Re-upload: God is illogical

“God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved. ” If free will exists, It would be better to say ‘some will not choose to be saved’. But, Otherwise, Yes, You are correct, That is the implication of God giving humans free will. God also allowed all the good humans would freely do to each other to exist. We praise the humans for the good they do, And blame the humans for the bad they do. God has nothing to do with our choices … surely an atheist would agree, Since they don’t think God exists, So God cannot be blamed for what humans do. “God the Christianic one is all-knowing therefore knew Hitler would commit the acts he did and allowed it to occur even though God is well within Its power to prevent the acts” God gave the earth to humans to ruin or build. God gave humans to each other, To help each other or destroy each other. Blame humans for the destruction they commit. This is our world to ruin or build, And God will not intervene in either case. So, We better do good. That is what free will means. If you think starvation should stop, It is up to humans to stop it, Don’t blame God. “Not everyone gets the choice. Did the cancer patient had the choice of genes or when he/she would die? Hitler’s mother pampered and his father died but you somehow think they had a choice between doing good or bad. ” There are social and biological influences, For sure. But they are not exhaustive, Or else we have no free will. And, If we have no free will, Then moral responsibility and the reactive attitudes lack foundation. And, If that is the case, This discussion about whether humans are evil makes no sense. Also, None of the billions of marvelous wonders that happen to humans were our own choice either – I didn’t choose to have a healthy heart, Or eyes that can see, Or legs that walk, Or a mouth that speaks and tastes, Or a body that works. The wonder is not when things fall apart, The wonder is when things come together. We are born deserving no life, No goodness, Yet we have so much. If we balance out all the good that is given to humans, And all the bad that is given to humans, I think more good than bad happens to us. The same is true on social determinism: sure, Some families are messed up, Which raises the chance of a messed up child. But, Some families work well, Which raises the chance or a good child, And the child should just be thankful for that. So, We better be good people. How we act influences other people. But, People also have some degree of choice as well. “You did say God was all-good which means God does not have the free will to do evil”. God could do evil, But wouldn’t want to. It is sort of like this: think of the worst evil you can imagine. Perhaps torturing an innocent child. Could you do it? Well, In a sense, Yes. Nothing is stopping you. But, The very idea is so repugnant that you couldn’t do it. It is against your nature. It is against God’s nature to do evil, So he wouldn’t. “A good parent would stop us from doing harm to ourselves but a bad parent would not. ” We are adults. The human race is wise, And growing more capable every generation. Soon we will be geo-engineering the planet, Reaching longevity escape velocity, Creating artificial intelligence that surpasses any intelligence God made, And you want God to treat us like little children? I’m sorry, I don’t get that. The free will view says that God gave this planet to humans, And we can nuke it to extinction or we can build it into paradise. Either way, God will not stop us. I don’t think a parent would treat a child like a child forever. “Not every government gives you choices. 2 examples would be Communism and a dictatorship. ” Right, And no one thinks those are good. No one wants to live there. Yet, This is what you expect God to be like? This is how you want God to treat us? If you want God to take your freedom away, Why not go live in North Korea, Where a powerful force takes your freedom away already. Or, Just be glad God gave you free will, And you can do what you want on a Friday night. “You have not seen God or know from the Bible that God enjoys existing. ” If God did not enjoy existing, He would have destroyed Himself. But He hasn’t, So He enjoys existing. What possible reason would there be to not enjoy existing? “Life is a power struggle if we boil it down. ” That is a rather boring goal for humanity. The power struggle is part of human nature, Yes. But, Not all of it, And not a good part of it. Ask yourself: would you rather struggle for power, Or have power? I think you would rather have power. Then, The power struggle is of very little consequence, Even within the sphere of power, Which is a small part of the overall human experience. “God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. This argument still stands. ” Actuality is better than potentiality. This is a basic view, Dating back to Aristotle. If it is correct, Then being perfect is the point of being alive, So God is perfectly flourishing. It is us incomplete striving humans that have not yet reached perfection, That are not yet living a flourishing life. If we gained perfection, Then we would really be living. “If God does bestow value onto people then where was Hitler's value when he wanted to gas all the Jews? ” Hitler’s value was in God being willing to forgive him and start the long work of restoring him, If Hitler had wanted, Which he did not. “So God is not all-powerful then since he can't intervene in our world? ” God can intervene, But he has decided not to (very often), In order to let humans control their destiny. Why would God want to control the destiny of the planet? That isn’t very hard for God. And, God has many other planets and stars He could control if he wanted to. No, God left this planet up to us. “Numbers have consistently yielded results even the laws of nature when it is right. God hasn't. ” Yes, Numbers are real, And the laws of nature are real as well. But they are not physical. Have you found a number under a rock? No, They are abstractions from physical objects, Not physical objects. Same with laws of nature. All we see is ‘fire’ then ‘smoke’ happening a hundred times. We abstract the law: fires cause smoke, And always will, And will everywhere. And, Those are right. But, They aren’t in nature. All that exists in nature is the fire and the smoke. Even Hume agreed with this. God yields good results. God has given meaning to people’s lives for eons. God provides a foundation for moral values, Which is pretty important. Just to name a few things. “Atheists only have one idea in common their lack of disbelief or no belief in God” While ‘Atheism’ is technically just the view that ‘God does not exist’, Atheists typically adhere to physicalism, Which you have as well in your postings. This is the view that fixing the physical facts fixes every fact. Physicalism suffers from many objections: it cannot account for free will, Mental causation, Agency, Consciousness, Universals, Numbers, Logic, Moral values, Aesthetic values, How the universe began, The design in the universe, Etc… Physicalists cut reality in half, For some reason which is beyond me…as if the other half isn’t beautiful or something. Similarly, ‘Theism’ is technically just the view that ‘God exists’. Theists often add to this view certain theological views, But that is not necessary to be a theist either. “The difference is I am not making a claim. I am making a non-claim. ” This is an incorrect understanding of the burden of proof. Anyone making a claim, Whether positive or negative, Should have reasons for the claim, So should provide reasons for the claim. Imagine I say ‘animals do not have emotions so I can torture them for fun’. I then say ‘Well, That isn’t a claim, I am not asserting the existence of anything when I say animals have no emotion, It is a non-claim, So I don’t need to provide support for their non-emotion, It isn’t faith’. That is not good philosophy. Everyone ought to have reasons for their beliefs. So, The theist ought to have reasons for their beliefs. And, The atheist ought to have reasons for their beliefs. Would you really disagree? Do you really want to admit to not having any reasons for your belief that there is no God? I don’t think so. Rather, Acknowledge you are a good philosopher, So you have reasons for your belief, And be willing to share them in a discussion. “The difference is non-theist do not dedicate there entire life to something they do not even know exists. ” The atheist dedicates their life to the view that a divine being does not exist, Even though they are not sure of that. In addition, I have found many atheists are actually angry at God for a lot of things humans do to each other, Even though they don’t think God exists. And, They often dedicate vast amounts of time arguing about something they do not even believe exists. At least the theist believes God exists, So it makes sense to talk about this being. Thanks for an interesting debate. I have enjoyed your comments.