an emotion you are having’, Then you are aware of it in that moment. If you are absent minded about something, You are not aware of it. Physical presence is being in a place and time. Mental presence means being aware. You say: “I am guessing you are making the argument Creatio Ex Nihilo. … Creatio Ex Materia on the other hand has evidence. ” It is the atheist who thinks the universe was created out of nothing, By nothing, From nothing. So, They believe in counter-intuitive creation ex nihilo. The atheist does not typically believe in creation ex materia, Since there was no material before the big bang moment 13. 7 billion years ago. You say: “Faith is illogical. No amount of reason or strict principles of validity was used to have complete trust that there is a God. ” We both use reason and evidence to support beliefs. My belief in God is supported by reason and evidence. Your belief that God does not exist is supported by reason and evidence. But, We both come to a point where we do not know for sure who is correct. I don’t know for sure there is a God, And you do not know for sure that there isn’t a God. So, I believe the claim ‘there is a God’ based on evidence and a step of faith that I am right about that, And you believe the claim ‘there is no God’ based on evidence and a step of faith that you are right about that. You could say: ‘you should never take a step of faith’. Well, Good luck with that. Do you know for sure that a career choice will make you happy, That a marriage will end well, That having a child will be good, That eating a McDonalds will not make you sick? No one knows anything for sure. If we insisted on certainty, We would not be able to do anything. That would be illogical. So, We act on beliefs that are based on evidence, But are not certain. Thanks for the interesting discussion so far.